urbanMSP

There's plenty to criticizer her about and little of it is inherently sexists.

But there is also a long history of gendered criticism of her - about pants suits and her appearance and whatnot - that's also in play, and then the baseline of "structural" misogyny (if that's a thing) too.

I think it is important to recognize that legacy of sexist critique (and I say so as a Bernie supporter). It's especially evident when I hear the complete disdain for her by some conservatives, even moreso than their disdain of liberal men. For example, not even wanting to listen to her voice, or commenting on her pantsuits, or criticizing her family choices during Bill's public mishaps, etc. There are plenty of conservatives who simply don't believe that a woman should be president, as well... I remember hearing that at a family function back in 2008, right before Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate...

If you don’t believe sexism plays any role in her unfavorability that’s fine.

It's not really fine. If someone does not believe this, they are pretty darn clueless.

My personal distaste for her is not based on that and I'm not going to support someone I distrust just to make a point that sexism is wrong. It is very wrong, but I feel like expecting people to vote for her just because she's a woman and ignoring all the shady things about her is doing even more of a disservice to women by reducing the issue to something so simplistic.

The Sanders campaign has tipped past 3 million individual donations in the last couple days. I'm not sure how many people that works out to be, though (many people have donated more than once).

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor ... /79494600/

Bernie now has secret service protection.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/01/30/ ... rotection/

Required reading for anyone discussing "Sexism" in the context of this thread:

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the ... -activism/

Greenwald's operation criticizing journalist behavior is precious.

Greenwald's operation criticizing journalist behavior is precious.

Especially when his article is premised on an assertion that he not only doesn't prove, but is manifestly deceptive.

Required reading for anyone discussing "Sexism" in the context of this thread:

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the ... -activism/

Yeah, that thing is total crap. Yes, there's all kind of abuse online, but you can't just waive away what women and people of color tell you is happening because you like the candidate in whose favor it's happening.

And while people in some minority groups are, just like in offline life, lavished with special, noxious forms of online abuse — people of color, LGBTs, women, Muslims — that has been true in basically every online realm long before Bernie Sanders announced that he would rudely attempt to impede Hillary Clinton’s coronation. There are countless articles documenting the extra-vitriolic abuse directed at women and minorities for many years before “the Sanders campaign” existed.

Pretending that abusive or misogynistic behavior is unique to Sanders supporters is a blatant, manipulative scam, as anyone who ever used the internet before 2015 knows. Do pro-Clinton journalists really believe that Sanders-supporting women, or LGBTs, or people of color, are exempt from this online abuse from Clinton supporters, that this only happens to people who support Clinton? (In 2008, Krugman used the same tactic on behalf of the Clinton campaign by claiming that Obama supporters were particularly venomous and cult-like.)

The criticism of Bernie's online support amounts insubstantial handwringing bullshit that some make to be more important than material politics. Progressives who support Clinton realize that there is not much of a case to be made for Clinton over Sanders, it is much easier to go after anonymous, unaffiliated internet denizens than to defend the Clinton candidacy.

The criticism of Bernie's online support amounts insubstantial handwringing bullshit that some make to be more important than material politics.

I've really tried to stay away from snark on this, but I'm sorry, whether it's you or Glenn Greenwald, you don't get to tell the women and people of color who are telling you that they are receiving disproportionate harassment from Sanders supporters that they aren't really experiencing that.

This denial. It's not helping.

ETA: In particular because yes, the online behavior of his supporters should be inconsequential.

Of course Clinton partisans receive more criticism from Sanders supporters, what do you expect? Sanders supporters are much less likely to have a broad platform than Clinton supporter. That's the breaks when you are not the establishment candidate.

Instead of advancing Clinton's policy positions, which is hard to do, they complain about tone. There is nothing objective that Sanders supporters are especially bad, other than the largely professional media that nominally supports Clinton.

Jeez...

The criticism of Bernie's online support amounts insubstantial handwringing bullshit that some make to be more important than material politics.

I've really tried to stay away from snark on this, but I'm sorry, whether it's you or Glenn Greenwald, you don't get to tell the women and people of color who are telling you that they are receiving disproportionate harassment from Sanders supporters that they aren't really experiencing that.

This denial. It's not helping.

ETA: In particular because yes, the online behavior of his supporters should be inconsequential.

I'm honestly not sure why we would expect a person supporting X to receive an equal amount of harassment from others supporting X as they would from those supporting not X.

Oh the cognitive dissonance.

Also, a note (since I don't think it was mentioned in the article): Bernie has more support among young women than young men. His lead among young women is something like 20% over Hillary, but only 5% among young men.

Fundraising figures were filed yesterday by the various campaigns to show their donations and spending for the 4th quarter of 2015. Clinton moved into first position, topping Jeb Bush, who has had a massive amount of money put up through Super PACs.

As measured by traditional donations, Clinton and Sanders rank first and second with $116 million and $75 million, respectively, though Clinton is supported by another nearly $48 million is PAC/Super PAC dollars. A couple Super PACs technically exist supporting Sanders, though their gathering/spending amounts to a rounding error. Bush goes beyond being the reverse image of Clinton, with almost $124 million in PAC money, but only $32 million gathered through his campaign. Surprisingly, the third-ranked candidate for traditional campaign donations appears to be Ben Carson.

The Huckabee, O'Malley, Santorum, and Gilmore campaigns are at the bottom of the fundraising report and had very little cash on hand at the end of the year, so I imagine any or all of them will drop out soon. Trump remains near the bottom in fundraising through the end of the year.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... -race.html

Poor Martin O'Malley. I wanted him to be so much more as a candidate, but it turned out he's way more boring/uninspiring than anyone could have imagined. I wanted him to be so much more in the Democratic race. You would think, in this Democratic race in 2016, that there would be a place for someone who is not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, but slots between them politically. You would think there's a place for someone with an electable face and relatively clean, straightforward record. It just seems impossible to me that 100% of anti-Clinton Democrats would wind up in the Sanders camp. What the hell went wrong?

That said, I hope he's able to stick around a bit longer. Just in case anything bad comes out about Clinton's emails. I don't think it benefits Democrats at all to just have Bernie standing alone heading into the convention.

Iowa Precinct Captain Revealed as Paid, Out-of-State Staffer for Clinton Campaign
http://usuncut.com/politics/busted-iowa ... -campaign/

Not sure what to think about that^, though of course the prospects of election fraud and that blizzard have been at the back of my mind.

I blame 2000 for the (maybe) over-abundant concern about election fraud, which is unfortunate (even though justified).

Rubio and Kasich have always been the two most dangerous candidates for Democrats. With Rubio's surprise close 3rd place finish, it is not hard to see him vault into the lead as soon as he picks up the majority of Bush (and eventually Kasich) supporters. Once the "establishment lane" is cleared of Bush, Kasich, and Christie, Rubio should have a pretty clear shot at victory over Trump and Cruz (splitting the racist crazies and evangelical crazies)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/ ... index.html

For the GOP establishment, Donald Trump's populist campaign is a non-starter. And Ted Cruz is loathed by the GOP party elite in Washington -- something he's happy to tout on the trail.

That leaves Rubio, and raises the stakes for New Hampshire, where he will aggressively argue he is the only viable alternative to Trump and Cruz and can unite the party unlike his more divisive rivals.

First, he needs to convince the party establishment to unite behind him. Campaign officials immediately began making the case that this is a three-person race and that the governors competing with him in New Hampshire -- John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie -- cannot win.

Clinton vs. Rubio?
Sanders vs. Rubio?

Really hard to say at this point who has a better shot. The only thing certain right now is that Clinton will need a Latino VP (Julian Castro seems likely) and Sanders needs a woman and/or person of color and/or person of youth and/or southerner/westerner

With essentially every person in Congress not named Keith Ellison having endorsed Clinton already, have Sanders supporters / campaign leaders given much thought to who could be his VP?