Politics of the Free - It’s because Democrats, stupid. - The Bear and Badger

Diluted Dante

Gremill wrote:

I don't get this weird logic by Drumpf supporters that he somehow has the interests of average Americans at heart and that his financial status somehow makes him independent of corporate interests. He pretty much defines corporate self interest. Louis CK put it well when he said that "He is not one of you, he is one of him".

He's only beholden to his own self interest, not other peoples, and for some reason they think that his self interest includes helping them.

I_R

There was a woman on the news here last week who after watching Boris give a speech about Brexit in her factory claimed that he wasn't like the rest of the politicians, he cared about ordinary workers.

Diluted Dante

I_R wrote:

There was a woman on the news here last week who after watching Boris give a speech about Brexit in her factory claimed that he wasn't like the rest of the politicians, he cared about ordinary workers...

...making him Prime Minister.

equinox_code

I am amazed at the people who can take an interest in politics without realising or recognising the ideologies which underpin the various parties.

Yossarian

I think people just recognise different parts of them.

Stopharage

Sound article on the influence of money in US Politics:-
How can the US shrink the influence of money in politics?

Further discussion over how fucked up the Citizens United decision was:-
POM bare (cheek)

The violence at the Trump rallies isn't a new phenomena:-
George Wallace and '68

New Donald Trump attack Ad

IanHamlett

That ad could've been paid for by the Trump campaign. It's part of his appeal.

Matt_82

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/?postshare=9101458598184502&tid=ss_tw

Haven't read this yet so it may or may not be interesting.

beano

Before the "...China...China...China...China..." bit it was pretty engrossing.

Diluted Dante

Sanders won Democrats Abroad by the way, with 69% of the vote, getting 9 delegates to Hilary's 4. Doesn't change much, but a good victory to have.

Hoping he can get some big wins in the upcoming states to shift momentum, even if it doesn't change the matchs all that much due to the small size. But one of the things going against him is that "he can't win'", but if he goes into the bigger contests on about equal number of states, that might change peoples minds.

monkey

It's probably impossible to obtain but I'd be interested to know exactly how much of a factor 'He can't win' is in people's voting. Like exactly how many people would vote for Sanders but then just go for Clinton as she's the one that seems most credible. It doesn't stop Trump, didn't stop Corbyn, almost certainly won't affect Tory member voting when they get shot of Cameron. It just seems like less of an issue when the field of candidates is weaker as people just think 'fuck it'.

IanHamlett

Anecdotally I've heard a lot of people say they prefer Sanders but think he'd lose the general election.

I'm sure a lot of people do that. I was more in line with Ed Miliband's politics but would have settled for David Miliband because I think he would have won.

Yossarian

There's no way David would have won. Absolutely none.

IanHamlett

Maybe he had too much Blair/Brown stink on him, but he would definitely have done better than Ed.

Yossarian

I honestly don't believe he would have with everything that was happening at the time.

beano

Another vote in the David-would've-done-better-than-Ed box.

IanHamlett

Me watching Dave eat a bacon sandwich.

GooberTheHat

beano wrote:

Another vote in the David-would've-done-better-than-Ed box.

+1

monkey

Yossarian

I'm still unconvinced. The Tories biggest strength was their (largely paper-based, but much-trumpeted by the press) economic recovery. I don't see how someone so closely tied to the administration who had been blamed for everything from the deficit to the skin that forms on milk when you heat it would have been in a much better position to challenge this narrative. Plus, I'm unconvinced Scotland would have turned out any differently.

He also certainly wouldn't have changed the leadership rules, so if he had lost, we'd probably be looking at Burnham in charge, which doesn't really bear thinking about.

monkey

Labour allowed Tory lies about the economy to permeate for years until, at the election, Ed Milliband was laughed at when he said Labour overspending didn't cause the financial crash. Dave was way slicker on the PR front and would have been all over the 'messaging'. Quite how it would have worked out, who knows. Lab may still have lost but I doubt the Tories would have got a majority. I think Labour could have won outright with David Milliband.

monkey

monkey wrote:

Labour allowed Tory lies about the economy to permeate for years until, at the election, Ed Milliband was laughed at when he said Labour overspending didn't cause the financial crash. Dave was way slicker on the PR front and would have been all over the 'messaging'. Quite how it would have worked out, who knows. Lab may still have lost but I doubt the Tories would have got a majority. I think Labour could have won outright with David Milliband.

On the other hand

is a banana.

I_R

If David as Labour leader had been treated by the media the way he was as a candidate, he might have done better than Ed. The papers would have been all over him about Iraq though and the BBC would felt obliged to join in to be balanced (like how the left of Labour are the extremist wing, the right are the moderates).

As Yoss says, Scotland probably wouldn't have gone any better. Media opinion was unanimous that polished Blairite Jim Murphy would do a tremendous job as Scottish leader after the referendum, he actually made Ed's failure look not too bad.

mistercrayon

David Milliband is a snake. The way he kicked the boot in on his brother was disgraceful and I'm glad he isn't the prime minister.

Diluted Dante

monkey wrote:

It's probably impossible to obtain but I'd be interested to know exactly how much of a factor 'He can't win' is in people's voting. Like exactly how many people would vote for Sanders but then just go for Clinton as she's the one that seems most credible. It doesn't stop Trump, didn't stop Corbyn, almost certainly won't affect Tory member voting when they get shot of Cameron. It just seems like less of an issue when the field of candidates is weaker as people just think 'fuck it'.

One of the things that comes up most in vox pops about the candidates is that Clinton supporters side with her "because she can win". I'll have a look and see if I can find some links. It's not going to be completely scientific like, but will give you an idea.

Funkstain

I too think Labour would have performed better in the GE with D Miliband.

However I also think Tory lite is the worst thing to have happened to the Labour party since ever, so fuck D Miliband and fuck all those who would've voted for him.

Finally without the crushing loss there wouldn't have been a leadership election in which Corbyn had a chance and I still like him. Even though I also agree with those who say that you do need some kind of political instincts to do OK and Corbyn is a political loser. At least it proves that some people have the appetite for something / someone different.

mistercrayon

The thing we've been conditioned to believe is that the only good politician is some slick Man who can twist a knife properly at pmqs and bully the media into submission.

It seems to me that people want a nice person (politically) who is a complete dickhead (politically).

I_R

Diluted Dante wrote:

monkey wrote:

It's probably impossible to obtain but I'd be interested to know exactly how much of a factor 'He can't win' is in people's voting. Like exactly how many people would vote for Sanders but then just go for Clinton as she's the one that seems most credible. It doesn't stop Trump, didn't stop Corbyn, almost certainly won't affect Tory member voting when they get shot of Cameron. It just seems like less of an issue when the field of candidates is weaker as people just think 'fuck it'.

One of the things that comes up most in vox pops about the candidates is that Clinton supporters side with her "because she can win". I'll have a look and see if I can find some links. It's not going to be completely scientific like, but will give you an idea.

The super delegate system seems designed to guide voters towards the choice of the Democratic leadership. It's a bit unfair and not great in terms of the wider picture of a two party state beholden to political donors. The Republicans are probably wishing they had something similar in place though given the circus they've ended up with.

Diluted Dante

Ok, so Clinton has won Arizona, we don't know exactly by how much, but with most votes counted, it's currently 58%-40%. This isn't good news for Sanders, as Arizona is seen as indicating what California might vote, and he doubled Clinton's spending here.

However, he's blown Clinton out of the water in Idaho and Utah, 78%-21% and 80% to 20%, which are exactly the unlikely margins it was predicted he'd need to pick up in order to stand a chance of catching Clinton. Utah though does have 20% of votes still to count though.

Idaho has given Sanders 17 delegates to Clinton's 5, with Utah currently giving 18 to Clinton's 5. If Arizona holds as well, that's 22 for Sanders to Clinton's 41. Altogether Sanders will pick up 57 delegates, and Clinton 51.

So it's not great news, the gap has narrowed, ever so slightly, but when he loses now, Sanders needs it to be as narrow a loss as possible to try and split delegates evenly, and make his wins count more. Clinton is just over 300 ahead, which he needs to start closing.

Diluted Dante

Oh, and Drumpf got kerb stomped in Utah by Cruz, finishing third. Cruz notched up 67% of votes, and as a result all the delegates.

However he won't feel too bad as he won Arizona, which gave out more.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories