Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The irony of "Hillarycare" is that Republicans back then shot it down for being "too expensive".... yet I'd bet that many of them who actually voted in the house/senate are now wishing for a "takes-backsies"
The main reason the GOP killed it is that they were afraid of losing the middle class vote. This fear was largely created by Bill Kristol, a man who is wrong pretty much every time he speaks.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sirlynchmob wrote: You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them...
The count in pledged delegates is 1,768 to Clinton and 1,494 to Sanders. You are completely wrong.
I look forward to the complaints that maths has a pro-Clinton bias.
he has more votes
Nope. Clinton has received 12.9 million votes. Sanders has received 9.9 million votes. Some more of that Clinton biased maths will tell you Clinton has 3 million more votes.
People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.
is not happening.
If anyone in the Sanders camp honestly believed that then they would have recognised quite some time ago that more people have supported Clinton. That wouldn't mean dropping out of the campaign, but it would mean an end to the whining about how unfair it is that the candidate with the second most votes and second most pledged delegates is being put in second place. Instead Sanders whoops up conspiracy nonsense - completely irresponsible leadership.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/05/22 16:18:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.
I know this has probably been discussed in the other thread, but being a constitutional republic doesn't prohibit a direct voting.
Are you trying to tell me that being a constitutional republic only means that we have:
A) a constitution
B) don't have a monarch or other hereditary head of state
And it doesn't really mean what people often seem to think it means?
I don't disagree with all that...
But, the Constitution defined the Electoral College system. Sure, we could theoretically change it, but it's not likely ever going to change because it's not really that big of an hot issue.
Rosebuddy wrote: It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party
No, not in relation to the Republican party. In relation to the political beliefs of Americans. We're like four posts in to this and you're still not getting it - the political beliefs of Americans are not actually the same as you, random guy from Sweden. What you see debated on the US national stage is pretty much a reflection of the mainstream spread of US political opinions. Clinton takes up a position on the left of that.
It's that simple. It's absurd that there's been one post explaining this, but we're now at about 5 posts each, back and forth. Just accept this basic, gain a bit of knowledge of how politics works, and move on. You don't have to abandon your slightly re-heated social anarchism, but you will become a much more interesting, and much more insightful person if you applied your personal political belief while maintaining an understanding of how and why the mainstream of politics is as it is.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
dogma wrote: Hillary Clinton was one of the driving forces behind the push for universal healthcare in the early 90's, to the point where the plan's unofficial name is "Hillarycare". Indeed, Hillary's leading role with regard to healthcare reform is one of the main reasons she is so despised by conservatives. She was also a significant force behind SCHIP's (Federally backed healthcare for families with children) passage.
A plan she has abandoned in favour of supporting the watered-down ACA, while rejecting a single-payer system because Republicans and the insurance industry oppose it. Clinton doesn't want to fight for anyone. She just wants to win and will adapt her positions accordingly. This is why there is so much venom against Sanders supporters recently. They're not a big enough group to win outright but they're plentiful enough to prove that the nomination isn't just a formality. She has taken longer to take out Sanders than Trump took to win over all the GOP nominees. That kind of thing really tarnishes the narrative of her has the undisputed, rightful heir to the presidency.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not really.... though from what I usually see, "today's generation" is always the heroic one, the last generation fethed it all up, and the next one is totally lazy and gonna ruin all the hard work the "heroes" did.
I think it's pretty common for every generation to complain that anyone older than them was irresponsible and fethed everything up, while anyone younger is lazy and will ruin everything that's been built up so far. We do like to tell stories in which us and people like us are the heroes.
The irony of "Hillarycare" is that Republicans back then shot it down for being "too expensive".... yet I'd bet that many of them who actually voted in the house/senate are now wishing for a "takes-backsies"
Oh there's so many ironies. I remember the 2008 primary campaign, when Obama and Clinton both agreed that healthcare reform should stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Clinton said that would create a death spiral unless there was a requirement to have coverage, Obama said that wasn't acceptable. Lots of people thought Clinton was too far right for wanting that, along with Iraq it helped Obama win the nomination. Of course once he got in to office he quickly recognised that you need an individual mandate or else you'll get the death spiral Clinton was talking about.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
A plan she has abandoned in favour of supporting the watered-down ACA, while rejecting a single-payer system because Republicans and the insurance industry oppose it. Clinton doesn't want to fight for anyone. She just wants to win and will adapt her positions accordingly.
Single payer wouldn't work in the US, there are far too many legal barriers in place. But, regardless, it is pretty difficult to push for legislation if you can't get elected.
This is why there is so much venom against Sanders supporters recently.
No, the venom is largely the result of Sanders supporters being salty losers who actively push ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain why Sanders is losing.
That kind of thing really tarnishes the narrative of her has the undisputed, rightful heir to the presidency.
A narrative that was largely pushed by Republicans and Sanders supporters looking to juxtapose their "outsider" status with Hillary's "establishment" status.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Rosebuddy wrote: A plan she has abandoned in favour of supporting the watered-down ACA, while rejecting a single-payer system because Republicans and the insurance industry oppose it. Clinton doesn't want to fight for anyone. She just wants to win and will adapt her positions accordingly.
The term you're looking for is 'politics of the possible'. There is feth all point in aiming for pie in the sky and then spending all your political chips on something that will never happen. This is what both Clintons learned from their first attempt at reform of healthcare.
It's why the last 6 years of Bill Clinton's presidency were a lot more productive than the first 2, even with all the baggage of the Lewinsky thing. Because Clinton had learned to aim for things that can actually happen.
And that, actually, is what real fighting is about. Not just thinking about what would be lovely, but thinking about what can actually be done, and then getting it done.
So here's another simple lesson for you about US politics - universal healthcare ain't happening. But ACA did happen, and now more than 16 million people have insurance who didn't have it, and people with terminal conditions won't be denied treatment because of a 'pre-existing condition'.
They're not a big enough group to win outright but they're plentiful enough to prove that the nomination isn't just a formality. She has taken longer to take out Sanders than Trump took to win over all the GOP nominees.
Trump won sooner because the Republican race, with its loophole primaries and winner take all primaries, naturally favours a more decisive race. Meanwhile the proportional results of the Democratic race favour a long grind. You should read 538, they did some great work on how the races might have played out under the other sides rules - the DNC race would have been long over, and the GOP race would be almost certainly going to a contested convention.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Rosebuddy wrote: It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party
No, not in relation to the Republican party. In relation to the political beliefs of Americans. We're like four posts in to this and you're still not getting it - the political beliefs of Americans are not actually the same as you, random guy from Sweden. What you see debated on the US national stage is pretty much a reflection of the mainstream spread of US political opinions. Clinton takes up a position on the left of that.
It's that simple. It's absurd that there's been one post explaining this, but we're now at about 5 posts each, back and forth. Just accept this basic, gain a bit of knowledge of how politics works, and move on. You don't have to abandon your slightly re-heated social anarchism, but you will become a much more interesting, and much more insightful person if you applied your personal political belief while maintaining an understanding of how and why the mainstream of politics is as it is.
For more perspective rose... see this from 538(with links galore for your research):
Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.
A bunch of reporters have recently discovered a shocking truth: Hillary Clinton is liberal! (I heard a rumor that Columbo has been helping with the investigation.)
We’ve gotten this raft of “Clinton is liberal” exposés as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.
To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.
Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.
Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.
Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton’s statements have been far more moderate. He has also had a more moderate donor base, according to Adam Bonica’s fundraising scores.
There have been a few issues on which Hillary Clinton has taken more centrist positions. She, of course, voted for the Iraq War (she now says that was a mistake). Clinton has been mostly pro free trade (although she hasn’t said much of anything on the Trans-Pacific Partnership). And she has been against marijuana legalization, and seemingly remains so.
When Clinton hasshifted left, she has usually done so with her party and — on the issues she’s highlighted in the 2016 campaign so far — the country. Some examples:
Gay marriage was something that split Democrats almost right down the middle in 2008, with 50 percent in favor per the Pew Research Center. Just 39 percent of the population overall supported same-sex marriage back then. Clinton flipped her position in early 2013, just about when the polls were showing that 51 percent of Americans and around two-thirds of Democrats were in favor of gay marriage. In late 2007, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that Americans and Democrats were in the same place then on civil unions, which Clinton supported, as they are now on gay marriage. In other words, Clinton’s moved left — along with everyone else.
Immigration is a little trickier because so much depends on how a poll is worded, but most of the polls with neutrally worded questions seem to show support for Clinton’s position. A May 2015 CBS News survey shows 57 percent of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship (an all-time high in that survey), compared with 29 percent who want those here illegally deported and 11 percent who want them to have legal status but not citizenship. Among Democrats, 71 percent want a path to citizenship.
On criminal justice reform, which has drawn considerable national attention recently, Clinton called in late April for rolling back mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a position that has more support than it used to. A 2006 survey from Princeton Survey Research Associates International found that 54 percent of Americans and 55 percent of Democrats thought judges should have leeway in sentencing nonviolent offenders, instead of having to abide by the sentencing laws. In a November 2014 Public Religion Research Institute poll, 77 percent of Americans, including 83 percent of Democrats, wanted mandatory minimum sentences eliminated for nonviolent offenders.
Clinton isn’t tacking to the center;she’s simply staying on the left.
In 2008, while Clinton had trouble with her position on Iraq, Democrats didn’t view her as out of step ideologically overall. In February 2008, just 12 percent of Democrats and people who lean Democratic said Clinton was too conservative (the same as Obama). Likewise, Pew Research Center found the same percentages of Democrats, as well as the same percentages of all Americans, thought Clinton and Obama were liberal in January and April of 2008.
The fact that Clinton was seen as just as liberal as Obama is probably the reason she did as well with liberals in the 2008 primary as she did overall. According to exit polls, Clinton received, on average, 46 percent of the vote from those who identified as liberal and 45 percent from those who identified as very liberal. Overall, she received 48 percent of the vote, according to exit polls.
Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War. But unless your name is Jeb Bush, the Iraq War just isn’t as important to a presidential candidacy in 2016 as it was in 2008, when it was the second-most-important issue in the Democratic primary. Clinton beat Obama on the other big issues, including the longtime liberal cause of health care.
Overall, the “liberal Clinton” isn’t a new phenomenon. Given her support for liberal positions in the past and the support that liberals have given her, it shouldn’t be surprising that Clinton is staking out liberal positions to start the 2016 campaign.
Indeed!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/22 17:02:01
dogma wrote: That's only because Sanders refuses to bow out like Cruz did.
To be fair, Cruz dropped out because he re-assessed and figured he's a better chance of winning in 2020 than in taking Trump to a contested convention and winning this year. Meanwhile it's hard to figure out exactly what Sanders is aiming for. He obviously knows he isn't going to have another crack in 2020. Instead I think there's one of two plays happening. The first is that he wants to make the DNC accept a lot of his positions, and he's playing an incredibly hard bargaining game to get that - all the conspiracy stuff that his base is falling for is just part of a very risky bluff strategy. The other option is that Sanders and his team have actually gone flying rodent gak, and think they can actually convince the super-delegates to move away from the candidate with the most votes and the most pledged delegates, and support him because... he's making lots of noise about unfair it is that the party would ignore the voice of the people.
It has to be the former. Sanders has been around politics along time, so he can't possibly be as crazy as that second option makes him out to be. But the former doesn't work that well either - half the stuff Sanders says he wants is already part of the DNC platform (campaign finance reform), and the other stuff is hardly a tough sell (both Clinton and Sanders support a $15 minimum wage, so it won't be hard to get that added).
When 538 lays it out like that, it just seems so obvious that you wonder how or why anyone could think otherwise. Yet here we are, with page after page of people saying all this other nonsense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/22 17:05:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: and think they can actually convince the super-delegates to move away from the candidate with the most votes and the most pledged delegates, and support him because... he's making lots of noise about unfair it is that the party would ignore the voice of the people.
There was an editorial on, I think it was HuffPo basically begging for the super-delegates to switch over to Hillary. Their cited evidence was that Obama, like Sanders made a late surge in taking states. They also flipped because of the polls at the time showing that Obama projected to do better against both Republican candidates. The article did concede that the super-delegate flip became largely meaningless because Obama's late surge gained enough delegates that he would have won outright, but Clinton dropped out, presumably "in return for" getting the SecState job.
The main point of that article though, was that the super-delegates should flip to Sanders because, according to their math, Sanders fares better against Trump in every single head to head poll, and by a much more significant margin than Clinton.
While I wish it would happen, I doubt it will. I think that if any super-delegates did so, they'd quickly find themselves decertified and probably blacklisted from party operations.
When 538 lays it out like that, it just seems so obvious that you wonder how or why anyone could think otherwise. Yet here we are, with page after page of people saying all this other nonsense.
That entire piece is mired in the same faulty thinking you employ, that what the establishment pushes as the Overton window is the ultimate reality that all must bow to. I point to their use of the word "liberal" as being synonymous with "leftist" when the only leftist ideology that isn't an outright enemy of liberalism is social democracy and even then the relationship is kinda frosty. You accept at absolute face value a political system that has spent years carefully gerrymandering districts so that as few votes as possible could matter and has made sure that the two allowed parties don't differ on questions of economic power.
"How could anyone think otherwise??" is precisely how the Democratic Party reacts to that people don't like Clinton and to how she hasn't done well in the youth vote. They have no perspective on class interests other than their own and expect obedience from all who are registered Democrats because... how could anyone think otherwise? Obviously Trump will lose because he's so gross and some guy on a TV show watched mainly by liberals totally mauled, savaged and destroyed him by raising an eyebrow and going BUWAAH?? at the suggestion that Mexico pay for a border wall (never mind that establishment groups in alliance with Clinton are led by people who think that Libya should pay the US for getting bombed). Indeed, how could anyone think otherwise? That's a good question for you to ask yourself. If you don't I can't promise you that your introduction to historic materialism is going to be pleasant.
A narrative that was largely pushed by Republicans and Sanders supporters looking to juxtapose their "outsider" status with Hillary's "establishment" status.
That Clinton is establishment is something her campaign portrayed as a strength.
whembly wrote: Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.
I know this has probably been discussed in the other thread, but being a constitutional republic doesn't prohibit a direct voting.
Are you trying to tell me that being a constitutional republic only means that we have:
A) a constitution
B) don't have a monarch or other hereditary head of state
And it doesn't really mean what people often seem to think it means?
I don't disagree with all that...
But, the Constitution defined the Electoral College system. Sure, we could theoretically change it, but it's not likely ever going to change because it's not really that big of an hot issue.
That isn't what you said so stop moving goalposts.
The electoral system is largely byproduct of the Three-Fifths Compromise that gave Southern states a disproportionately large amount of representivie power. James Madison and others recognized that a popular election would be the best system but more difficult to get a consensus during the convention given the likely argument against it by the Southern delegates and those from the small states. But really, the point is that the United States being a "constitutional republic" doesn't mean popular elections aren't a thing (because they are) and just because the elector system is in the Constitution doesn't mean it can't (or won't) be changed since it already has. Plus, the system already has quite strong criticisms against that will most likely be addressed eventually, chiefly that the United States stands alone among the democracies of the world because our leader can be elected without receiving the most number of votes.
Might as well, because this is a fantastic video:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/22 20:40:51
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
That Clinton is establishment is something her campaign portrayed as a strength.
When? She has played up her experience, sure, but so has Sanders. No one in their right mind would try to use "establishment" as a selling point. Hell, it was a knock on her when she ran against Obama.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote:Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left.
I would be fine with that if it didn't have the "by most measures" because she isn't "by most measures", unless we pretend everything outside the US doesn't exist. I'm not even sure that within the Democratic Party that Clinton is "pretty far to the left" all things considered, but that is arguable.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
When 538 lays it out like that, it just seems so obvious that you wonder how or why anyone could think otherwise. Yet here we are, with page after page of people saying all this other nonsense.
That entire piece is mired in the same faulty thinking you employ, that what the establishment pushes as the Overton window is the ultimate reality that all must bow to. I point to their use of the word "liberal" as being synonymous with "leftist" when the only leftist ideology that isn't an outright enemy of liberalism is social democracy and even then the relationship is kinda frosty. You accept at absolute face value a political system that has spent years carefully gerrymandering districts so that as few votes as possible could matter and has made sure that the two allowed parties don't differ on questions of economic power.
One has to wonder what you are trying to get at. Everyone knows that the States have their own political spectrum that is slightly different (read, to the right) of other modern western states. The only ones ignorant of that fact are also likely to ignore the existence of the concept of political spectrum anyways.
None of this makes any more likely the idea of a true left emerging as a legitimate alternative to the existing parties. "The enemy is at home" alone insures that no marxist party will ever thrive in a country as militaristic as the States.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There was an editorial on, I think it was HuffPo basically begging for the super-delegates to switch over to Hillary. Their cited evidence was that Obama, like Sanders made a late surge in taking states. They also flipped because of the polls at the time showing that Obama projected to do better against both Republican candidates. The article did concede that the super-delegate flip became largely meaningless because Obama's late surge gained enough delegates that he would have won outright, but Clinton dropped out, presumably "in return for" getting the SecState job.
The main point of that article though, was that the super-delegates should flip to Sanders because, according to their math, Sanders fares better against Trump in every single head to head poll, and by a much more significant margin than Clinton.
HuffPo is pretty much total junk, and that article is a pretty good reason why. Obama's argument to the super-delegates was never based on anything as meaningless as polls about hypothetical match ups. They flipped to Obama because he had won the delegate count from the primaries. Obama then made the perfectly simple case that he was the choice of the party’s voters, and the super-delegates should respect that. The super-delegates knew that super-delegates over-riding the choice of the electorate would be disastrous in November, so they respected the primary results and flipped to Obama.
While I wish it would happen, I doubt it will. I think that if any super-delegates did so, they'd quickly find themselves decertified and probably blacklisted from party operations.
Nah, for Sanders to take the lead in total delegates he'd need to flip 381 super-delegates over to him, or 73% of the super-delegates who’ve currently pledged to Clinton. That would represent the Democratic party moving en masse. If that happened there’d be no punishment, because the party isn’t going to punish itself for what it all did.
The reason they’re not flipping is because it makes absolutely no sense for them to flip. They wanted Clinton, and the majority of voters chose Clinton. So why would you over-ride the choice of the voting base, to select the person you didn’t like as much in the first place?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The Super Delegates haven't even voted yet so how does one 'flip' a vote that hasn't happened. As it stands I thought they just were more based on hopes and dreams but didn't really vote until their big meeting where the real fight happens that non-pary members are probably paying for as well.
I don't know all their party specific rules for voting, or partying, so I could easily be wrong.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Rosebuddy wrote: That entire piece is mired in the same faulty thinking you employ, that what the establishment pushes as the Overton window is the ultimate reality that all must bow to.
The Overton window can be moved, and doing so is often good politics, when it’s achieved. But what you’re arguing for is that the Overon window be ignored, which is really stupid.
I point to their use of the word "liberal" as being synonymous with "leftist" when the only leftist ideology that isn't an outright enemy of liberalism is social democracy and even then the relationship is kinda frosty.
You’re attempting to apply a single definition to ‘left’, which is very silly indeed. ‘Left’, like many political terms, in highly dependent on context.
You accept at absolute face value a political system that has spent years carefully gerrymandering districts so that as few votes as possible could matter and has made sure that the two allowed parties don't differ on questions of economic power.
You are being very simplistic. Recognising that something exists is not the same thing accepting it. My approach here is to say ‘these are things that are true, any way forward needs to exist these things are true and find a way around them, or a way to change them’. Your approach is to say ‘these are things that I don’t want to be true, and so I will talk as if they aren’t’.
"How could anyone think otherwise??" is precisely how the Democratic Party reacts to that people don't like Clinton and to how she hasn't done well in the youth vote.
Oh look, a misleading misquote. That’s a sudden new tactic. The point, of course, is that people can, will and should have lots of diverse opinions on lots of things, including political candidates. There is nothing wrong with disliking Clinton, there’s plenty of reasons to do so. But there is something wrong with thinking things that are factually wrong. And disliking Clinton out of a belief that she is from the centre of US politics, or even stupider from the right of US politics, has clear and simple problems with reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Plus, the system already has quite strong criticisms against that will most likely be addressed eventually, chiefly that the United States stands alone among the democracies of the world because our leader can be elected without receiving the most number of votes.
Just a nitpick – the US isn’t the only country in the world where that happens. There’s about 30 countries in the world with the Westminster system, and in that system the country is broken in to electorates, each electorate is a standalone race, and the party that wins the most electorates becomes the government and can choose the Prime Minister. Think of it like if the House of Representative chose the President.
Much like the electoral college, in Westminster the party that won the most votes might not win the most electorates. In Australia this happened in 1998, Labor won 51% of the vote, but only 67/147 electorates. , and does happen from time to time, that much like the US electoral college, that a Westminster system can produce results where the party that wins the most votes might not win the most electorates. In Australia this happened in 1998, but quite strangely when the 2000 US election gave the presidency to the guy with less votes, lots of Australians claimed the American system was very silly... they seemed to have forgotten a very similar thing happened in Australia just a couple of years before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I would be fine with that if it didn't have the "by most measures" because she isn't "by most measures", unless we pretend everything outside the US doesn't exist.
Sure, the US shouldn't pretend the rest of the world exists when it comes to talking about various policies and systems - it drives me nuts when Americans predict greater healthcare or higher tax rates are unthinkable because they'd destroy the economy... when such things have been in place for generations outside of the US without producing economic stagnation.
But when we want to talk about where US politicians sit on a political axis, the most obvious measure is against other US politicians. That Clinton isn't all that left in comparison to European leaders is true, but then Ted Cruz isn't all that right wing compared to Ghengis Khan, and I just don't think there's any value in those kinds of observations.
I'm not even sure that within the Democratic Party that Clinton is "pretty far to the left" all things considered, but that is arguable.
Her voting record and policy positions make it pretty clear she is well and truly on the left of the Democratic party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: The Super Delegates haven't even voted yet so how does one 'flip' a vote that hasn't happened. As it stands I thought they just were more based on hopes and dreams but didn't really vote until their big meeting where the real fight happens that non-pary members are probably paying for as well.
I don't know all their party specific rules for voting, or partying, so I could easily be wrong.
Some super-delegates announce who they are supporting. Some do it very early, some do it during the primaries. Flipping a super-delegate means getting them to announce they're changing who they're going to vote for. In 2016 so far 564 of the 714 super-delegates have announced who they are supporting.
A similar number announced their support in 2008, and like this year most of them supported Clinton. But then Obama won the primaries, and the super-delegates flipped to supporting him. Sanders is hoping for something similar, except he hasn't won the primaries, which makes his attempts to flip the super-delegates really very silly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/23 01:32:27
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Her voting record and policy positions make it pretty clear she is well and truly on the left of the Democratic party.
Which is why I said it was debatable within the party; some in the party see her as moderate and some as leftist.
And yes I know when talking about US politics it is fine to stay with US politics, which is why I didn't, and don't, like the phrase "by most measures" as that isn't limited by that and perpetuates the myth of American politics as politics in general. You can read it differently all you want, but that doesn't keep me from finding it problematic.
sebster wrote: Sanders is hoping for something similar, except he hasn't won the primaries
I'm going to assume you mean that he hasn't won all the primaries as he has actually won primaries.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote: Which is why I said it was debatable within the party; some in the party see her as moderate and some as leftist.
Which says a lot about how little public perception is driven by meaningful things like voting records and policy positions, and how much its driven by sentiment. It doesn’t say very much about
For what it’s worth, this isn’t only a Clinton thing. Kasich ran as the moderate, but his voting record marks him as very conservative. I guess what is different is that Kasich made a strategic choice to move his position, to differentiate himself from the rest of the Republican field, whereas a lot of people have decided that Clinton is a lot less left wing than she really is, through nothing Clinton has done or tried to do.
I'm not really sure why, either. Perhaps people think she and her husband are the same, and he was much closer to the centre therefore she must be as well.
And yes I know when talking about US politics it is fine to stay with US politics, which is why I didn't, and don't, like the phrase "by most measures" as that isn't limited by that and perpetuates the myth of American politics as politics in general.
Ah, I see your complaint now. Thing is, that 538 article is saying ‘by most measures of US politics’. It gives three measures, and is saying most other measures give similar results to these ones. It isn’t saying anything about how Clinton might compare against the greater world of politics.
I'm going to assume you mean that he hasn't won all the primaries as he has actually won primaries.
I don’t mean each and every primary, I mean the primaries on the whole. Combining them all together, Sanders is down by 3 million votes and 274 delegates.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
1) It's 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent, and any person not interested in generating clicks and revenue would tell you that it's a tie.
2) National polls have about as much meaning as a poll of users in the OT section of Dakka Dakka. Unless we suddenly switched to a national popular vote for president, it's pointless to conduct them and even more pointless to even take them into consideration. Just take a look at actual results and you will quickly notice that national results don't match up with actual electoral college results:
Its even more stupid. As a former carney I can guarantee Disney has done extensive studies on its lines and methods to improve them. This shows not only the chief's stupidity, but really shows their mindset. Why did the Chief of Staff or Obama's designated hit man(girl) not immediately call and demanded his resignation?
How this should have gone. Makes stupid statement while testifying. While sitting there gets a call. Chief of Staff: "You're fired get out." VA dork: " You can't fire me. Only the President can fire me." Chief of Staff: "Hold on. Mr. President are you there?" Da Pres:"Let me be clear. You are fired you dickbag."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/23 18:28:19
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
And having to wait for an appointment won't automatically kill you either, and making wait times your primary metric is just as dangerous as ignoring it completely.
Just look at our waiting room on any given evening and you will find people who are angry because they have to wait 3 hours to be seen for their elbow that has been hurting for 3 months and the guy that came in with COPD and a room air saturation of 80% gets to go straight back to the ER without having to wait at all. And just like you have to triage in the ER, you have to triage all other appointment and consults.
Who get's the earlier MRI appointment, the guy who has chronic back pain or the guy who has progressive weakness in his legs? Who get's the earlier heart cath, the guy with 20% known occlusion and excertional angina or the guy with progressive rest angina? Who gets the earlier PCP appointment, the guy who has already been seen and needs medications adjusted or the guy with no history but a lot of risk factors? Wait times are an important metric, but it's far from being the most important metric. I disagree that satisfaction should be the most important metric, so there is that. Wait times and satisfaction are probably equally important, but the most important metric should be outcomes. Seeing people quicker won't mean anything if outcomes are worse. There is a reason why more and more models are going to outcome based reimbursements, because doing something quick and cheap doesn't mean anything if you are not improving the patient.
What they should be focusing on is fixing that damn Veterans Choice program. I have no clue how anybody thought that anyone could pull that off in 3 months, and I honestly doubt that a private company would be able to build a nationwide health insurance company from scratch to fully functioning in 3 months. It's a good idea, but the way it was passed and implemented was a bandaid on a gaping wound. Fix that program right and you will see improvements.
VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
