Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[Johnny Canuck3]

Huge split between older and younger blacks in the Democratic Primary

Sanders, according to the exit polls in these states, received 52 percent of the votes of African-Americans under 30, compared to 47 percent for Clinton.

52/47: yep; that's pretty huge.

 

[J Ed]

52/47: yep; that's pretty huge.

In comparison to older black voters it is, yes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In no way can a 5% difference be accurately - nor honestly - be described as 'huge'.

 

[Yossarian]

I just don't think that this is true, and in any case it is hardly comparable, the Sanders campaign did not ever really have the ability to micro-target in the way the Clinton campaign did. A lot of the GOTV and other campaigning techniques the Sanders campaign used basically consisted of using reddit to coordinate phone banking. In terms of that outreach, the campaign had dedicated teams of Spanish speakers, Arabic speakers for states like Michigan etc

That's another good point to be honest, Bernie Sanders absolutely cleaned up with the Muslim vote across the US during the primaries. Where are all these discussions about how Islamophobic Clinton is?

Why make so many excuses for him? I like Bernie Sanders, he was the best presidential candidate in many years - if I was an American, I'd have voted for him and probably volunteered for his campaign, and if he led a guerrilla army in the hills of Vermont to resist the Trump regime, I'd be tempted to sign up, but I can still acknowledge that his failure to appeal to black voters probably cost him the nomination, and it's not all Hillary Clinton's fault.

 

[J Ed]

In no way can a 5% difference be accurately - nor honestly - be described as 'huge'.

Good thing the headline isn't referring to a 5% split, isn't it?

 

[J Ed]

Why make so many excuses for him? I like Bernie Sanders, he was the best presidential candidate in many years - if I was an American, I'd have voted for him and probably volunteered for his campaign, and if he led a guerrilla army in the hills of Vermont to resist the Trump regime, I'd be tempted to sign up, but I can still acknowledge that his failure to appeal to black voters probably cost him the nomination, and it's not all Hillary Clinton's fault.

I'm not really making excuses, I really think that with the resources Bernie Sanders had and with the overwhelmingly hostile, pro-Clinton media which in many ways was quite successful in smearing Sanders as a racist and sexist there was very little else that he could have done. What did Sanders do or not do that you think he should have or shouldn't have?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Here's a more honest analysis of the same facts as presented in the NBC article:

Black voters under 30 are slightly more in favor of Bernie Sanders, with older blacks supporting Hilary Clinton by a wide margin.

Fifty-two percent of blacks under 30 are in favor of Sanders, with forty-seven percent supporting Clinton.

Old and young black voters prefer different Democratic candidates

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It also looks like the numbers vary depending on which poll or media outlet one consults.

But among the black voters younger than 40, half said they would probably vote for Sanders, compared with 34 percent for Clinton. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/among-some-black-voters-a-generational-divide-on-clinton-vs-sanders/

As of March, forty-three per cent of black Democratic voters under the age of thirty had supported Sanders in this election cycle, according to Leah Wright Rigueur, a professor of public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,

Clinton, Sanders, and the Myth of a Monolithic “Black Vote”

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Not to mention that almost all of these pollsters, pundits and prognosticators predicted that Trump would lose the election. They even had the polls to back themselves up with.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Of course Bernie Sanders isn't a racist any more than he is a Goldman Sachs lobbyist, and it's a smear to suggest his supporters are racist.

But the articles CRI links to raise some valid points - black voters went for Clinton over Sanders by big margins in many areas and she completely swept the Democratic primaries in the South - if Sanders had been able to deliver a message that resonated with black voters in states like Alabama and Georgia, he might be president now.

One message from this election is that you can't succeed without appealing to white voters in the Rust Belt; another is that you can't win the Democratic nomination without appealing to black voters in red states.

Many of the Americans I know could barely believe that Clinton won the nomination and suspected the fact that Sanders held massive rallies in New York and California was evidence that there was election fraud in the Democratic primaries - but those people were mostly white guys in their early 40s just like myself, I think I would have seen a very different take on things if my social circle included more black American women in their 60s.

He posted those links as supposed evidence of Sanders' racism. That's what I have a problem with.

 

[Yossarian]

I'm not really making excuses, I really think that with the resources Bernie Sanders had and with the overwhelmingly hostile, pro-Clinton media which in many ways was quite successful in smearing Sanders as a racist and sexist there was very little else that he could have done. What did Sanders do or not do that you think he should have or shouldn't have?

He would probably have done better to embrace the Black Lives Matter message sooner, I don't think his image ever recovered from when he got hustled to the sidelines in Seattle that time.

He doesn't seem to have built that strong an organization in Southern states or even to have contested them that strongly, which is probably what cost him the nomination. He is an elderly Jew from Brooklyn and talking to young black people in Mississippi probably comes as naturally to him as surfing giant waves in Hawaii, but it seems like there was some effort lacking there.

He could have embraced a stronger gun control message, despite his votes as a senator from Vermont - Hillary Clinton was able to outflank him on the issue.

He also could have bypassed Clinton and taken the fight to Trump a lot more than he did, Trump-Sanders debates would have been a fine thing to behold and as we all now know, Donald Trump is easy as fuck to wind up, if Trump had started tweeting a lot about "Crazy Bernie," it would have dominated media coverage for days and sent the message that the real battle could be between two outsiders: The one who walks it like he talks it, and the one who ran Trump University.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

More statistics:

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Looks like the US is planning to hit back at the Russians - at least for now.

Barack Obama has warned that the US will retaliate for Russian cyberattacks during the presidential election.

In an interview on National Public Radio on Friday morning, the US president said he is waiting for a final report he has ordered into a range of Russian hacking attacks, but promised there would be a response.

“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action,” Obama said. “And we will – at a time and place of our own choosing.

“Some of it may be explicit and publicised; some of it may not be.”

Barack Obama promises retaliation against Russia over hacking during US election

 

[J Ed]

He would probably have done better to embrace the Black Lives Matter message sooner, I don't think his image ever recovered from when he got hustled to the sidelines in Seattle that time.

He doesn't seem to have built that strong an organization in Southern states or even to have contested them that strongly, which is probably what cost him the nomination. He is an elderly Jew from Brooklyn and talking to young black people in Mississippi probably comes as naturally to him as surfing giant waves in Hawaii, but it seems like there was some effort lacking there.

He could have embraced a stronger gun control message, despite his votes as a senator from Vermont - Hillary Clinton was able to outflank him on the issue.

He also could have bypassed Clinton taken the fight to Trump a lot more than he did, Trump-Sanders debates would have been a fine thing to behold and as we all now know, Donald Trump is easy as fuck to wind up, if Trump had started tweeting a lot about "Crazy Bernie," it would have dominated media coverage for days and sent the message that the real battle could be between two outsiders: The one who walks it like he talks it, and the one who ran Trump University.

On the BLM thing, Sanders employed a BLM activist as his press secretary and was the first major candidate to endorse the movement. His political platform in general, and his racial justice platform specifically, is the only platform of a major candidate to basically adhere to what the NAACP classifies as reparations. Compare that to Bill Clinton who accused BLM activists of supporting killers, a common right-wing trope. Clinton also had BLM people kicked out of her events.





On the Southern states thing, I agree with you to an extent but that is down to resources. He knew he wouldn't win these states so didn't bother trying to campaign here, remember this is an entirely crowdsourced campaign that no one expected to win in a single state.

On guns, I don't know whether that would have helped or not. Clinton outflanked Obama from the right in 2008 on that, so I would assume that if Sanders took a more pro gun control message then she would have done the same again rather than implying, as she did in 2016, that New York was being flooded with guns from Vermont.



Sanders offered to debate Trump one on one at a Fox News held debate, Trump pulled out.

 

[Yossarian]

Sanders offered to debate Trump one on one at a Fox News held debate, Trump pulled out.

Yep, that's why I said it would have been a fine thing to behold, Sanders should definitely have called Trump out for backing out of his promise to debate him.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How so, to keep Japan in line?

No, to keep Japan protected. Japan can't defend themselves, and even if they were still a primary military power, they don't have the resources to sustain the force projection a primary military power would require. The military machine in place in the 30s and 40s required the resources of Korea and Manchuria to sustain it, so once those states were lost/liberated, the Japanese empire was on a hiding to nothing. Same with modern Japan. The state realises (and realised long ago) that much as the US presence on Okinawa is resented and even hated, that presence provides a very effective shield behind which Japanese capitalism (and therefore global capitalism) can function.

 

[camouflage]

No, to keep Japan protected. Japan can't defend themselves, and even if they were still a primary military power, they don't have the resources to sustain the force projection a primary military power would require. The military machine in place in the 30s and 40s required the resources of Korea and Manchuria to sustain it, so once those states were lost/liberated, the Japanese empire was on a hiding to nothing. Same with modern Japan. The state realises (and realised long ago) that much as the US presence on Okinawa is resented and even hated, that presence provides a very effective shield behind which Japanese capitalism (and therefore global capitalism) can function.

Where would the threat to Japan come from do you think, China, Russia or North Korea?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where would the threat to Japan come from do you think, China, Russia or North Korea?

Not a threat to Japan as a territory and/or people, but a threat to Japanese capitalism.
As I mentioned, IMO the state's economy has been dependent on importation of raw materials since "modernisation" in the 19th century. A blockade a la WW2 (which wasn't wholly effective, but effective enough) of shipping would fuck the Japanese economy badly, as it still relies on manufacturing for a reasonable slice (about a quarter) of its GDP. The primary threat of this would probably come from China, hence the virulent resistance against Chinese "facts on the ground" with regard to the artificial islands. The US presence on Okinawa has historically been both a curb on Japanese militarism, and a declaration of intent with regard to defending capitalism's interests against Chinese and Russian muscle-flexing, and China's territorial claims are an example of muscle-flexing par excellence, as well as testing the willingness of the US and Japan to defend their interests.

North Korea's threat isn't about economics as a weapon, IMO. It's about using the threat of nuclear missiles to a) secure NK's border against its enemies, and b) leverage aid and technical knowledge transmission from outside.

 

[camouflage]

Not a threat to Japan as a territory and/or people, but a threat to Japanese capitalism.
As I mentioned, IMO the state's economy has been dependent on importation of raw materials since "modernisation" in the 19th century. A blockade a la WW2 (which wasn't wholly effective, but effective enough) of shipping would fuck the Japanese economy badly, as it still relies on manufacturing for a reasonable slice (about a quarter) of its GDP. The primary threat of this would probably come from China, hence the virulent resistance against Chinese "facts on the ground" with regard to the artificial islands. The US presence on Okinawa has historically been both a curb on Japanese militarism, and a declaration of intent with regard to defending capitalism's interests against Chinese and Russian muscle-flexing, and China's territorial claims are an example of muscle-flexing par excellence, as well as testing the willingness of the US and Japan to defend their interests.

North Korea's threat isn't about economics as a weapon, IMO. It's about using the threat of nuclear missiles to a) secure NK's border against its enemies, and b) leverage aid and technical knowledge transmission from outside.

I think that as both China and Russia are fully interested capitalist parties as well- the whole Okinawa thing justified as to do with securing international trade amounts to bringing a shot-gun to a business meeting, not really something that's in the spirit of whatever's actually on the table if you're talking in terms of securing trade and commerce. If it was a business meeting attended by a mafia enforcer on the other hand.... ok maybe then it makes more sense.

 

[J Ed]

Seems like Obama thinks that the Russian 'hacking' stopped in September, though consummate liar and hack Donna Brazile does not agree.

'This Week' Transcript 12-18-16: Donna Brazile

RADDATZ: President Obama also said Friday that the cyber attacks stopped after he warned Putin at an international conference in September. You’ve been briefed on the party’s computer system.

Is that right, they stopped?

BRAZILE: No, they did not stop. They -- they came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security -- what I call infrastructure -- to stop them, but they constantly -- they came after us.

RADDATZ: So why do you think the president would say that?

BRAZILE: Look, I think the president is right to call for a full investigation. Every federal agency involved should be -- should put everything on the table, and the Democratic Party will put everything on the table. They came after us daily, hourly. And there were times when we thought they would penetrate us and we would have another breach. But we had a great...

RADDATZ: Do you think the president didn’t know they were continuing?

You said they were continuing.

BRAZILE: No, when I saw the president, I was a little disappointed that, you know -- we were under constant attack. We never felt comfortable. We didn’t know what was coming next. And, you know, this is not just about computers. This is harassment of individuals, it’s harassment of our candidates, harassment of our donors. We had stolen information, personal information. People were personally harassed.

RADDATZ: So are you disappointed in the president’s response?

BRAZILE: I am disappointed that we went through this process. The country went through this process...

RADDATZ: But are you disappointed in his response?

BRAZILE: You know, Martha, I don't -- this was -- we were attacked by a foreign adversary. And I think it's the responsibility of the government to help individual citizens as well as institutions, nonprofits, corporations, to protect us, to help protect...

 

[squirrelp]

Looks like the US is planning to hit back at the Russians - at least for now.
Barack Obama promises retaliation against Russia over hacking during US election

Propaganda.

Seems like Obama thinks that the Russian 'hacking' stopped in September, though consummate liar and hack Donna Brazile does not agree.

'This Week' Transcript 12-18-16: Donna Brazile

More propaganda.

It's brilliant isn't it? Create a controversy over a date the alleged hacking might have stopped, and treat as a given the notion that the hacking existed at all as a product of the Russian state.

So much more powerful than just saying "The Russians hacked us"

Repeat as much as possible

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Looks like the US is planning to hit back at the Russians - at least for now.


Barack Obama promises retaliation against Russia over hacking during US election

Given the number of times the US have fucked about with elections in what Putin presumably considers his sphere of influence, perhaps (assuming for a moment that Russia was doing what's being claimed) Russia was "hitting back" at the US?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Given the number of times the US have fucked about with elections in what Putin presumably considers his sphere of influence, perhaps (assuming for a moment that Russia was doing what's being claimed) he was "hitting back" at the US?

Quite possibly so; that doesn't mean that the US doesn't have an interest in trying to prevent such things from being carried out against themselves.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Quite possibly so; that doesn't mean that the US doesn't have an interest in trying to prevent such things from being carried out against themselves.

Well that's an interesting one isn't it? I mean, how do you take measures to prevent such things, without also preventing say Rupert Murdoch from doing them?

Indeed, how would one go about preventing them at all?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Good question; but one that's probably better answered by someone who knows something about hacking, computer and network security etc. - and that isn't me.

 

[J Ed]

Given the number of times the US have fucked about with elections in what Putin presumably considers his sphere of influence, perhaps (assuming for a moment that Russia was doing what's being claimed) Russia was "hitting back" at the US?

American exceptionalism is woke now

 

[yield]

American exceptionalism is woke now

lol.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's the issue, as I see it with 'preventing Russian hacker interference in US election'

What's being alleged I take to fall into three stages.

1) Hacked into some political organisations and personal systems, stole some potentially embarrassing shit and exfiltrated it.

What can you do about this?

Essentially nothing. If Russian spooks (or NSA, GCHQ et al) want to do this, not even other techno-spooks can reliably stop them, let alone civilians.

2) Packaged the potentially embarrassing shit up in such a way as to feed specific political narratives and put it out there by various means.

What can you do about this?

Only thing I can think of is some sort of Great Firewall of China sort of deal on top of what they're already doing to Chelsea Manning et al.

3) Generated media hype around the propaganda material and got loads of high-profile links to it.

What can you do about this?

Gin up some sort of legal mandate for making Google et al impose political filters on how their search algorithms behave and/or arrest anyone who links to whatever your political persuasion views as 'fake news' sites.

In other words, I don't think 'preventing it' sounds practicable without descending further into totalitarianism. Would you put such capabilities in the hands of whoever happens to get elected?

 

[J Ed]

lol.

In:

Coups and drones
Arms manufacturers
American exceptionalism
Hating poor people
Bombing black and brown people (outside of USA only, well sort of)
Charter Schools
The CIA

Out:

Unions
Social democracy
Redistribution of wealth
Single payer
Solidarity
The cowardly, uninnovative Slav
The FBI

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Here's the issue, as I see it.

Is the answer then for the US to ignore it?

You mention that the US has pulled off similar meddling in the affairs of other countries. Should other countries ignore US meddling?