Print

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

[mainiac]

But enough of the Democratic base distrusts Hillary that someone with a good enough ground game could steal the nomination.

As someone who doesn't really follow US politics: how can Clinton be the obvious Democratic candidate when the above is (presumably) true?

She has the support from the groups she needs to win the primary (donors, primary voters) but not the support of people she needs to get upvotes on the internet (nerds, young liberals).  Given that primaries are much more unpredictable then general elections, opinions on the internet are going to emphasize her downside.

[misko27]

Hillary is a powerful member of the party. I would not be surprised if her continued nomination is the result of favor pulling.

Hillary needs to get "put out of the way" by ceasing to be a relavant political force. Then she will stop being nominated.


The DNC needs to stop making politically motivated nominations (that focus around blatant corruption, and petty politics like race and gender) and instead start nominating candidates based on actual integrity with the party's stated goals.

However, with how flip/floppy most of them are, that would probably make them resort to names nobody has ever heard.

I'm not sure what you mean by DNC (There are two relevant organizations by that acronym:Democratic National Convention and Democratic National Committee). Either way, nominations don't come from the party leadership. You nominate yourself, and if you win primaries and caucuses you win the nomination.

Correct. At this point, it's essentially circular reasoning: Hillary is the frontrunner because she's the frontrunner, and nobody is stepping up to challenge her because she's the frontrunner; and since nobody else dares to take her on, she's the default candidate.

Circular reasoning implies false reasoning. The correct term would probably be self-fulfilling. And to be fair, in this chicken-or-egg scenario, she was intimidating to challengers before there were challengers to intimidate. She's not unassailable, but she's intimidating enough that none of the more influential people (who usually overlapped her base of support) were willing to challenge her, struggle for air, and risk hurting the party. Then, with the middle-party quiet, the outsiders (usually meaning more left-wing) were screwed, because they would have to duel Clinton, one-on-one, which outsiders don't have the resources and support to do (of course, one going in might trigger others, but no one decides things like that based on what might happen in the future). Put simply: she was a tough nut to crack, which gave her an air of unassailability, which made her actually unassailable.

[nenjin]

Either way, nominations don't come from the party leadership. You nominate yourself, and if you win primaries and caucuses you win the nomination.

Explicitly yes. But when you factor in the negotiations with the caucuses and the deal making, what looks good for the party etc..., the party leadership has a lot of power in the decision.

[FearfulJesuit]

I wonder if Obama's going to endorse anyone- that's usually considered a faux pas for a sitting president, isn't it?

[RedKing]

I wonder if Obama's going to endorse anyone- that's usually considered a faux pas for a sitting president, isn't it?

Not if it's his VP. Though that's typically in the context of an uncontested primary. (Reagan endorsing Bush, Clinton endorsing Gore, etc.)

[Bauglir]

I might be persuaded to vote Clinton/Biden.

I suppose an arrangement by which they trade jobs every week is out of the question. Damn Constitution.[/NSA]

[Frumple]

So this happened. "This" being a few dozen republican senators writing an open letter to Iran in an attempt to shit on diplomatic relations thereto. Forget if it was brought up earlier or not, but eh.

And then Iran responded. It's... kinda' beautiful, just a titch.

Spoiler: For those that don't want to click (click to show/hide)

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.”

 Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

 Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

 The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.” He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 [Britain, China, France, Germany Russia and the United States] result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

 Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.”

 The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”

 Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”

 Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UN - New York

[FearfulJesuit]

God, remember when Republicans were at least competent at playing dirty foreign policy? Richard Nixon remembers.

[Bauglir]

God, remember when Republicans were at least competent at playing dirty foreign policy? Richard Nixon remembers.

The ol' Pepperidge Farms ploy, eh? I'm onto you.

More seriously, this doesn't even slightly surprise me. Remember, this is the party whose official goal in 2010 was to make Obama a 1-term president. That took precedence over policy or anything like that. Much as I might feel for conservative ideas of limited government every now and again, the party kind of went batshit crazy as soon as a vaguely black guy got elected.

[FearfulJesuit]

God, remember when Republicans were at least competent at playing dirty foreign policy? Richard Nixon remembers.

The ol' Pepperidge Farms ploy, eh? I'm onto you.

More seriously, this doesn't even slightly surprise me. Remember, this is the party whose official goal in 2010 was to make Obama a 1-term president. That took precedence over policy or anything like that. Much as I might feel for conservative ideas of limited government every now and again, the party kind of went batshit crazy as soon as a vaguely black guy got elected.

I wonder if you could prosecute them for it? I mean, I wouldn't- it's the Dems' job not to stoop to the GOP's level of mud-slinging- but it is something you could do, isn't it?

[Frumple]

I've seen discussion about it... that and the earlier thing with whosename from wherever it was -- the one they brought in to babble to congress about whatev'. The problem is the most likely thing they're violating (the Logan Act, iirc) has never actually been enforced. It's probably illegal, and arguably some degree of treason, but it's hard to make stick something that's never been attempted to get stuck.

[Angle]

...That would be beautiful. Throw the lot of them in jail and let them howl. Fuck yeah.

It's not gonna happen, of course. But a man can dream...

[Bauglir]

Man, that's a pleasant dream, indeed. Sadly, if the Court of late is any indication, they'd either specifically rule against the prevailing political opinion at the time in order to avoid implications of being swayed by such transient things, or else they'd rule the whole thing is a purely political issue and wash their hands of the whole matter, ruling that political parties can do whatever they want.

Yes, I'm still salty about Bush v Gore. What of it?

[smjjames]

So this happened. "This" being a few dozen republican senators writing an open letter to Iran in an attempt to shit on diplomatic relations thereto. Forget if it was brought up earlier or not, but eh.

And then Iran responded. It's... kinda' beautiful, just a titch.

Spoiler: For those that don't want to click (click to show/hide)

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.”

 Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

 Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

 The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.” He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 [Britain, China, France, Germany Russia and the United States] result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

 Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.”

 The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”

 Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”

 Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UN - New York

They certainly made a pretty nice jab at the republicans, lol.

[mainiac]

As my friend put it "You know it's bad when the Irandian foreign minister sounds reasonable.... and correct".

It's pretty funny that Iranian officials understand the principles of the constitution better then american senators.  It seems we were so busy exporting our way of life to the rest of the world we hollowed ourselves out back home.