YUGE endorsement for HRC in WA

[mominatrix]

From The Stranger, where Dan Savage is the editor. It's THE bastion of progressive politics in Seattle. 


As you'd expect, the Bros are losing their shit on the FB page

=============


2016 DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS ENDORSEMENT MAR 23, 2016

Support the Real Progressive

The Stranger Election Control Board's Endorsement for the 2016 Democratic Caucuses

by Stranger Staff



DAVID WILSON

submit to reddit




You must caucus for Hillary.



At a time when the American right is captivated by a dangerous, racist demagogue with zero political experience, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only Democratic candidate with the ability to take him down and the backing of a diverse coalition that actually looks like the America that Donald Trump wants to deport, degrade, and dismiss.



Hillary is a walking refutation of Trumpism: a woman who has beat back bullies of all kinds over more than four decades of public service; a determined progressive whose first job out of law school was doing civil rights work for the Children's Defense Fund (the organization's founder, Marian Wright Edelman, is supporting her 2016 candidacy); an experienced leader who has fought for liberal ideals as first lady, US senator, and secretary of state.



Yeah, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks a good revolutionary game. But his failure to rally a diverse coalition, his history of selling out certain liberal ideals for political expediency, and his peddling of unrealistic promises make him wrong for this political moment.



Let's review.



More than 25 states have now weighed in on the Democratic race. The result: Hillary has a commanding lead over Bernie in terms of pledged convention delegates (a lead that stays commanding even if you factor out Clinton's large stash of pledged "superdelegates"). To catch up, Bernie would need to win the remaining primaries and caucuses by the kind of yuge margins that he's failed to consistently capture so far. Sorry, Bernie, it's not gonna happen.



More concerning: A large part of Bernie's poor performance so far traces back to his failure to win support from minority voters. Perhaps you've heard about Bernie's big "upset" in Michigan on March 8? Bernie won Michigan by a slim 1.5 percent margin overall but lost the state's black vote big time. Hillary won 65 percent of the black vote in Michigan. She also won more than 80 percent of the black vote in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, and nearly 70 percent of the black vote in Ohio. If Bernie is leading a revolution, it's an overwhelmingly white one. Bernie and his supporters should reflect on this failure. Black voters matter. Democrats don't win national elections without black voters, and they're speaking unambiguously in favor of Hillary.



As for Bernie's ideological purity: Please. Consider Bernie's votes against reasonable gun control. In debates with Hillary, he's basically admitted he voted against measures like the Brady Bill out of political expediency. But for someone who can read the political weather well enough to make craven compromises on gun control, Bernie is now making naive promises about getting massive new spending and tax increases through Congress. Remember: The Republicans currently control both houses of Congress. They need to keep control of only one chamber to prevent Bernie's pie-in-the-sky platform—as delicious as it may sound—from traveling any further than his lips.



While we're thinking about political revolutions, though, you know what's really revolutionary? Declaring, in 1992, that you won't be the kind of first lady to "stay at home and bake cookies." You know what else is revolutionary? Becoming first lady and deciding your job includes pushing a radical overhaul of our unjust American health-care system. You know what else is revolutionary? Going to the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 as first lady—over the objections of some of your husband's senior staff—and declaring, "Women's rights are human rights." You know what else is revolutionary? Being the first first lady to run for office, winning a Senate seat, and then becoming the first woman to launch a credible campaign for the office of the presidency of the United States. Twice.



Sure, Hillary is imperfect. She can be politically klutzy. She's not a natural politician, as she admitted in a recent debate, and she's made mistakes. She's also shown she can apologize and correct course. And for the most part, the Hillary behaviors that irk some Democrats actually point to her strengths, foremost among them her refusal to give up on making progress, somehow, even if getting there isn't always pretty.



This, fundamentally, is the difference between Bernie and Hillary. He offers self-serving paeans to uncompromising idealism from a safe harbor in which perpetual, righteous-sounding critique is viewed as its own victory. She offers the kind of grinding, determined pragmatism that gets results. Hillarycare, in time, became Obamacare. Hillary's bitter loss in the 2008 presidential election became her term as secretary of state under Barack Obama, the man who defeated her. (And take note, lefties: Paul Krugman, economist and NYT columnist beloved by progressives, has praised Obama for hiking taxes on the 1 percent. This happened even though Obama, like Hillary, took donations from Wall Street.)



Hillary's experience and depth of knowledge will allow her to wipe the debate floor with Donald Trump's orange face. She knows how to grind conservatives down to the bitter nubs of rage and resentment that they now represent. And despite what you may have heard, Hillary wants to overturn Citizens United, get us to health-care coverage for all, and block Keystone.



Hillary also has this: a shot at ending the patriarchal monopoly over running the richest and most powerful country on earth.



So don't be stupid. Don't be self-defeating. Don't play into the Republicans' hands.



Caucus for Hillary Clinton this Saturday. recommended



The SECB is Sydney Brownstone, Christopher Frizzelle, Angela Garbes, Jen Graves, Heidi Groover, Ansel Herz, Tim Keck, Ana Sofia Knauf, Eli Sanders, Dan Savage, and Rich Smith. This is not a unanimous endorsement.



www.thestranger.com/2016-democratic-caucus-endorsement/2016/03/23/23829365/support-the-real-progressive

[mominatrix]

grrr.


as it turns out, it depends which age you click. If you say you're younger, you get the Bernie endorsement.

what the actual fuck?

[sam19]

"Yeah, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks a good revolutionary game. But his failure to rally a diverse coalition, his history of selling out certain liberal ideals for political expediency, and his peddling of unrealistic promises make him wrong for this political moment."

^^^^ this. 100% This describes exactly how I feel about Bernie but couldn't put into words.

[centralsquare]

I love this. I love him. Yay.

[centralsquare]

Mar 23, 2016 18:01:33 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

grrr.


as it turns out, it depends which age you click. If you say you're younger, you get the Bernie endorsement.

what the actual fuck?

That is fucking weak.

[cookies]

On the plus side, I feel like her endorsement was more convincing.

[jigsy]

I was going to say that I was surprised...based on his podcast, I felt like he leaned a little toward Bernie, but has been very, very adamant that no matter who you'd prefer, whoever gets the nom needs your vote, which I appreciate.

[mominatrix]

here's the Sanders one:

Support the Real Progressive
The Stranger Election Control Board's Endorsement for the 2016 Democratic Caucuses
by Stranger Staff

DAVID WILSON
submit to reddit
You must caucus for Bernie.

Only Bernie Sanders can stand up to Donald Trump on Trump's terms and defeat him. Americans left, right, and center are saying, "You're right, everything is fucked!" The sense of how fucked it is drives disenfranchised whites to Trump and disenfranchised millennials to Bernie. Even suburban soccer moms are driving around with 99-percent bumper stickers on their Subarus, watching their kids graduate from expensive colleges into functional poverty.

Sanders is the only candidate who believes what we believe. He is the only candidate who believes what you believe. He knows what politics is about, he knows what's wrong with this country, and he's not for sale.

Let's review.

The toxic economic hierarchy of this nation has worn our democracy down to a dull, blistered nub. If we Americans take a goddamn minute to be honest with ourselves, there's no running from the unfuckwithable truth: Slavery, cultural genocide, and the exploitation of natural resources were the main ingredients in the Original Capitalism™ on which this country was founded. The current versions of capitalism being marketed by both parties—Red Bull Capitalism™ (the GOP) and Diet Capitalism™ (the Democratic Party)—are no longer acceptable alternatives.

Americans get that now—and Bernie's been saying it since 1981.

We do not for one second buy the widespread delusion that Hillary Clinton could actually beat the Donald—i.e., the only remotely plausible reason why anyone to the left of Nancy Reagan would caucus for her on March 26.

Interestingly, the only people on the Stranger Election Control Board who voted to endorse Hillary Clinton for president were men. Yeah, we were surprised too. Wouldn't it mean something to finally get a woman president?

Yes. We deserve a longer break from the chain of old presidential white men who promote dick-swinging mediocrity like it's genius and who view structural oppression like a foreign film. There's also the fact that you'd have to be a hater of good TV not to take pleasure in the idea of Hillary Clinton wiping the debate floor with Donald Trump's orange face.

But if you look at Hillary's record, you will notice something about her vaunted progressiveness: It's almost all her early work, later undone by her own neoliberal chameleon act. For example, Hillary touts her work at the Children's Defense Fund in the 1970s as evidence of her progressiveness. In the 1990s, the CDF condemned the welfare policies then-first lady Hillary Clinton supported as "a mockery of [Bill Clinton's] pledge not to hurt children."

Sanders, however, has spent the last quarter century taking positions the country has since caught up with and agreed with him on: voting against war in Iraq, voting against the Patriot Act, voting against the erosion of the Glass-Steagall Act (bank regulation), voting against NAFTA (which even Hillary now disavows). Eighteen years before Hillary decided it was no longer politically expedient to deny gay people rights, Sanders decried a Republican congressman for dissing "homos in the military." Surprisingly even to us, he's effective at forming left-right coalitions, too—like when he passed amendments limiting bailout fund standards to protect American workers and forcing white-collar criminals to notify victims who are eligible for restitution.

And then there's the trust issue. Not even Hillary's supporters trust her. Barack Obama said she had an "authenticity" problem when he was attempting to praise her last week.

Hillary Clinton is a mask for the lie that social progress without economic change actually helps women, people of color, queers, and, increasingly, absolutely anybody of modest means. What's more, Clinton's recent lie that Nancy Reagan was an advocate for HIV/AIDS awareness reveals either Clinton's ignorance or her denial of how economic, social, and political realities intersect. Her social and political circles were either so insulated from the queers, people of color, and IV drug users dying in big cities that she wasn't aware of the Reagans' horrifying record on AIDS, or Hillary is once again throwing people under the bus while asking for their vote.

Hillary may have come around to marriage equality in 2013, but the economic machinery that marginalized victims of HIV/AIDS in the first place remains the same. It simply evolves its targets. And there is no question that Hillary is a Republican in disguise when it comes to money. For chrissakes, the New Yorker even pointed it out last week. Hillary is "surrounded by [Robert] Rubin's acolytes," referring to the Goldman Sachs treasury secretary who pushed Bill Clinton to flip on spending and deregulate finance. Those acolytes are Hillary's Dick Cheney, and like Cheney, they'll run the presidency.

There's just one piece of advice we should heed from the Clinton years—those years when the Democratic Party triangulated its soul away—and then you, Bill and Hillary Clinton, are dismissed, thank you very much. (And may you grow in old age to know who the fuck you actually are.) It's the advice James Carville gave to Bill when he was running for president in 1992.

"The economy, stupid."

It is the economy. Social change without economic reform is empty. We're not stupid.

Caucus for Bernie Sanders this Saturday. recommended

The SECB is Sydney Brownstone, Christopher Frizzelle, Angela Garbes, Jen Graves, Heidi Groover, Ansel Herz, Tim Keck, Ana Sofia Knauf, Eli Sanders, Dan Savage, and Rich Smith. This is not a unanimous endorsement.



www.thestranger.com/2016-democratic-caucus-endorsement/2016/03/23/23829583/support-the-real-progressive

[madDawg228]

Glad I recently turned 31...

I'm not surprised by this from the Stranger. There is no effing way they wouldn't endorse Sanders in some way. I think this double endorsement speaks volumes that the whole city shouldn't caucus for Sanders, and it gives Clinton a nod and a reality check to some who need it.

I hope the "older" Sanders supporters read the Clinton endorsement, and don't completely write it off.

[downtoearth]

So weird - they are just telling people what they think they want to hear based on age?!

Oh and if you click not to tell your age, you get Bernie.

[WOT?*]

Poopyheads got me all excited.

[secretlyevil]

What a very odd thing to do. Endorsing both candidates I mean.

[jojoandleo]

I really just want this primary season to be over. Things are getting so fucking weird around here.

[mominatrix]

Ask Us Anything About Our Caucus Endorsement(s)
by Stranger Election Control Board • Mar 24, 2016 at 11:03 am
submit to reddit
bernhilcovers.jpg



Stranger Election Control Board members are standing by—barely awake but very nearly caffeinated—ready, willing, and able to answer your questions about our endorsement(s) in the Washington State Democratic Caucuses. Post your questions in the comment thread and we will answer as many as we can in the body of this post. Hey hey let's go kenka suru!

To get things rolling: Why did the table of contents in the print edition say the endorsement was on page 14 when there was no page 14 in that issue? Why was the endorsement at the back of the issue on an unnumbered page? WHYWHYWHY?!? It wasn't an attempt to bury or hide the endorsements, contra some conspiracy theories, but a print error. There was some confusion at the print shop due to "belly band configuration" and the print shop decided "to move pages rather than re-plate." We don't know what that means exactly—we are not printers—but they shouldn't have done that. And that thing they shouldn't have done resulted in pages being moved around and page numbers being dropped. Very frustrating, we agree, and not intentional.

Next question!



So who did you actually endorse, deep down in your pot-addled hearts? Hillary Sanders or Bernie Clinton?

The Bernie vs. Hillary debates during SECB meetings were long, passionate, and divisive, just like the Bernie vs. Hillary debates going on outside SECB meetings. Instead of shutting down that debate, we decided to inhabit it—we decided to let the debate we were having be this issue of the paper, instead of pretending that this issue of the paper (and our endorsement) ended that debate. We also wanted to drive home an important message: a good case could be made for either of these candidates. So you can feel good about supporting whichever one gets the nomination. (That's why this week's spineline reads, "DON'T BE AN IDIOT: VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE THIS NOVEMBER.")

But who did we actually endorse, deep down in our pot-addled hearts? Bernie Sanders got more votes—Sanders got one more vote than Clinton. And that's why Bernie got more than half the papers: 10,000 more copies of this week's paper have Sanders on the cover and the Sanders' endorsement hidden inside. (Oy, printer. Why did it have to be this week?) Likewise, two of the three options for people who came to the website looking for our endorsement took people to the Sanders endorsement. More people read our Sanders endorsement online and, presumably, in print. — DAN SAVAGE


Were there really no women caucusing the SECB for Hillary? I thought we were a more pragmatic gender than that.

All the women on the SECB voted to endorse Bernie. I personally felt that Bernie (unlike many of his followers, it should be noted) better represents my feminist principles over Hillary. Bernie primarily addresses structural oppression through the lens of economic injustice. This isn’t a complete analysis, but it’s a start. Hillary believes that social progress can be made using the same tools of the existing patriarchal, capitalist system (i.e. Lean In feminism). I don’t agree with the latter.

P.S. To all the Bernie supporters outraged about the SECB doing two covers, I encourage you to scroll through some of the comments, especially the ones calling Hillary “Shrillary.” Your people have some serious work to do. — SYDNEY BROWNSTONE

I'm so glad you asked this question. Yes, there were really no women caucusing the SECB for Hillary. Here is how the vote broke down in the room at the end of the day: Angela Garbes, Heidi Groover, Ana Sofia Knauf, Sydney Brownstone, Jen Graves, and Ansel Herz for Bernie Sanders (we had the majority) versus Dan Savage, Tim Keck, Christopher Frizzelle, Eli Sanders, and Rich Smith for Hillary Clinton (Sean Nelson was present but abstained).

As for the question of pragmatism, I think it's a good one. My take—and the other women should join in with theirs here, because I'm certainly not speaking for all of us—is that Hillary is not necessarily a pragmatic choice at all, because she could easily lose in November for many reasons. And this is a caucus. Beyond that, for me there is of course the problem that there is nothing pragmatic about the current machine, which Hillary embodies and shape-shifts to match.

Casting Bernie as the impractical, pie-in-the-sky candidate plays into the hands of those who'd like to see this country continue its accelerating race to the right. I liked what Charles wrote this morning: "Enough is enough. The press in the US and UK needs to stop lumping Sanders with Trump and other loonies. Sanders is not saying crazy things. He might be the most normal presidential candidate in the history of the United States. All of this lumping business is about distorting this obvious fact—he is a very rational, very sane politician. Hillary Clinton is madder than Sanders."

I want to be part of a crew that at least tries to help remind people that Sanders actually is the pragmatic choice. — JEN GRAVES


Is there a link to your actual endorsement not based on the age question?

Nope. — DAN SAVAGE


Does it feel good to finally be to the right of those hippies at the Seattle Times?

We talked about the Seattle Times endorsement of Bernie Sanders—their surprise, out-of-left-field Sanders endorsement—during SECB meetings. It's no secret that Republicans want Bernie Sanders to get the Dem nomination; it's also no secret that the Seattle Times almost always endorses Republican candidates. Rather than evidence of some newfound progressivism at the Seattle Times, we saw their Sanders endorsement as a dirty trick—an effort to help the candidate the GOP would like to run against in the general election. The Seattle Times has one agenda, and one agenda only, and that's slashing taxes—particularly the estate tax. So what seems likelier: the Seattle Times pulled a complete 180 on the issue they care most about.—and they want to see Frank Blethen's taxes go way, way up—or they're bullshitting. Our money is on the latter.

That said: If Bernie and Trump both make it through to the general election, the Seattle Times will probably endorse Bernie. But if John Kasich, the Republican the Seattle Times endorsed in the GOP primary, should makes it through to the general election, without a doubt the Seattle Times will endorse Kasich. And guess what? Kasich's tax plan looks nothing like Bernie's tax plan. So, yeah. They're not hippies. They're liars. — DAN SAVAGE




Why the age-ist endorsement widget on the website? I'm in my 30's and was "lucky" enough to finish graduate school, student loan laden of course, just as the economy tanked. With a degree in one of those fancy STEM fields that was supposed to guarantee me a perfect life instead of an endless series of contract positions and no job security... In other words, my age actually has very little to do with my selection

Damn. I feel you on those student loans. But here’s my answer: According to exit polls from states that have already had their primary caucuses, Bernie Sanders is winning, unequivocally, across one category—17-29 year-olds. That’s even true for many of the states that Hillary ultimately won. But the age widget could have been a zip code widget, or really any other demographic switch. The point, though, wasn’t an ageist endorsement ("EVERYONE OVER 30 SHOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY!" Come on). It was commentary on the public’s tendency to only read things that already affirm their world view, including the views of their chosen candidate. Have you seen the outrage in the comments? What’s the point of doing endorsements if the only people who read them expect to find an endorsement of a policy or politician that they already support? Newspapers should strive to be independent, not dogmatic. This election in particular has created polarized worlds of Facebook sharing where conspiracy theories and bad information flourish—yes, even among liberals. If that’s the world you want to live in, where reality changes based on the link you click, you should actually really like the way we did our endorsements. If it isn’t the world you want to live in, we should all strive to be better informed—and support good journalism. — SYDNEY BROWNSTONE



So who did you actually endorse, deep down in your pot-addled hearts? Hillary Sanders or Bernie Clinton?

Deep down in my pot-addled heart, I endorsed our duty to our readers. Hah! But seriously. Washington doesn’t vote, it caucuses. Washington’s going to split its delegates among Sanders and Clinton. In this context, the most useful thing for us to do was to arm readers with the best arguments for each candidate, all in the hopes of a more sophisticated caucusing day for all. (The vitriolic comments don’t bode well.) Age seemed to be the most reliable way to determine whether one would caucus for Bernie or for Clinton, so I agreed with the group to use that quality as the way to determine which readers would see what. The SECB held a mini-caucus of our own, realized we were split 6-5 in favor of Bernie, thought it’d be more useful to endorse caucusing instead of a particular candidate, and then thought the double-cover idea would be the only and the best way to express this idea in print. Though the packaging of the concept is challenging and tongue-in-cheek, the sentiment at the back of our endorsement is, for me, an earnest one: here’s the best ideas we got, take these ideas to your caucus site and argue civilly with your neighbors! — RICH SMITH



Whose idea was it to alienate your entire readership, regardless of age, by pulling the survey endorsement stunt?

Savage’s. — ELI SANDERS



At the bottom of the Hillary endorsement, you said that the decision was not unanimous by the Board. Who voted for who?

As Jen Graves mentioned, when the SECB made its final decision last week, a majority voted for Bernie Sanders: Angela Garbes, Heidi Groover, Ana Sofia Knauf, Sydney Brownstone, and Jen. (I was out of town last week, but I’d made my choice clear—Sanders, duh!—in a meeting before I took off.) In the minority were Dan Savage, Tim Keck, Christopher Frizzelle, Eli Sanders, and Rich Smith for Hillary Clinton. (Sean Nelson was present but abstained.)



I have three comments about how things turned out:

1. Stop e-mailing us your frothy outrage, for god’s sake. Share your feelings, by all means, but activate your brain first. The response to the endorsement has definitively proven, on the whole, that Bernie supporters are more insufferable than Hillary supporters. But I judge a candidate on record and policy, not supporters. Seriously, people: Our endorsement comes from something called The Stranger Election Control Board. We’re sincere and discerning (hopefully) in our political choices, but we don’t take ourselves more seriously than we should. Neither should you.

2. What’s fascinating to me is that the Hillary endorsement, written by older white men, picks out one minority demographic—Black voters—and claims that we must honor and go along with their majority support for Hillary. This is not unlike the condescending commandment from Gloria Steinem, an older woman, to young women that they must support Hillary Clinton—for which she later apologized. While most Black voters have supported Clinton in the primaries, Blacks cannot be reduced to pro-Hillary monolith. Ta-Nehisi Coates is voting for Bernie Sanders, along with many others. Just as masses of white voters can be deluded in thinking Republicans will advance their interests, so too can masses of black voters be wrong about Hillary, whose record on racial and economic justice is far from stellar. And, um, this is about the race for the Democratic nomination. If Bernie gets it, I kinda doubt Black voters will vote Trump instead.

3. Hubris is a dangerous thing for any publication. — ANSEL HERZ



Why did you decide to NOT make the endorsement articles for both democratic candidates available to everyone? I find myself exceptionally pissed off that I can't read both because of how your website operates. I guess I could find a different computer, and lie about my age, but really why make me jump through those hoops? I am mostly on one side of this argument, but I really want to read the type of well reasoned shit you guys generally write to help solidify my decision. It's hard to feel shut out of the conversation by you, Stranger. That's never been my experience with you. Jesus, my feelings are actually hurt.

Another commenter beat us to the answer: "Hi Mom. If you open an incognito window, clear your cookies, and click on the link you'll be able to see the other article. If you don't know what I just said than I can't really help you." — DAN SAVAGE



Are you all indeed, too cool for school?

I fucking love school. School is all about sitting around together and having meaningful and vigorous conversations about what we think we know. That's what caucusing is all about, too, and, for me, that's what this issue is about. — RICH SMITH



Did you have any idea that people would take this so seriously, personally, and deeply offended by this  split endorsement? If so, was this a feature or a bug?

Dear Josh (29),

I don’t think anyone is surprised when some Stranger commenters A) don’t get the joke, B) don’t know that there is a joke to get, C) don’t understand that a joke is often a way of expressing a serious point about a serious subject, and D) are simply wrong in every particular.

Partisans will be partisans and the idea that a caucus endorsement is fundamentally different from a general election endorsement, or indeed a primary one, doesn’t seem to matter much to them.

See also: Endorsements are overvalued and ideology is the enemy of reason.

As Sydney cited above, social media has turned people into consent-seeking clones. It has also reduced reading to skimming and critical thinking to the counting of other people’s likes. Not that the world before Facebook was a utopia of intellectual ferment, but jesus fucking christ, man. AGEIST? HYPOCRITICAL? Doesn’t anyone know that words at least could have meanings anymore?

Here’s a trigger warning: You actually have to do a little hard work once in a while, read the whole fucking piece, and make a decision about what it means. The fact that people don’t or can’t or won’t understand how our commentary functions as commentary is evidence of the need for such commentary to begin with. It is not our job to explain to you what our commentary means, or how it works. It is your job to try to figure that out for yourself. Or not to read the Stranger.

PS 31. You are not wrong. — SEAN NELSON



Were there really no women caucusing the SECB for Hillary? I thought we were a more pragmatic gender than that.

During SECB meetings, I think Heidi said something to the effect of agreeing with the identity politics of caucusing for Hillary — and I totally agree. I could launch into why I’m supporting an old white dude, but I’d just be echoing Jen’s already well-articulated thoughts, above. I would love to see a woman become the president of our country. But, for me, that woman is not Hillary.

Do I think the attacks on Hillary’s personality are a bunch of sexist bullshit? Absofuckinglutely. Is the fight for gender equality still going to be an uphill battle? Unfortunately, yes. But thinking that I should caucus for a candidate I don’t believe in simply because I, too, identify as a woman is just wrong. – ANA SOFIA KNAUF



My best friend's ex-wife makes $75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site.....
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ ＷＷＷ.net-jobs25.ＣＯＭ

Please tell me more. Now that the Stranger has hit a new new low it won’t be long before we’re all looking for work. — SEAN NELSON



Anyone who's looking at this race with even a modicum of objectivity—something direly lacking in BOTH Democratic camps, IMO—has a high degree of confidence that Clinton will win the nomination.

This wasn’t a question, but it tees up something that was heavy on my mind: the delegate count. This year’s historic fracturing of the Republican Party presents an enormous opportunity for the left in this country. It’s going to be hard to capitalize on that opportunity while the left itself remains divided between Bernie and Hillary. So it’s important to ask: Who actually has a realistic shot at winning the Democratic nomination, and who does not? The hard reality of the delegate math suggests it’s Hillary who has the more realistic shot at winning the nomination. She’s also assembled a far more diverse coalition than Sanders, which will be important in the general election. With these and other realities in mind, one wonders whether the left loses more from a protracted nomination fight than it gains from uniting behind a clear frontrunner who can take advantage of the huge fissures within the Republican Party. If the long game is reshaping this country’s political debate, then we might actually move away from our stale right-left politics more quickly via a juggernaut Democratic campaign that crumbles the conservative coalition now, while it’s weak. — ELI SANDERS



Had Clinton received the majority of votes, would you have made the same decisions about how you presented the endorsements?

Yes. I had initially proposed that we do two dueling endorsements in the same issue — that we play up the SECB splitting into two warring camps (People’s Front of Judea vs. People’s Judean Front), we slug it out in one issue, with one cover, over two separate pages (and we acknowledge who got the most votes in the issue itself). I made that proposal before we took a final vote. There was one meeting where we took a vote and I believe we were tied—so some Sanders support on the SECB was soft, some Hillary support on the SECB soft. Full disclosure: Hillary’s soft support was a lot softer than Bernie’s soft support. I was, believe it or not, a soft supporter of Hillary myself. If the vote had been closer, I might’ve gone with Sanders. Like I’ve said over and over and over again: I’m for Bernie or Hillary or both. I mean that.

Also, contra Ansel, I want to point out the Hillary endorsement was primarily authored by someone in his 30s, while the Bernie endorsement was co-authored by someone in her 40s. (Fight #ageism, Ansel!) — DAN SAVAGE

Echoing previous comments, I'd be curious to know about support for the dual endorsement format itself, amongst SECB members — in terms of, not making any mention of the other endorsement in either paper, hiding the article online for the start of the day, then behind a survey you can't change, making it impossible to share one or the other, etc. Akin to the majority / minority for the candidates themselves, was the decision around the format split?

Majority wins, so the paper should endorse, Bernie, right? I made that argument in the last meeting, but the debate on form dissolved into a debate on the candidates' substance. That said, I'm actually okay with how this turned out. Simply endorsing Bernie would have also tacitly endorsed an army of misinformed (and often sexist) clickmonsters without much real discussion. I think this has led to some valuable talk about how we engage with our political system and why we voted the way we did. Then again, maybe the cookies thing is too difficult. What does the rest of the SECB think? — SYDNEY BROWNSTONE


www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/24/23862155/ask-us-anything-about-our-caucus-endorsements

[madDawg228]

Mar 24, 2016 16:11:54 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Simply endorsing Bernie would have also tacitly endorsed an army of misinformed (and often sexist) clickmonsters without much real discussion.


www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/24/23862155/ask-us-anything-about-our-caucus-endorsements

I find the SECB divide so interesting, and I'm glad they recognized the annoying behaviors of some Berners.

[jojoandleo]

Stop e-mailing us your frothy outrage, for god’s sake. Share your feelings, by all means, but activate your brain first. The response to the endorsement has definitively proven, on the whole, that Bernie supporters are more insufferable than Hillary supporters.

Well, thank god we finally got to the bottom of THAT question.  Totally shocking and brand new information.

All in all, their explanation actually makes some sense to me.  The age thing was STUPID.  STUPID STUPID STUPID.  And I don't get the justification THERE, but I get the double endorsement.  They just went about it the wrong way.