Of course, Bernie has already taken that issue off the table, apparently in accord with the “If Fox News mentions it, I’m not allowed to even think it’s possible” rule (which a lot of BB’ers seem to follow as well).
I am very glad to see he’s tackling the Wall Street speeches issue.
But I sure wish he would go after that eldritch stew of noisome, gelatinous corruption which is the Clinton Foundation, IMO worse than either of the above. (Sorry, I just can’t keep from slipping into Lovecraft mode when discussing HRC)
I just don’t think there is anything to say about the emails thing. We can keep saying, “What about the emails” but we’ll end up sounding like the “Benghazi” people. Even if Clinton was using a private email server for the purpose of covering up certain things, we’re not going to find out about it whatever that thing was, so it will just remain a litmus test for trusting her.
I think it’s perfectly valid to declare that Obama and Clinton’s intervention in Libya was no more justified than Bush’s intervention in Iraq. If that makes me a “Benghazi person”, well so be it.
Speaking of Bernie and voters, this is from a recent short article by Mother Jones:
…Bradley won the election, a surprise to Democrats. This morning, some progressives picked a culprit: voters who cast ballots for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and left the rest of their ballots blank. According to exit polling conducted by the independent group DecisionDesk and BenchMark Politics, perhaps 15 percent of Sanders voters skipped the Bradley-Kloppenburg race; just 4 percent of Hillary Clinton voters did the same.
Bernie endorsed JoAnne Kloppenburg, so this isn’t a matter of him refusing to play ball with anyone running on the Democratic ticket. Nonetheless, it’s a serious issue, no matter what you think of Bernie versus Hillary on the issues. Bernie is basing a lot of his campaign not just on anti-Hillary sentiment, but on anti-Democratic-Party-establishment sentiment. That’s fair enough, but like it or not, the Democratic Party is all we have to compete with Republicans.
So, you think Sanders only just realized that a presidential candidate needs to release his or her tax info? Seriously?
Nope. Didn’t say that.
All I said was that Sanders hadn’t released his taxes yet, and all the Sanders apologists went batshit crazy, claiming that it doesn’t matter because he’s not super rich (ridiculous), he hasn’t had time (he’s had months), or that he already has released them (he hasn’t).
No, that’s fine. What I mean is there are people who literally appear to forget all words other than “Benghazi” as soon as they see Clinton. Trying to repeat the same criticism over and over when it’s getting no traction makes you look kooky, even if it’s valid, and I think Sanders was right to drop the email thing because it was never going to be resolved, and it is never going to make Clinton look really bad.
I mentioned that somewhere else. Not sure which thread. That particular race wasn’t run or lost by Sanders voters. More people in WI voted for Bradley than there were total Dem voters. Kloppenburg wouldn’t have won if 100% of Sanders (or Clinton) voters had voted for her.
If the Sanders share of her vote was low, then I think that’s indicative that the campaign is bringing in some people who don’t normally vote. The Dem party needs to educate them on the importance of voting down ticket. Chances are that if there wasn’t a competitive primary Kloppenburg would have got even less votes.
You make great points! I was just struck by the statistic that 15% of Bernie voters had left the rest of their ballots blank. That’s so shortsighted. It’s voting for a celebrity, in a way, rather than performing one’s civic duty.
Not disagreeing. People should vote all the way down. But isn’t not doing so a problem all the time?
Why is an allegedly non-partisan vote for supreme court on the same ballot as a presidential primary, anyway?
(I continue to be ignorant of a lot of the ways American elections work)
What happens if Sanders drops out and lots of people don’t vote at all in any other subsequent primaries? Are there other issues like this that will be missed?
I found where I’d mentioned this on the Why or Why not Bernie thread - This guy had the numbers:
Apparently there was a marked difference from the norm in how Bernie supporters responded to the rest of the ballot.
Not sure how it works in that state, but in Chicago even our judges are party affiliated so you can only vote in the primary for judges who are running on that ticket. Water commissioners, etc. I agree with you that these positions shouldn’t be party affiliated at all, but there it is.
Yes, exactly. That’s the problem. Voting for a celebrity candidate ONLY is not really voting.
Why not ask all the candidates to publish their primary school records. I’m sure knowing if they can colour inside the lines will change your vote.
Just pointing out the slippery slopeness of some of the comments. Lets just have them show everything. They are public figures, they should have nothing to hide… Sigh.
You mean no one actually sees your permanent records? I’d find it a much more amusing read then taxes. Besides, this race seems to be about who is the better show person. I demand entertainment not boring discussions of real problems and complicated solutions.
Politicians are just a show, the real work in government is being done by people we will never know and never elect.
My point was that 86% of Sanders voters and 95% of Clinton voters might be a higher number than even 100% of Clinton voters if there wasn’t a competetive primary. Or 100% of Clinton/O’Malley/Vermin Supreme voters.
Even if Sanders voters aren’t all voting down ticket (and in this case, he did ask them to), is he still driving up turnout? What’s the net result down-ticket of him running?
That article you linked to wanted to suggest that the Sanders voters specifically didn’t vote for Kloppenburg because she was an establishment Dem, and to imply that Sanders is turning off people from voting for them - but they don’t seem to have any evidence of that, and since that race was non-partisan anyway (on paper - Bradley talked about how her judicial idols were Scalia and Thomas and Kloppenburg said RBG and Sotomayor…), presumably she wouldn’t have been identified as a Dem - and what I saw said that millions had been spent on that court race, so voters should probably have been familiar enough with her. I think that rather than ascribing malice, MoJo should consider ignorance as a larger possibility - especially with the amount of first-time voters Sanders is attracting.
As far as Sanders supporting down-ticket races in general - I’ve always got the impression that he’s all about the grassroots so I’m sure he supports voting down ticket. I’m not sure how much he’d support the more blue dog Dems. But then again, I wouldn’t support them either. But then you start to go down the path of calling people DINOs and doing the equivalent of the Tea Party… I guess I have the luxury of living in somewhere very liberal so the Dems here are more worried about challenges from their left than their right.
It costs (tax) money to staff polling places, print ballots, etc. That’s why other stuff ends up on ballots any time an election is held, primary or not. Our primary ballot had a millage on it.
This is why I go to the polls every time there’s an election. Unless you’re paying super close attention to the state elections board, you never know what else is going to be on the ballot.
It varies from state to state. In California, we vote for confirming state supreme court justices who have been appointed by the governor during the general (and then we continue to reaffirm after each term for as long as they want a go at it). It’s technically non-partisan.
The only court vote that got politicized was the Rose Byrd court in late 70s to early 80s. She was a Jerry Brown appointee, and if I remember correctly, the ruling that upset most people was the suspension of the death penalty. So all of the liberal justices got voted out. (Thank you, Pete Wilson. )
Even the superior court (county) races are non-partisan, although it generally works out as a prosecutor vs. the rest of the litigators. Sometimes you can picture the leanings based upon their statements in the sample ballots and their biggest supporters (police unions, etc.)
And why it’s at the same time? Cheaper than having a special election, I suppose. And can you imagine the turnout without a presidential election? We are notorious for our lack of sincere civic obligations. (USA!USA!USA!)
)