Agreed, thanks.

That snippet on HBCUs would be worthy of its own thread. But I'm not really looking to start a dumpster fire here, so I'll take a pass. So, maybe worthy if its own barroom conversation. Anyway - a topic I am not well versed in, and his view was the only part of that where I was a bit taken aback (possibly borne of ignorance, not necessarily resistance).

I can't say I understand the black experience in America, but I cringe whenever Sanders talks about black people living in the "ghettos". He sounds like an old white man from Vermont when he does that.

The "most blacks aren't poor" really sticks out to me, and it applies to other minority groups as well. I remember a conversation I had with one of our trustees where I suggested greater recruiting efforts among the local Hispanic communities and the response was that it wouldn't help with revenue because all of them would need lots of scholarships. Even after our VP of Finance pointed out that the local Hispanic family was demographically similar to the white Staten Island family the trustee was still convinced they were all too poor to be worth recruiting.

Speaking of cringeworthy, I know it's hostile territory, but I caught part of Wasserman-Schultz's FoxNews interview last night... she should not be the group spokeswoman.

Her replacing Dean was a massive gift to the Republican party.

Where Bernie is out of touch is that people of a certain age tend to use "ghetto" pretty much interchangeably with "black" (e.g. "I can't stand this loud ghetto music with all the swear words!") when he was probably using the term to evoke comparisons to the Jewish ghettos of World War II.

And in context of the middle class versus poor black experience in Ben's post, that surely makes sense. In the Ferguson thread, you see a lot of people patting themselves on the back and stopping just short of awarding themselves the Nobel Peace Prize because they managed to talk themselves out of a speeding ticket. That type of feeling is much closer to feeling unnecessarily harassed than to feel as though one's constantly in an open jail cell, as the post puts it.

I learn most of my black terminology from my black friends and colleagues. #keepitreal

I learned mine from "Airplane!".

Using ghetto in that sense certainly did not originate as black terminology, as it is used to associate "African American" with "of subpar quality." Now before you automatically go to your typical stupid BS of saying "no you must be the real racist for thinking of that," here's an article you can read and maybe learn something from.

Segregated from history: how 'ghetto' lost its meaning

edit: and I'm not even saying it should be some univerally lauded thing for Sanders to say; I'm just noting the irony of how people who abide by the, let's say racially questionable, usage of the term are attacking the quote because it makes Sanders seem racially insensitive when if you read it by the connotation Sanders was likely using, it'd open him up to the more right wing criticism of "how dare he try to compare those conditions to the Holocaust when people can pull themselves up by the bootstraps etc etc."

I'm totally on board with your take down the thread about how the origin of the word has gotten lost. It has, and that's a fair observation to make.

But if you actually believe the snippet quoted above, you've lost your mind.

Bernie was trying -- in vain -- to desperately connect with a group that has overwhelmingly supported his opponent and faceplanted his attempt.

He knew what he was saying, he meant to say it just like he said it, he just didn't anticipate making matters worse for himself instead of better.

He screwed up, it happens to a lot of candidates.

I don't think you're racist, nol, at least, not binarily. :)

:withstupid:

I've heard the war on drugs, for example, described more than a few times as a Holocaust taking place in slow motion; the quote is very much in line with that sentiment and I'll agree to disagree. It seems like the one thing you're disagreeing with me here on is the notion that a Jewish guy born during World War II is much more likely to have heard and used the term ghetto specifically to refer to conditions wherein minorities were systematically set up for extermination rather than as a generic stand-in for 'the 'hood.'

Again, I get that it did not go over well and that in politics that's more important than what you actually say. It's just funny that people think that someone who likely grew up hearing about relatives/family friends who were placed in the ghettos and exterminated chose to say "ghetto" because he'd never really used it before and just assumed it was some hip buzzword African-American voters would connect with. As if he was 50/50 between saying that or that his civil rights record was "on fleek."

My oh my....breathe, dude.

Yup. It's unbelievable how bad she is. Like I said, it's enemy territory and hostile questioning, so you can't get caught up arguing technicalities and you need to be selling to at least one possible splinter group of dissatisfied Republicans. Instead she's trying to argue about who's had better turnout and the Fox anchor is sitting there dumbfounded like "that's not the gotcha part of the question, that's just the facts." And there are numerous viable arguments about why primary turnout is irrelevant!

PS - these moderators might be the worst yet. This isn't a shitshow, or something with 8 candidates who theoretically need/deserve equal time - if Hilary and Bernie want to rehash the same things from every debate and fine tune the same statements, let them do it. If they're showing some emotion and when even the crowd is booing you for moving on, understand that it's not about your schedule. At least let them say 2 sentences in their response before trying to hasten them on to the next topic. :banghead:

I can type and think critically and breathe and do many other things all at the same time. Based on your track record, I'd recommend you stick to one or two of those, tops.

Cool, then you can basically overcome all the bullshit you're always crying about. So pick yourself up, dust yourself off, stop bitching, and get to work.

And yes, you hit the nail on the head...if I can do it...you can do it. ;)

Absolutely, as I said previously, the Democratic party is riddled with this, and it's one of the more visible legacies of the Clinton Administration:

It's not parsing the words, it's appearing so incredibly defensive and ignorant (and sticking crony appointees in power). "No, I'm going to tell you the numbers. Republicans have had about 55% turnout, we've had about 45%, but they had 17 candidates so we actually have more turnout." :banghead: That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. - YouTube

I understand, but to me it's part and parcel of the same thing. Which is Democrats' complete and utter inability to deliver a message in a simple and effective manner.

So HRC has managed to piss off a pretty good chunk of the left this afternoon...

Hillary Clinton Shockingly Praises Nancy Reagan's 'AIDS Activism'

Hillary Clinton's Reagan AIDS Revisionism Is Shocking, Insulting, and Utterly Inexplicable

Why Is Hillary Clinton Trying to Rewrite Nancy Reagan's Shameful Inaction on HIV/AIDS?

You know I have heard from a lot on the left that wants to rake the Reagans over the coals for the AIDS crisis, but were there actually a lot of national Democratic voices at the time talking about? I mean was Mondale, or Hart, or Dukakis, or Cuomo going on about it? It seems to me that a lot of people really didn't have any idea of what was going on earlier in the 1980s and they are trying to push for later morality onto the Reagans.

And on the remarks themselves, the Advocate said something similar:

Remembering Nancy Reagan, Her Involvement in AIDS Crisis | Advocate.com

That seems like a valid argument, but it's more the optics here. It's a pretty standard Democrat talking point that the Reagans have a terrible record on HIV. I've seen the full interview. She just went there. She was asked about the Brady Bill and Nancy's Alzheimer's advocacy. She answered those question and then, completely unprompted, blurbs out, "Oh yeah, and she had a good record on AIDS, too!" Stirring up the hornets like that seems like a fairly significant unforced error.

Dola:

I suppose it underscores that she is gearing for the general and is no longer taking the Sanders threat seriously.

....Or I was right the first time and it was simply an "unforced error."

Hillary Clinton’s statement on her comments about the Reagans' record on HIV and AIDS: pic.twitter.com/RtIs0zpJfk

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 11, 2016

(THAT was fast, by the way!)

Yes, I agree that it was unforced error, but the underlying point isn't that wrong. This is why, btw, politicians always equivocate - because of reactions like you see there.

It doesn't matter. In 20 years, even the most progressive politician you know will be called a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal on any given topic by retroactive analysts. It's the nature of progressives to be butthurt about history.

And I say that as someone who self-identifies as progressive. When your bread and butter is blaming other people for not being enlightened enough on a topic, you don't know what else to do when you win a struggle and there's no one else left to indict because everyone agrees with you.

Sorry. I've been reading Anne Theriault all afternoon. Beautiful writer who pisses me off because she's rather burn bridges than solve problems. She's like Palahniuk's grouchy side.

Well the question is this... is it like criticizing Clinton or Obama for saying 2008 they wanted marriage between a man and woman. Everyone was saying that back then except for fringe candidates (IIRC, Sanders supported it in 2009, which yes, is 4 years before Hillary Clinton did so, but still isn't super early). Or were there loud mainstream voices in the 80s calling on the Reagan administration to do something and they didn't?

Ok, this made me laugh.

Clinton Forgets Sanders Was 'Literally Standing Right Behind Her' on Health Care Reform in the '90s

Speaking as a 42-year-old, I don't recall the mainstream talking about it as something that could/would affect everyone, including straight people, until the late 80s / early 90s.

Also relevant: And the Band Played On - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: specifically linked the to part about government agencies.

I know I'm biased, but I find something delicious in far lefties who back Sanders who are "disappointed" with some of their idols not being a part of the movement. Paul Krugman has recently been posting stuff about how Sanders' plans are mostly all promise and no substance and how Sanders' supporters are trying to enforce a litmus test mentality to the Democratic Party that echos the Republican establishment. They are not fans of the guy they liked and quoted so much just a little while ago call out some of (what he sees as) the bullshit.

But there's a big difference between saying that everyone was negligent and the Reagans began a national conversation.

Oh jeez, is this a thing now? @HillaryClinton telling us Hillary Clinton has a statement and then doing a screenshot of it? I guess I understand why we've gotten to that point in each individual action, but taken as a whole there's gotta be a better way to do things. :lol:

Preview of tomorrow's Super Tuesday II.

To recap: Clinton earned 506 delegates on Super Tuesday and Sanders earned 342. As of today, the earned total is 748-542.

Clinton has a 467-26 lead in pledged superdelegates, though the party is presumably sensitive to the damage this could do if Sanders were closer.

Clinton has 12 primary/caucus wins and Sanders has 9. All primaries and caucuses allocate delegates proportionally, which means it's hard to make up a 206-delegate lead.

Is this a real race?

If you look at the polls, no. Clinton has a huge lead in many upcoming states. She built her existing lead with large wins in southern states. These include 145-74 in Texas, 44-9 in Alabama, 30-4 in Mississippi.

Why, then, are Sanders supporters still quite energetic?

Michigan. Clinton led by 20-30 points in several of the Michigan polls the week before the March 8 vote and Sanders ended up winning. While he only knocked 7 delegates off of her lead (while giving up 26 in Mississippi), many experts have called this the biggest miss ever in modern American political polling.

Sanders supporters say this marked a turning point. And from now on, they will assume that Sanders is consistently under-polling.

If that's the case, the geography helps him. The South has mostly voted and the delegate-rich parts of the north and east have not. California remains.

Tomorrow, Florida (214), Illinois (156), Missouri (71), North Carolina (107) and Ohio (143) vote - a total of 691 delegates. Perhaps Sanders' last chance to make this a close race.

Now the reality: The RCP averages in these states - Florida (Clinton +29), Illinois (Clinton +2), Missouri (no significant polling, but what little is there suggests it's pretty much tied), North Carolina (Clinton +24), Ohio (Clinton +8).

If the polling is accurate, Clinton probably extends her lead by a good 100 delegates.

Is the Michigan effect real, then? I have no idea. There are very unusual racial and age divides in this contest. Young people, in particular, are behind the Sanders campaign. Young people are most likely not to have a land line, and cell-phone polling is very difficult. So creating a model for turnout in a vote where traditional extrapolations may not apply is very difficult.

We certainly saw that in Michigan. Clinton was +21 RCP and none of the 15 polls taken this year had her below 50% or Sanders above 44%. He won, 50-48.

But we can't lose sight of what happened in Mississippi on the same day. Clinton was +44 RCP and won, 83-17 (when polls show leads like that, the final outcome isn't considered that big a miss).

So I don't know if the Michigan effect is real. I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders won Illinois and Missouri by a few points. But I would be surprised if Clinton didn't win Florida and North Carolina comfortably. That leaves Ohio.

This week, in Ohio, a judge gave the vote to 17-year-olds. This will be an interesting race.

Obviously, most of the attention is going to the Republicans right now, but a Sanders win in Ohio, while it wouldn't threaten Clinton's lead, would keep the narrative alive that the momentum could shift with the geography and there's potential for larger Sanders wins down the road, crowned with a 70-30 win in California that forces superdelegates to think again.

While this type of shift is highly unlikely, it's all Sanders has right now. Clinton is about 99% certain of the nomination unless the FBI situation changes.

An Ohio judge reinstated the right to vote to 17 year olds. It's been that way in Ohio for years prior and it was changed this past December when Kasich decided to run. It was a total crock of a change.

Not all 17 year olds. Just ones that will be 18 by the time of the General Election on Nov. 8th.

Yes. That's the case. 17-year-olds may participate in votes that nominate candidates for elections that will take place when they are 18.

The Secretary of State interpreted this as not applicable to the primary, since delegates are "elected" rather than candidates nominated.

It was an odd interpretation, and the judge probably made the right decision under the law.

Hillary Clinton has a massive lead right now in Florida 66%-31% with over 50% in... that's going to be a massive delegate haul.

Also the CNN Exit polls showing about 10 point leads for Clinton in both North Carolina and Ohio.

Early returns show a reality check for Sanders. Strong support, but not country-wide or game-changing.

Clinton wins Florida and North Carolina... it looks like NC may be a blowout as well.

Ohio so far looks same. I am wondering how much longer Sanders stays in it? I am thinking maybe till April, when he loses NY and the delegates are almost enough to nominate Hillary .

He has the money to stay in all the way. But probably right away he will return to where he was a couple of months ago - less on the attack, more trying to influence policy. He wants that big early speech at the convention and Democrats want his supporters excited about November. It's not good for the party for him to drop out.

I think the race will return to more of the coronation Debbie W-S envisioned from the beginning.

Honestly, I think it's good politics to give him an early speech. Keep his supporters involved, and anything he says that might put off swinging GE voters will be forgotten by the time the convention is over.


You mean the coronation we all envisioned, right?

Things I'm fascinated by today: Looking back over my Facebook feed for the last few weeks, the friends I've got who have self-identified as conservatives have posted easily 10:1 stuff about socialism is for idiots/Bernie is an idiot/Bernie's supporters are idiots.

The volume has even picked up since Tuesday's results.

I get it that Bernie has gotten under their skins. What I don't get is why they're focusing all of their attention on the guy who has almost no chance of coming out of the process as the nominee. It's like they're living in a general election fantasyland that has Ted Cruz going up against Bernie Sanders.

Is it because they assume that people already hate Hillary Clinton and so that doesn't even have to be explained? Or do they lay awake at night worrying that Bernie is the first ideological wave sent against us by our soon-to-be Canadian overlords?

I think its a reaction to the massive amount of pro-Bernie posts on Facebook. It's ridiculous how all over Facebook the BernieBots are.

This.

That makes sense, I guess.

I've only got five or six Bernie fans on my Facebook feed (where I define "fans" as people who actually post things about politics), so it could be that I've just got an abnormal feed. I've pretty much hidden all of the overly political folks I've friended over the years.

It's interesting how different our perspectives can be about what people are thinking just based upon our facebook wall. I have about 275 facebook friends and only 2 post anything supporting any conservative politics - my aunt in Georga, and a ex-military guy who posts a lot of news and video of terrorist being killed. There are no open Trump supporters, not even any open Clinton supporters. 100% of the of the political posts (maybe 20-30 people make most of those), aside from the one aunt, are all pro-Sanders, all the time.