2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA graphic that says all that needs to be said,
at least IMO. Res ipsa loquitur.
november3rd
(1,113 posts)Bernie is the Democrat in the race.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)to list those fictional facts.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)much less 3/4ths of them.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)I guess I should have said 115% of statistics are lies.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Some people are just humor impaired.
Perhaps without the voice inflection it doesn't come across to readily.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)<iframe width="420" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)Bernie is the democrat in the race.
Gotta be the small d. every time. Big difference.
Because democrat still means something.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I really don't see how folk around here can overlook this.
HappyPlace
(568 posts)There's really no contest here.
Pick a guaranteed pile of more of the same, or vote for the one who really represents change and has all the credentials you could ask for that he'll follow through.
What's more, much of the Dem establishment want it, too.
Feeling sorry for the likes of Dean and Strickland, who seem obliged to follow the "more of the same" candidate.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Like we were supposed to have an issue-free primary.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)is viewed as a "sister-in-law" by none other than His Chimperial Fraudulency. An honorary member of the Bush Crime Family.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)democratic party used to be.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Can't think of one.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Wilms
(26,795 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,757 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)my dear Cali Peggy!
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,757 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Doesn't leave a bunch of wiggle and obfuscation room
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,757 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)A lot simply don't bother anymore. The muckraking in general has me avoiding this subset of the forum completely unless I accidentally click a link off the homepage that takes me here.
The rancor between both sides here has largely turned me off of DU in a way that past primary seasons have not before.
antigop
(12,778 posts)1) They want a female prez sooo badly.
2) They benefit from the status quo.
3) They have convinced themselves she can win and Bernie can't.
4) Some combination of the above.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)A: He's not a Democrat
B: See "A"
daleanime
(17,796 posts)what you do and don't support?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)He sure seems to support a lot of things Dems like. A lot more things than the "real democrat" does.
If he wins the Dem primary, will he be a Democrat then?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)1. Defending themselves, and
2. Her surrogates are trying to come up with one.
longship
(40,416 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:51 PM - Edit history (2)
One sees this graphic on DU regularly. As if this is going to change a person's mind. It has been posted at least twice today alone.
My question is why, if not to divide the party. And why would anybody want to do that?
I know... One has to understand the differences between the candidates. That is fine.
But here's the deal. If one cannot promote your choice without maligning the alternatives, one has no argument.
And BTW, Bernie isn't doing it. So why do DUers? I guess they just don't get it. Going negative hurts everybody.
At least Bernie understands that. Thank goodness.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)... not to change the minds of those who refuse to change, but of those who can. The more distribution, the better. (Actually, that's the same distribution policy used for the lies of Fox News.)
longship
(40,416 posts)Which I suspect why this chart appears over and over and over again here. I suspect an ideological objection to Secy Clinton.
Just like I suspect an ideological objection when I see a "Bernie isn't a Democrat" posts or some such.
These are Rove tactics.
Sadly it's these very supporters who will call for Bernie's head if he does become president and then does what a president MUST do: compromise.
I used to live at DU but since I "refuse to change" my allegiance, the smarmy nastiness of this shrunken tent just gets me down.
Bernie's a great guy. He doesn't deserve the small-minded, hysterical, witch hunting behavior of the people who follow him.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)As far as I can see, this graphic dispassionately maps out some key differences between two of the Democratic presidential candidates.
It's not maligning. It's informing. Unless, of course you think information is inherently malignant.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the candidates. It does not malign anyone. It simply tells the truth.
I have not seen a chart that makes Hillary's views and actions look better than Bernie's.
There isn't one. There can't be one.
Because Bernie is the better person and the better candidate because he has the best views and has conducted himself in the past according to the highest standard.
Hillary supporters don't defend her because it is not possible to defend her.
longship
(40,416 posts)I have seen it dozens of times here, which is precisely my point.
And if one does not understand the concept of cherry-picking data to malign a candidate, I guess I will not be able to disabuse them of their opinion.
My point is that Bernie has specifically eschewed such tactics, as has Hillary Clinton.
But we see it all over the place here.
The extent that one does not see that chart as a hit piece is the extent that one is deep into negative politics, which neither Bernie nor Hillary have embraced. (BTW, I do not recommend the surrogate argument under this particular OP.)
Play nice. Like Bernie, and like Hillary.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)In that the truth does make Hillary look bad when compared to Bernie.
You nailed it, longship.
longship
(40,416 posts)Why highlight cherry-picked bad?
That serves nobody!
This chart is a hit piece, like Nixon's crowd would do. It is evil and it has appeared over and over and over again here on DU.
I have no expressed preference for the 2016 presidential election. It is just too damned early. But Bernie himself has distanced himself from such utter rubbish as this OP.
My question is: Why anybody would support such an overt hit piece when the person who would gain from it would distance himself from it?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
Patrick Henry
longship
(40,416 posts)But maybe I would prefer not to plunge myself into a vat of necrotizing fasciitis that has become the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination process, for at least the last two plus fucking years!
So although I may or may not have a preference, I certainly have no intention of revealing it in this highly toxic forum.
That way I can call folks out on what matters most at this point, their universally bad behavior.
My regards.
You have clearly stated that the Truth makes it look like Hillary is maligned, so that's good enough.
longship
(40,416 posts)So please do not interpret any post I make as a preference in any future Democratic presidential selection process (called variously as a primary, caucus, convention, etc.)
As I posted, as far as this forum is concerned, I have no preference. I may like Ralph Nader! (Although not likely.)
DU is a toxic waste dump with respect to the Democratic nomination process and it has been so since before Obama was elected to his second term.
So, I hope you don't mind if I keep my opinion to myself. Certainly I am not going to let others speak for me on this issue. That means you too.
In other words, you are speaking out of your ass with regards to my preferences. And I have no intentions to tip my hand on these matters.
Nevertheless, thank you for playing, Robert.
As always,
My regards.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Heh, you clearly stated that the graph maligned Hillary.
And I agree with you. The Truth in that graph makes Hillary look awful!!
You seem to have a problem with political discussions and the Truth. And I don't. Thing is that Bernie has to become the next president. HAS TO.
That will be all, you can now return to your regular programming.
longship
(40,416 posts)My complaint was the fact that this same chart has been posted over and over again here. Twice today alone.
It is like an AstroTurf attempt. And of course, the chart is cherry-picked on Hillary's supposed previous opinions.
It is a meaningless hit piece, just like the "Bernie is a Socialist not a Democrat" posts are.
It would be incorrect to presume that I have any preference in the upcoming presidential primary. I have no intention on tipping my hand here as long as it remains a vat of necrotizing fasciitis with regards to the 2016 Democratic nomination. I post many things here, however I have not expressed any opinion on my choice. And I have been very careful about that.
I prefer to comment on behavior these days. Sadly!
I used to come to DU for some discussions by people more like me. But now I'm embarrassed that the responses are so snarky and sometimes even inappropriate. No longer willing to sink to the bottom of the toxicity, I don't feel like the discussions are for people like me: a progressive who believes in income equality, women's and family rights, early childhood education, collective bargaining, diplomacy.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Passing the DREAM Act, immigration reform, reproductive rights, more renewables, etc. That doesn't mean the differences are not important. Maybe someone could make a chart about issues that candidates agree on?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)It appears to state facts.
I guess if your candidate is afraid of the facts, you might consider it "maligning" or "negative".
But you would be mistaken.
If you disagree with anything on it, you should point that out.
longship
(40,416 posts)However, who can say whether the facts are accurate, or relevant, or maybe just not cherry-picked.
That is the problem with these things. Like "Bernie is not a Democrat; he's a socialist." Or, Benghazi. Or Obamacare.
It is the framing that is important. And this graphic is framed specifically to be against Hillary Clinton. It is nothing more and nothing less than a hit piece, just like the "Bernie is a socialist, not a Democrat" shit is.
If I defend one Democratic candidate from such slime, I will defend them all.
I have no expressed dog in this hunt here on DU. But I care very much about how DU folks act, because that can very much influence voter turnout, which is the big important issue.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)How could anyone favor a completely open border? The definition of the geography of a country is its borders. You can't have a country with completely open borders. It would have to be called something else.
And open borders would permit an influx of cheap labor. Bernie is right to oppose the idea.
What we should not do is to deport people who are already living here productively. They should have a path to citizenship.
And we should not have H1-B visas. All immigrants should have a path to citizenship.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)in the two candidates. I do not understand how anyone who claims to be a Democrat can support HRC given her track record.
malthaussen
(17,230 posts)So it isn't like she has no grassroots support and is just the candidate of Big Money. Of course, the other numbers are an order of magnitude in difference.
A statistic that is missing is simply numbers of donors. One would expect that those who contribute money will also contribute their vote. How many will only contribute the latter remains to be seen.
-- Mal
DrBulldog
(841 posts)Even the ones who refuse to read. Maybe they'll have better success with a chart.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)Personal Net Worth.
Bernie isn't a new comer to Washington, yet his personal wealth isn't in the millions. That tells a story right there.
Krytan11c
(271 posts)some try saying that it shows he is bad with money. No really.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Dem most likely to beat GOP in 2016:
Hillary 100%
Bernie: 0%
jeff47
(26,549 posts)instead of pretending we have a national popular vote.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)They are still trying to find one, and they are running out of space in the clown car.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Her approval numbers are quite low and her disapprovals are high. Those two alone are really bad for someone with her name recognition.
She also can do very little to change the minds of independents and republicans. Bernie does much better with those groups.
appalachiablue
(41,187 posts)~ If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. ~ Thomas Paine.
dsc
(52,172 posts)On the border fence, Sanders voted for the very same fence in 2013 as part of a larger immigration bill just like she did in 2006. On the donations 2700 being 62.9 percent of her donors that is flat out, gold carat false. The math doesn't work. For that to be true the absolute least her average donation could be would be 62.9% of 2700 (that is assuming that the rest of her donors donated 0) which is 1698.30. Her average is no where near that. Oh and here is a list of the donors by category. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/donordemcid.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019
Bernie has not one but two super pacs operating on his behalf and both have money so that 0 is wrong. She hasn't come out in favor of Keystone so that is wrong. She hasn't endorsed the current form of the TPP so that is wrong. The personal net worth numbers are probably off for both but that isn't either one's fault since the forms are confusing and have odd exclusions. For example the worth of a house is excluded but the amount owed upon it is included (don't ask me why as I have no idea). Her super pac amount is wrong she only raised 15 million not 20 million in her super pac. The banks didn't give her money individuals who work for banks did. Also her top 10 donors have four entities which are clearly not banks (Yale, Creative Artists, Time Warner, and the University of CA) plus a law firm so even that is wrong. 6 + 5 would be 11 not 10 so if five of her top 10 aren't banks then there can't be 6 banks. Sanders supported military intervention in both Bosnia and Afghanistan and to my knowledge never said either were mistaken votes.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is necessary in a Leader.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Is still at the top of the greatest page. Just saying.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Support of the Iraq War was enough for me, and that was a long time ago. Geesh.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the companys founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing serious differences with its current practices.
- Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
- Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
- Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
- Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
- Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
- Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
- Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
- Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
- Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
- Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
- Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
- Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
- Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
- Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
- Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
- Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
- Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
- Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)
- Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
- Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
- Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
- Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
- Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
- Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
- Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
- Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
- Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
- Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
- Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
- Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
- Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
- Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)
We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.
- Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
- Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
- Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
- Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
- Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
- Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
- Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
- Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
- Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
- Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
- Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
- Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
- Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
- Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
- Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
- Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
- Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
- Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
- Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
- Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
- Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
- Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillarys strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.
VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)
Sources: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)and is in praise of one candidate, not attacking the other candidates.
Please continue posting these positive exchanges of information. They can only help to strengthen shared values.
SunSeeker
(51,780 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)What's wrong with Bernie?
Paka
(2,760 posts)Thanks for posting. It's pretty clear.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)Nothing about gun legislation, I see. Bernie's weak spot, huh?
Hillary was a New York senator. How many bank headquarters in Vermont? Hillary protected major employers in her state.
Basically, her support was for Obama's policies and efforts.
I guess Obama isn't the messiah anymore.
The thing about votes and "support" is that we know very little about the politics, negotiations and trade offs.
I just realized your graphic talks about "support", not votes. Because Hillary wasn't in the Senate for most of this. She was SOS. So her "support" was working hard for Obama's policies because Hillary Clinton isn't backstabbing tripe.
You might want to remember that.
mnhtnbb
(31,411 posts)in our primary.
OTOH, if HRC manages to win the nomination, I will vote for her because I can't see
the Republicans nominating anyone I could possibly choose to vote for over HRC.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)4dsc
(5,787 posts)they are not the ones building a revolution within the Democratic Party.
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)neener neener
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Tbieve away! It's been posted a couple of times here and is easy to find on the cat-filled intertubes.
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)Thank you, Ted Stevens.