• Obama likely to endorse Clinton as early as this week
    33 replies, posted
[quote=Bloomberg]President Barack Obama spoke by phone with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as Obama prepares to endorse Hillary Clinton after she amasses the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination for president, according to people familiar with the matter. A person familiar with the call, who spoke on condition of anonymity, didn’t provide any additional detail about the discussion on Sunday between Obama and Sanders, who is trailing Clinton in the race for delegates. Obama could endorse Clinton as early as this week, though the timing hasn’t been set, according to another person, who asked for anonymity to discuss deliberations. Obama and Clinton aren’t scheduled to appear together this week. The president is speaking at a Democratic fundraiser Wednesday in New York, a day after the last six states hold nominating contests. But Obama’s plans suggest he, as the putative head of the party, is eager to ratify the choice of Clinton as nominee and head off any attempt by Sanders to drag the fight all the way to the Democratic nominating convention in July, as Sanders has threatened to do.[/quote] And a serious message for Bernie supporters thinking of jumping ship and going for Trump: [quote=Bloomberg]For the president, the best way to capitalize on that popularity is helping Clinton to get elected and secure some of his legacy-defining achievements. Trump has threatened to get rid of the president’s health-care program and exit the international climate change agreement the White House negotiated last year. A Republican administration would also likely use executive action to overturn steps Obama has taken on Wall Street regulation, normalizing relations with Cuba, increasing overtime pay, and strengthening protections for gay and transgender Americans.[/quote] Read more at [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-07/obama-sanders-said-to-speak-as-endorsement-of-clinton-planned[/url]
Of course he will. Obama is a democrat. He's got to put party unity first
So Obama will act like a sort of "peace broker" between these two.
[QUOTE=Chaitin;50469495]So Obama will act like a sort of "peace broker" between these two.[/QUOTE] Not really. More like asking for Sanders to drop out before the convention and to endorse Clinton too.
He'll endorse whoever the nominee is, just like it has always been. With the primaries getting close to the end, this isn't exactly shocking news.
Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from him anyway. He's just as much to blame for this fiasco as Hillary is for not reforming campaign finance. Now, I'm not going to even bother persuading people not to vote for Hillary or Trump. I'll let America destroy itself if that's what people want so badly. We deserve everything coming at us these next 8 years. This is like a broken washing machine that nobody wants to try to get rid of because its been around for so long.
[QUOTE=adamsz;50469532]Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from him anyway. He's just as much to blame for this fiasco as Hillary is for not reforming campaign finance. Now, I'm not going to even bother persuading people not to vote for Hillary or Trump. I'll let America destroy itself if that's what people want so badly. We deserve everything coming at us these next 8 years. This is like a broken washing machine that nobody wants to try to get rid of because its been around for so long.[/QUOTE] Sanders supporters remind me of McCain supporters in 2008. They all thought that Obama becoming president would mean the end of America. Then, it turns out that the president has much less power than he or she is estimated to have by most people and everything continues as usual.
Don't vote for Clinton just because Sanders lost. Don't vote for Trump because he's not Clinton. Don't vote.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50469614]Don't vote for Clinton just because Sanders lost. Don't vote for Trump because he's not Clinton. Don't vote.[/QUOTE] Or alternatively, vote for the candidate whose platform and record most closely aligns with Sanders. [I](Clinton)[/I]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50469608]Sanders supporters remind me of McCain supporters in 2008. They all thought that Obama becoming president would mean the end of America. Then, it turns out that the president has much less power than he or she is estimated to have by most people and everything continues as usual.[/QUOTE] Obama wasn't a Neo-Fascist or suspected of selling secrets to foreign nations.
[QUOTE=DFC;50469685]Or alternatively, vote for the candidate whose platform and record most closely aligns with Sanders. [I](Clinton)[/I][/QUOTE] Well, there is Jill Stein, but she has never held a political office, as far as I know. I like it when people are aligned with me politically, but I also need people with experience, which Bernie Sanders had a lot of.
[QUOTE=DFC;50469685]Or alternatively, vote for the candidate whose platform and record most closely aligns with Sanders. [I](Clinton)[/I][/QUOTE] No, that's stupid. You shouldn't vote for someone because of their "platform" which she will ditch in favor of her donors anyways. You should vote for someone who has the will and ambition to lead the country into greatness. Hillary wants to be president. Donald Trump wants to make America great again.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470784]No, that's stupid. You shouldn't vote for someone because of their "platform" which she will ditch in favor of her donors anyways. You should vote for someone who has the will and ambition to lead the country into greatness. Hillary wants to be president. Donald Trump wants to make America great again.[/QUOTE] Again with the obssession with 'donors'. Care to provide hard evidence for the effect of donors on campaigns? I posted about their minimal impact in another thread. [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/[/url] Most politicians keep their promises. This doesn't mean they are honest. This means, however, that most of what is said will be (or at least attempted to be) done. Why would Clinton be any different to any other shady establishment politician before her.
[QUOTE=DFC;50469685]Or alternatively, vote for the candidate whose platform and record most closely aligns with whatever is popular at the moment. [I](Clinton) [sp]Subject to change anytime, results may vary[/sp] [/I][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DFC;50469685]Or alternatively, vote for the candidate whose platform and record most closely aligns with Sanders. [I](Clinton)[/I][/QUOTE] [I]Green Party[/I]
[QUOTE=DFC;50469685]Or alternatively, vote for the candidate whose platform and record most closely aligns with Sanders. [I](Clinton)[/I][/QUOTE] Vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating trump. [I](Clinton)[/I]
the people going about "politics as usual" don't really get the problem
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470784]No, that's stupid. You shouldn't vote for someone because of their "platform" which she will ditch in favor of her donors anyways. You should vote for someone who has the will and ambition to lead the country into greatness. Hillary wants to be president. Donald Trump wants to make America great again.[/QUOTE] This sounds like actual satire.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50470885]Again with the obssession with 'donors'. Care to provide hard evidence for the effect of donors on campaigns? I posted about their minimal impact in another thread. [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/[/url] Most politicians keep their promises. This doesn't mean they are honest. This means, however, that most of what is said will be (or at least attempted to be) done. Why would Clinton be any different to any other shady establishment politician before her.[/QUOTE] Donors dictate the platform. The Republicans wouldn't be so anti climate change if they weren't being funded by oil interests
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50470885]Again with the obssession with 'donors'. Care to provide hard evidence for the effect of donors on campaigns? I posted about their minimal impact in another thread. [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/[/url] Most politicians keep their promises. This doesn't mean they are honest. This means, however, that most of what is said will be (or at least attempted to be) done. Why would Clinton be any different to any other shady establishment politician before her.[/QUOTE] It may not be a campaign donor, but her [url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals]signing arms deals with countries that donated to her fund[/url] is so out there that I wouldn't trust her at all not to favor her donors once she gets in office.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50471860]Donors dictate the platform. The Republicans wouldn't be so anti climate change if they weren't being funded by oil interests[/QUOTE] Many Republicans don't (publicly) acknowledge climate change because that's exactly what their electorate thinks. it doesn't matter that oil interests may finance their campaigns. What matters is a lot of people, a lot of votes, don't believe in climate change. There's this misconception that private campaign financing amounts to bribing politicians to change their policies one way or another, whereas what's actually happening is that private financing is offered to politicians who already have those policies.
[QUOTE=DFC;50469685]Or alternatively, vote for the candidate whose platform and record most closely aligns with Sanders. [I](Clinton)[/I][/QUOTE] Or alternatively, vote for the candidate who isnt the principal subject of an fbi investigation. Obama wont endorse shillary until july 25th when the primaries are actually over
[QUOTE=catbarf;50471914]It may not be a campaign donor, but her [url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals]signing arms deals with countries that donated to her fund[/url] is so out there that I wouldn't trust her at all not to favor her donors once she gets in office.[/QUOTE] sb27 said all that needs to be said. [QUOTE=Sableye;50471860]Donors dictate the platform. The Republicans wouldn't be so anti climate change if they weren't being funded by oil interests[/QUOTE] Correlation =/= causation. Additionally, we were already making arms deals with almost all of these countries before Clinton as most are long-standing allies. Shitty source trying to 'follow the money' which is the pinnacle of bad journalism unless you have actual, proper proof. [QUOTE][B]Campaign Donations[/B] This ties in closely with the above, and will be much shorter. Firstly, money is useless if it cannot deliver a victory. If people don’t like an idea, then people won’t vote for you. Secondly, money in a campaign has limited effectiveness. Once you have achieved name recognition, there is very little evidence that political ads have any effect upon voting. Thirdly, campaign donations have very limited effects on politicians. Politicians voting records are almost entirely based upon their own beliefs and their party. This study is from 2002 by Ansolabehere et al: 'An additional $60,000 in corporate PAC contributions (approximately one standard deviation) changes the voting score by at most 2 points; an additional $50,000 in labor PAC contributions changes the voting score by 6 point. By comparison, changing the party of a district’s representative changes the voting score by more than 30 points… Controlling for voters’ preferences using district fixed effects almost completely eliminates the effects of contributions on legislative voting, in both the OLS and IV estimates… Using legislator fixed effects eliminates the effects of contributions entirely, in both the OLS and IV. The estimated coefficients are tiny and statistically insignificant. Evidently, changes in donations to an individual legislator do not translate into changes in that legislator’s roll call voting behavior.' Essentially, there is almost no effect of campaign donations upon voting behaviour. Additionally, a large proportion of that money comes from politically interested individuals who want to promote a political cause they support. How was it self-interested for Murdo Fraser to try and fund a campaign against repealing laws against homosexuality in Scotland? How is George Soros really acting in his own interest? Many wealthy individuals support the Republicans – but are they doing this because they are self-interested or because they believe disproportionately in the beliefs of the Republican Party as a result of their background? I believe that campaign donations (unlike lobbying) have no effect on politics, or close to no effect. I think one effect they do have is that certain wealthy individuals are able to gain access to politicians reliably in a way in which the average person does not. However, these people are usually gaining this access not for corrupt reasons, but because they are politically interested and want to donate to the cause. General campaign donations aren’t the same as lobbying groups, which lobby directly on behalf of causes. Instead they are from enthusiastic parties who want to push their politics, though mostly ineffectively given that there is no proof that political ads are effective.[/QUOTE] I would really like a response to [URL="https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-longest-post-ever-on-piketty/"]this[/URL] from the 'bought system' crowd.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470784]No, that's stupid. You shouldn't vote for someone because of their "platform" which she will ditch in favor of her donors anyways. You should vote for someone who has the will and ambition to lead the country into greatness. Hillary wants to be president. Donald Trump wants to make America great again.[/QUOTE] [I]Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. [/I]
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50469614]Don't vote for Clinton just because Sanders lost. Don't vote for Trump because he's not Clinton. Don't vote.[/QUOTE] Vote for Jill Stein then. [QUOTE=sb27;50472056]Many Republicans don't (publicly) acknowledge climate change because that's exactly what their electorate thinks. it doesn't matter that oil interests may finance their campaigns. What matters is a lot of people, a lot of votes, don't believe in climate change. There's this misconception that private campaign financing amounts to bribing politicians to change their policies one way or another, whereas what's actually happening is that private financing is offered to politicians who already have those policies.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting that large donations get them [B]access[/B] to politicians. Remember that $370k plate to sit with Hillary Clinton? Yeah, just like that. They are financing Hillary Clinton because when they say "jump" she'll say "how high" because to not do so is to die.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50472448]Vote for Jill Stein then. You're forgetting that large donations get them [B]access[/B] to politicians. Remember that $370k plate to sit with Hillary Clinton? Yeah, just like that. They are financing Hillary Clinton because when they say "jump" she'll say "how high" because to not do so is to die.[/QUOTE] Okay, great, and I acknowledged this. You still haven't shown me (or anyone) any proper proof about the actual impact of campaign donations on government. Probably because you have none.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50472448]Vote for Jill Stein then. You're forgetting that large donations get them [B]access[/B] to politicians. Remember that $370k plate to sit with Hillary Clinton? Yeah, just like that. They are financing Hillary Clinton because when they say "jump" she'll say "how high" because to not do so is to die.[/QUOTE] Yeah they get access to politicians because they are paying handsomely for very valuable time. Politicians are always busy, especially while campaigning. I would wager that millions of people would love to spend an hour of time to sit in a room with Hillary and have a proper conversation with her. But there's only one Hillary, and supply and demand is a thing. If sitting in a room with her costs $100, millions would take that offer. If it were $1,000, then maybe thousands would take that offer. If it were $100,000 or more, then perhaps only a few dozen people will. Hillary can't meet everyone, so voila, she prices herself to the point where demand equals supply, which as we see is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's obviously a different approach taken by Sanders, where instead he prefers the other end of supply and demand with massive audiences paying little per head. But no one in those audiences gets lengthy one-on-one time with Sanders. Hillary's campaigning is pretty much having the rich subsidise her campaigning, rather than relying on the poor to do so. And yet again, these people are donating to Hillary not because they want to bribe her to change policy one way or another, but because they already agree with her. These donors probably align with Sanders too, but Sanders is seen as not as electable, lacks the know-how to implement his policies, and the prospect of helping elect the first woman President in US history is too enticing. If all it takes to change a politician's stance is to 'bribe' them by financing their campaign and asking for a favour here or there, how come the Republicans don't 'bribe' the Democrats?
[QUOTE=orgornot;50470784]No, that's stupid. You shouldn't vote for someone because of their "platform" which she will ditch in favor of her donors anyways. You should vote for someone who has the will and ambition to lead the country into greatness. Hillary wants to be president. Donald Trump wants to make America great again.[/QUOTE] It's too bad for Trump that America never became not great to begin with.
[QUOTE=sb27;50472056]Many Republicans don't (publicly) acknowledge climate change because that's exactly what their electorate thinks. it doesn't matter that oil interests may finance their campaigns. What matters is a lot of people, a lot of votes, don't believe in climate change. There's this misconception that private campaign financing amounts to bribing politicians to change their policies one way or another, whereas what's actually happening is that private financing is offered to politicians who already have those policies.[/QUOTE] many republicans don't acknowledge publicly climate change because the official party platform has been for 30 years that it doesn't exist. the longer the charade goes on, the more people start to believe it, like ted cruz who held an actual event on capital hill where he invited a whole shebang of slezeball quacks to definitively disprove climate change. Big moneyed oil interests have been funding antiglobal warming publicity campaigns for decades now in an attempt to convince the electorate that its a partisan issue if you don't think donations affect policy then you're daft. Big oil funds the studies that the republicans use to defend their stance that global warming is a myth, which is a stance that convieniantly is very beneficial to the same industries that spawned the anti global warming studies to begin with. corporations don't donate massive sums to political parties for nothing, they donate with the intent to affect the platform, just as they spend billions lobbying the government normally. the elections and annual party platforms are just one more extension of lobbying. Additionally, lobbying groups have been shown to actually be writing the actual bills that republicans sponsor, word for word. [url]https://www.alec.org/model-policy/[/url] tell me how this is not lobbying actually affecting policy? these "model" bills have been used word for word in various state legislatures. this is litterally a republican lobbyist group writing actual legislation that then is enacted into law [url]http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/12/06-american-legislative-exchange-council-jackman[/url] [quote]This research shows that the American Legislative Exchange Council wields considerable influence in state legislatures. The bills that it writes find their way into the majority of state legislatures. [B] Moreover, the percentage of those bills that pass is strikingly high compared to the dismal rate at which all other bills are enacted into law.[/B][/quote] ALEC is one of the most well funded and powerful lobbying groups on the right. but of course, following the money is pointless too right? [quote]In 2010, ALEC received $100,000 each from AT&T, Allergan, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to be named as "president level" sponsors at its annual meeting.[17] Eleven other members, including Pfizer (PFE) and the Institute for Legal Reform, paid $50,000 each to be named as "chairman level" sponsors.[17] As of 2011, Altria, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and BP America were also $50,000 chairman level sponsors.[17] Exxon Mobil's foundation donated $30,000 to ALEC in both 2005 and 2006. Alan Jeffers, an Exxon Mobil spokesman, said the company paid $39,000 in dues in 2010 and sponsored a reception at the annual meeting in San Diego for $25,000. In August 2011, Exxon spent $45,000 to sponsor a workshop on natural gas.[128] According to the Center For Public Integrity, ALEC received $150,000 from Charles and David Koch in 2011.[129] Greenpeace claims that ALEC has received $525,858 from Koch foundations between 2005 and 2011.[130][/quote] so in summary. There is a lobbyist group that is funded by corporations like exxon, that is very much anti global warming, that is writing legislation that is then almost unanimously passed by republicans in state legislatures word for word, and has considerable influence over republican legislation in the house as they are often a consultant on bills on capital hill. This powerful agency is also funded by the same high dollar donors to the republican party. Now correlation isn't causality but when you have the legislatures and the legislation being funded by one group, it does seem that policy can be dictated by donations
Why are you conflating donations to politicians and lobbying, two different phenomena with different effects?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.