[y66]

 helene_t, on 2016-July-13, 02:55, said:

Depth perception or not, it was an awful endorsement speach. Just self promotion. Nothing about why he endorsed her.

Yes it was.

[kenberg]

My depth perception is fine as far as I know. I don't have a 3D television set but I seriously doubt that is where the problem lies.

Visual effects can make a difference. Just ask Michael Dukakis. Here we had Hillary, standing by as Bernie shouts on about his won importance, waving his hands in front of her face. She looked helpless. Bernie said that he wanted to be as clear as possible. He was very clear, and Hillary's chances for success in November will vary inversely with how much we see of Bernie this summer.

Easy to say in retrospect, but I think the HC approach after she sewed up the nomination should have been "I understand Senator Sanders is having trouble endorsing me. If he chooses to endorse me, I will be pleased to accept his endorsement." And then not a word beyond that. Kissing Bernie's butt will not get her a single vote from a Sanders supporter, and it hurts her with everyone else.

[barmar]

Didn't the Dems agree to add a bunch of his policies to their platform to get his endorsement? You don't think that will bring a bunch of Sanders supporters over to the Clinton camp?

I don't really see the big deal with his hand-waving. Lots of people gesture while they speak. It's unconscious, and the fact that she happened to be standing near where his hand naturally went is not going to change that. And it was really only "in front of her face" for people on Bernie's left -- from the POV of the camera it barely touched her.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-13, 06:35, said:

My depth perception is fine as far as I know. I don't have a 3D television set but I seriously doubt that is where the problem lies.

Visual effects can make a difference. Just ask Michael Dukakis. Here we had Hillary, standing by as Bernie shouts on about his won importance, waving his hands in front of her face. She looked helpless. Bernie said that he wanted to be as clear as possible. He was very clear, and Hillary's chances for success in November will vary inversely with how much we see of Bernie this summer.

Easy to say in retrospect, but I think the HC approach after she sewed up the nomination should have been "I understand Senator Sanders is having trouble endorsing me. If he chooses to endorse me, I will be pleased to accept his endorsement." And then not a word beyond that. Kissing Bernie's butt will not get her a single vote from a Sanders supporter, and it hurts her with everyone else.

I think your advice to HC is dead on. Sanders' supporters will come around.

Who said this?

Quote

This country is too important for anyone’s feelings. This country, and its majesty, is too great for any man, be he conservative or liberal, to stay home and not work just because he doesn’t agree. Let’s grow up <snip>. We want to take this party back, and I think some day we can. Let’s go to work.

Spoiler

Barry Goldwater

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-July-13, 09:07, said:

Didn't the Dems agree to add a bunch of his policies to their platform to get his endorsement? You don't think that will bring a bunch of Sanders supporters over to the Clinton camp?

I don't really see the big deal with his hand-waving. Lots of people gesture while they speak. It's unconscious, and the fact that she happened to be standing near where his hand naturally went is not going to change that. And it was really only "in front of her face" for people on Bernie's left -- from the POV of the camera it barely touched her.

I think some Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, I think a great many will. But no, I do not think that these last minute adjustments in the platform will do anything for anyone. You think she means any of it?

Another way to put it: I know a small number of people who will vote for Trump. I know people who may very well not vote. I know many people who will vote for Clinton. I am pretty sure that I do not know anyone who a week ago was not going to vote for Hillary but now, with Bernie's endorsement, will vote for Hillary. Maybe I just don't know the right people.

The hand waving, and Bernie's general style, impact her and impact him. Only she is the nominee (or about to be the nominee). I am very put off by his style, but it doesn't matter. I have already cast my vote in the primary and unless we have still another weird event he won't be running in November. So who cares whether or not I like him. But I think Hillary looked helpless and uncomfortable. She will be on the ballot in November. I think the less time she spends on the same stage or at the same event with Bernie, the better it will be for her.


In the end, people will or will not vote for Hillary for many varied reasons. Bernie's endorsement, if given with enthusiasm, possibly would have helped some. As it went, the best that can be hoped for is that not too many people saw it and it will be forgotten.

Added: I found this commentary along the same lines.

[Winstonm]

I think that any state Trump carries in the national Presidential election should have its statehood rescinded and its status changed to U.S. territory. Not so much because they should not be states but the reaction of being compared to Puerto Rico is bound to be priceless.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-13, 10:24, said:

Another way to put it: I know a small number of people who will vote for Trump. I know people who may very well not vote. I know many people who will vote for Clinton. I am pretty sure that I do not know anyone who a week ago was not going to vote for Hillary but now, with Bernie's endorsement, will vote for Hillary. Maybe I just don't know the right people.

How many people do you know who voted for Bernie in the primary?

[barmar]

 cherdano, on 2016-July-14, 07:54, said:

How many people do you know who voted for Bernie in the primary?

He kind of knows me. Although I knew I was throwing my vote away when I did it, and I would eventually end up having to vote for Hillary in the general.

A great many of the Bernie supporters who will vote for Clinton will just be doing it to stop Trump, I expect. I don't think a lot of people will be voting FOR anyone this year, just voting AGAINST someone else.

Wouldn't it be funny if there were enough people who wanted to vote against both HC and DT that the Libertarians won? But I don't think this is likely enough that I'll waste my vote there, it could backfire.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-July-14, 07:54, said:

How many people do you know who voted for Bernie in the primary?

I'm an academic, of course there are many. Except those who think he is too conservative.

But of course I have not done a poll. I just try to imagine someone, after Clinton secured the nomination, saying "I just can't be voting for her in November" and then, after the other night, saying "Oh, Bernie has endorsed her, so now I will vote for her". It is hard to imagine that in the abstract, and impossible to imagine that after the nature of his endorsement.

It's ok. Just as I would hope many Republicans make it clear that Trump is not their candidate, Sanders has a right to be very lukewarm about Clinton. All I am saying is that the Clinton campaign needs to accept this as reality. She needs, of course, to explain directly to people why she should get their vote, and then let Sanders do as he thinks best. Party unity is fine, but if it is not available then go on without it.

[mycroft]

All I will say is that were I eligible to vote in the U.S. in November, I would be voting FOR the Supreme Court.

I also think that voting for Sen. Sanders in the primary, knowing he wasn't going to win, isn't as much of a throwaway as it might be; if you believe the only way to break the Democratic Party from their corporatist, slightly less neoliberal than the opposition strategy is to show how many people are how far to the left of the party that it is safe (and potentially necessary) to actually move that way and not see the only way to win is to "lean on the creeping barrage" that is the Republican "march to freedom". You may not lose the general any more by that strategy, but you might not get to the general...

[mike777]

 mycroft, on 2016-July-14, 09:35, said:

All I will say is that were I eligible to vote in the U.S. in November, I would be voting FOR the Supreme Court.

I also think that voting for Sen. Sanders in the primary, knowing he wasn't going to win, isn't as much of a throwaway as it might be; if you believe the only way to break the Democratic Party from their corporatist, slightly less neoliberal than the opposition strategy is to show how many people are how far to the left of the party that it is safe (and potentially necessary) to actually move that way and not see the only way to win is to "lean on the creeping barrage" that is the Republican "march to freedom". You may not lose the general any more by that strategy, but you might not get to the general...

What do you mean many people are far left of the party? What does far left of the Democratic party mean and stand for? I mean are they just in general against stuff and want to complain or do they have a specific and detailed and thought out platform?

[olegru]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-14, 08:46, said:

I'm an academic, of course there are many. Except those who think he is too conservative.

As a person who have lived noticeable part of his life in socialistic country I am terrified (not sure if this word is strong enough to express my feelings) by this.

[helene_t]

 olegru, on 2016-July-14, 10:13, said:

As a person who have lived noticeable part of his life in socialistic country I am terrified (not sure if this word is strong enough to express my feelings) by this.

But his model countries are the Scandinavian countries, not USSR.

[olegru]

 helene_t, on 2016-July-14, 10:26, said:

But his model countries are the Scandinavian countries, not USSR.

Theory is sweet.

[cherdano]

 olegru, on 2016-July-14, 10:37, said:

Theory is sweet.

Those Scandinavian countries exist in practice, not just in theory. Promise! I just visited one of them a few weeks ago. (It was beautiful, too!)

[mike777]

 helene_t, on 2016-July-14, 10:26, said:

But his model countries are the Scandinavian countries, not USSR.

Scandinavian countries are capitalistic not socialist.

Socialism is an economic system where the government owns and controls the means of production and the distribution of goods.

[mike777]

 cherdano, on 2016-July-14, 10:39, said:

Those Scandinavian countries exist in practice, not just in theory. Promise! I just visited one of them a few weeks ago. (It was beautiful, too!)

Again they are not socialist countries...they are capitalists.

The problem with these type of posts are posters dont know what socialism or capitalism is.

[mycroft]

On a side note: why "Bernie", "Hillary" and "Trump"? Similarly, why "Barack" (and poor misspellings of same) and "Romney" or "McCain"? Nobody ever talked about "George", either.

Yes, I can see that we need to make clear which Clinton (George, anyone?) but using given, rather than family names, is (among other things) a way to address inferiors.

Given the other language games (like always referring to the Democrat Party rather than their preferred, Democratic Party) that it seems the Republicans are very good at getting the media to use, I wonder if this is a deliberate choice.

[mycroft]

 mike777, on 2016-July-14, 09:46, said:

What do you mean many people are far left of the party? What does far left of the Democratic party mean and stand for? I mean are they just in general against stuff and want to complain or do they have a specific and detailed and thought out platform?

As always when I point out that U.S. politics is, to the rest of the world, a fight between the hard right and the Republicans, someone comes out with incredulity.

By preference (not always, especially when unite against the Right is more important than policy), I vote NDP. Look it up sometime. Boggle. Enjoy.

[mike777]

As far as Sweden goes people forget that Ikea is mainly based in the Netherlands not Sweden. Also in Sweden it is a nonprofit...so it avoids taxes...Also Sweden has a 25% sales tax. Now if you want your companies to avoid paying taxes and want to pay 25% sales tax....we can discuss the Swedish model.

having actually been in Sweden people may not be aware that it is in the process of selling state companies and opening itself up to more private capitalism. Even the swedes have doubts about the so called swedish model.