2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo for which candidate do you think the AP announcement will have the most negative effect?
In the Hillary forums, they're pissed because they think Hillary's voters may not bother to vote because she has it sewn up, and in the Bernie forums, canvassers are saying his supporters are saying there is no reason to come out and vote now as well.
For those of you who have followed calls like this in the past, has it adversely impacted one side more than the other?
13 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
Hillary | |
9 (69%) |
|
Bernie | |
4 (31%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Native
(5,940 posts)brooklynite
(94,502 posts)This is meaningless.
dchill
(38,472 posts)They wouldn't have done it.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)dchill
(38,472 posts)Now more than ever. Don't you?
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Often the term conspiracy is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against overheating the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed? In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.
At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent? I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that free-market reforms are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies (New York Times 11/25/95).
Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: Do you actually think theres a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things? For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot though they call it planning and strategizing and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.
Yet there are individuals who ask with patronising, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.
The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.
-- Michael Parenti, Dirty Truths (1996, City Lights Books)
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)And reporting their findings.
Ace Rothstein
(3,160 posts)This won't even be something people are talking about a week from now.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)It was a risky move.
Duval
(4,280 posts)It was not a cool move.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)it sucked then...and it sucks now
But the ballot has other races and unless voters are completely uninformed...they will vote for the other races. So they will still turn out to vote.
Native
(5,940 posts)ticket won't matter as much for them and therefor won't be as much of a catalyst to vote as it would for Hillary's older supporters?
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)I have to believe that they understand the role of the Congress.
They should vote: it is better for Sanders role in the convention/party if his voters vote.
Native
(5,940 posts)Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)Because they won so they are happy. The Sanders crew has been angry all along and that can be motivating.
If Hillary wins CA by 20 maybe I'm wrong. If she loses it by 5 or more I am right.
Native
(5,940 posts)Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)It probably has no major effect in CA. It could be bigger in NJ, NM, and the other states.
Native
(5,940 posts)I'm only asking because that benchmark could be a jumping point from which to determine which party was impacted most negatively by this announcement. I also read that over 60% of CA's ballots are typically mail-in.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:11 AM - Edit history (2)
And Hillary had some momentum coming off the speech. Her campaign predicted victory yesterday. Bernies campaign whispered end times. So I think it's fair to say she was the favorite.
The mail-in is an interesting point. She had a big lead with them. So if people don't show up she might win big.
Native
(5,940 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I think this has angered them even more. I think that might motivate them even more. Just for today.
I'm just not sure on this one. I really wish they would have announced this today instead of last night. I understand why they couldn't.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)It doesn't help us as a group and AP is notoriously republican friendly.
The problem for the press is that if any one of them announces it, the rest are forced to jump on board.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)and anyone who thinks Hillary somehow arranged this is crazy. This does NOT help her!
The media is not on our side - never has been. Remember the Bush years? Not on Hillary's side, not on Bernie's side. Not on any Democrat's side.
Native
(5,940 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I think it stinks but do understand why they did it. We frown upon the media for holding things back. We should. That being said, I do wish they would have held back. lol.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Some Hillary supporters are not as keyed in and the announcement will bolster their belief that she has it sewn up, so will be more likely to decide they have other priorities.
In other words, more of Hillary's supporters will walk off the playing field to go do other things.
I don't think the media announcement was positive for either side in the Dem primary. I think it hurts the eventual nominee because it adds to the bitterness and sense of unfairness. Not exactly helpful for promoting party unity.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There is simply too much known at this point. I would like to think I would go vote for Clinton if I lived in Cali. I would like to think Sanders supporters would do the same. I just don't see it happening.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Because they are very pissed with this call.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)It's tough to say who has more energized supporters. Past polls have shown Hillary with leads in enthusiasm. Maybe it's a wash. Not sure
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It will be interesting to see what Bernie decides to do in that case.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)It's no less over.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He could choose to fight on to the convention and refuse to suspend or endorse.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)Obviously he should suspend
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)measurable effect on today's primaries. This has been an over reaction IMO.