Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Is it what he was saying?  The specifics he talks about seem to be her picking up the tab for joint fundraising efforts.  That is radically different then her handling their campaign cash.

[Sheb]

The Democrat Party in 33 participating states set up a joint fundraising thing for the general election apparently the earliest that it ever has, and tied it directly to Hillary's campaign funding.  They set it up so early this time in order to take advantage of a bypass to individual campaign contribution limits introduced by a ruling in 2014, and it looks like it does this by splitting contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund between Hillary's campaign and the Democratic Party.  The entire fund is operated by Hillary's campaign staff, and the accusation is that Hillary's campaign is in direct control of 33 state's largest source of campaign funds before she's won the nomination.

[Shadowlord]

He did say "The Democrat Party" though, and I've only ever heard that from Republicans, so maybe it's just propaganda?

[mainiac]

source of campaign funds

That word is very important.

Politicians like it when someone with a higher profile sends them money and support.  That's pretty much the entire point of political parties, you help out people in marginal districts so you have more votes in congress/parliament.  Because Clinton is a well connected democrat, she does what well connected democrats do and lends organization support to democratic candidates.  In this case, her noteworthy network of donors which she has because this is her second presidential run and she inherited a lot of Obama's backers.  The motives for supporting fellow democrats are obvious, a president can't do much without votes in Congress.

As far as I know, all we are talking about is Clinton's fundraising network.  If we were talking about something more it would be illegal and extraordinary and require hard evidence.  "I think the process is corrupt" isn't hard evidence about illegal campaign coordination, it's a personal opinion.

It would be nice to see some campaign finance reform that makes these big ticket donations illegal like they used to be.  Clinton, incidentally, favors the kind of reforms that would give a big boost to a candidate like Sanders at the expense of establishment candidates like herself.  But the lay of the land is what it is and it's perfectly understandable why democratic candidates would want to use a fundraising tool if it's offered to them.

[smjjames]

Democratic debate (maybe the last one? dunno) in about 15 mins.

[Dorsidwarf]

Why the tits would the anti-Bernie party super delegates need bribing to vote for their waifudark mistress?

[Frumple]

Well, they wouldn't, obviously enough, but just because they don't need it doesn't mean they wouldn't like it. Who doesn't like getting paid extra for something you were going to do anyway?

Also there's totally legal ways to get dosh that don't involve potentially prosecutable bribery. Which, uh. Appears to be something like what happened, if you squint at it hard?

[Solifuge]

Anyone else watching the Dem Debate, and noticing a lot of Clinton's airtime being devoted to talking about tangential past experiences and work she's done, rather than directly answering questions?

I'm kinda thinking the tactic is to undermine Sanders' experience and qualifications here?

[smjjames]

Anyone else watching the Dem Debate, and noticing a lot of Clinton's airtime being devoted to talking about tangential past experiences and work she's done, rather than directly answering questions?

Which is no different from her past tactics. If she wants to death hug the Obama policies, okay, fine, but IMO she still needs to say what SHE would do, what HER poilicies are, not a carbon copy of what she did as Seceretary of State under another president. I mean, she states what she would do, but she keeps framing them under Obamas policies.

I get the pandering, but what would SHE do, not what she would do under Obama.

[SalmonGod]

Which is kind of absurd.  Both have long histories of political involvement from an early age, and Sanders has plenty more years in elected office.  The idea that she's more experienced can only have two real basis the way I see it.  First, that she's been closer to the presidency and is more experienced with international diplomacy, and that's a legitimate argument.  But otherwise... the major difference is her political career looks more like what's expected of a high-level politician.  Yale student.  Recognition in the right circles.  Gained favor with high-level politicians by working on their campaigns.  Served on Wal-Mart's board of directors through their most infamous years...

Looking through Sander's history, it's pretty damn extensive, and it looks to me like he has a lot of experience and success fighting against the mainstream political grain of both parties.  Reading through his history right now... it's damn impressive that he won his first elected office while describing himself as a socialist in 1981.  And has apparently has plenty of well-regarded accomplishments under his belt in Vermont that went against popular politics of the time.  And he self-describes this stuff as his understanding of how to motivate people at a grassroots level, which has apparently been his thing since childhood (Wikipedia:  "He has described himself as a mediocre college student because the classroom was "boring and irrelevant," while the community provided his most significant learning").  So all this talk about him not understanding what he's saying when he talks a big fight against the political climate seems to be ignoring his history.  And it looks like he doesn't just pursue every fight he can with blind ideology, either (Wiki: "In March 2006, after a series of resolutions passed in various Vermont towns calling for him to bring articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, Sanders stated that it would be "impractical to talk about impeachment" with Republicans in control of the House and Senate.").

[Andux]

Anyone else watching the Dem Debate, and noticing a lot of Clinton's airtime being devoted to talking about tangential past experiences and work she's done, rather than directly answering questions?

Yeah, that's generally what politicians do when they're faced with tough questions: Change the subject, and keep talking until everybody has forgotten/lost interest in the question. I think the moderators actually did a better job of dealing with it this time around, though--they pressed the transcripts question harder than I was expecting.

[Flying Dice]

Which is kind of absurd.  Both have long histories of political involvement from an early age, and Sanders has plenty more years in elected office.  The idea that she's more experienced can only have two real basis the way I see it.  First, that she's been closer to the presidency and is more experienced with international diplomacy, and that's a legitimate argument.  But otherwise... the major difference is her political career looks more like what's expected of a high-level politician.  Yale student.  Recognition in the right circles.  Gained favor with high-level politicians by working on their campaigns.  Served on Wal-Mart's board of directors through their most infamous years...

Looking through Sander's history, it's pretty damn extensive, and it looks to me like he has a lot of experience and success fighting against the mainstream political grain of both parties.  Reading through his history right now... it's damn impressive that he won his first elected office while describing himself as a socialist in 1981.  And has apparently has plenty of well-regarded accomplishments under his belt in Vermont that went against popular politics of the time.  And he self-describes this stuff as his understanding of how to motivate people at a grassroots level, which has apparently been his thing since childhood (Wikipedia:  "He has described himself as a mediocre college student because the classroom was "boring and irrelevant," while the community provided his most significant learning").  So all this talk about him not understanding what he's saying when he talks a big fight against the political climate seems to be ignoring his history.  And it looks like he doesn't just pursue every fight he can with blind ideology, either (Wiki: "In March 2006, after a series of resolutions passed in various Vermont towns calling for him to bring articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, Sanders stated that it would be "impractical to talk about impeachment" with Republicans in control of the House and Senate.").

This, precisely. The people trying to paint him as a pie-in-the-sky ideologue are blatantly ignoring his actual political history.

[SalmonGod]

I watched most of the debate tonight, and I'll admit that it's the first one I've taken the time to fully observe.  I can see why people think his rhetoric seems less practical than Clinton's, because he appeals to ideology and bravado more than she does.  But the content of her words didn't seem to me like they gave any more specifics than Sander's did.  I noticed dodges by both of them.  The only difference is that Sander's platform is seen as more unrealistic, but that's not the same as being less specific about what he plans to do.

[mainiac]

The only difference is that Sander's platform is seen as more unrealistic, but that's not the same as being less specific about what he plans to do.

If you are claiming that the whole damn system is corrupt and you are going to change everything, there are a lot of specific aspects to that.  If you are claiming that the democratic party is basically on the right track and you want to keep progressing in the same way, there's a lot less that needs to be fleshed out.  Consider campaign finance for instance.  Saying Citizens United was bad and we need to pass a law to repair the damage it did is pretty clear about what you want; limiting soft money.  It would be helpful to know if we are talking $15k a person, $2100 a person or $0 but the window of discussion is laws setting limits on soft money advertizing.  Saying you want matching funds on small contributions is also pretty straightforward.  Sure the limit of "small" is a matter for debate but we are talking about the feds giving bonus money to candidates who get direct donations.  If on the other hand you have long maintained that everyone in Washington is a corrupt sellout to the banks and we need the entire system replaced, you could be talking about a hell of a lot of things.  It's not about just ironing out numbers, the question is what sort of policy you are talking about.

[Orange Wizard]

If you are claiming that the whole damn system is corrupt and you are going to change everything

A laudable goal. Does he plan on making a proportional/MMP parliamentary system?