2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part VI

[cobl04]

The thing is, Kasich's record is pretty awful, there is no way I'd vote for him over Hillary (especially on social issues), but his temperament is so easily above everyone else's on stage. Even Ted Cruz, whom I find the most detestable, is coming across as more presidential than Rubio or Trump.

I'd like to know more about Kasich - but i thought even his answer on SSM in the last debate "I've moved on" was pretty reasonable.

 

[namkcuR]

Also, and this is for the Bernie folk, Trump is an excellent argument for the existence of Super Delegates.

I'm a Bernie supporter. I've never brought the argument that Bernie has no chance because of super delegates because I never considered the idea that super delegates would actively turn their backs on the voters. Meaning that if Bernie somehow pulled ahead in regular delegates - extremely unlikely, I know - I think the super delegates would get in line rather than enabling Hillary to flip off the voters.

But what you're suggesting is that if the Republicans had super delegates, then they could easily do what they are now desperately looking for a way to do, which is screw Trump and the GOP electorate over.

Trump is scary, so I don't have too much of a problem with the GOP doing whatever it needs to do to oust him in their current super delegate-less system, because this is an extraordinary circumstance, but I don't know how I feel about normalizing the notion of overturning the peoples' voting decisions.

I'm reminded of a Lewis Black joke where he's talking about the people that write your baby's name down on the birth certificate and how, referencing the fact that Jermaine Jackson named his kid Jermajesty, that those people that write the name down on the birth certificate should be empowered to say, 'no, try again'.

The GOP having super delegates, and then both parties normalizing the idea of using them to overturn the will of the people would be like that, empowering elected officials to tell the people, 'no, try again' when determining nominees for the highest office in the nation. Except, it would be even more than that because it wouldn't be 'no, try again', it would be 'no, and now I'm going to name your baby for you'.

Just not sure we should be wanting to encourage ideas like that.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm a Bernie supporter. I've never brought the argument that Bernie has no chance because of super delegates because I never considered the idea that super delegates would actively turn their backs on the voters. Meaning that if Bernie somehow pulled ahead in regular delegates - extremely unlikely, I know - I think the super delegates would get in line rather than enabling Hillary to flip off the voters.



But what you're suggesting is that if the Republicans had super delegates, then they could easily do what they are now desperately looking for a way to do, which is screw Trump and the GOP electorate over.



Trump is scary, so I don't have too much of a problem with the GOP doing whatever it needs to do to oust him in their current super delegate-less system, because this is an extraordinary circumstance, but I don't know how I feel about normalizing the notion of overturning the peoples' voting decisions.



I'm reminded of a Lewis Black joke where he's talking about the people that write your baby's name down on the birth certificate and how, referencing the fact that Jermaine Jackson named his kid Jermajesty, that those people that write the name down on the birth certificate should be empowered to say, 'no, try again'.



The GOP having super delegates, and then both parties normalizing the idea of using them to overturn the will of the people would be like that, empowering elected officials to tell the people, 'no, try again' when determining nominees for the highest office in the nation. Except, it would be even more than that because it wouldn't be 'no, try again', it would be 'no, and now I'm going to name your baby for you'.



Just not sure we should be wanting to encourage ideas like that.

My guess is there would be more nuance to it -- like, if a candidate had less than 50% of the popular vote or the delegates, then they could trump the candidate (ha!) with some super delegate power.

If someone were sweeping to victory like Romney did in 2012, then the super delegates would have no legitimacy if they screwed the candidate over.

 

[Irvine511]

Didn't we say this in 2012 when Obama beat Mitt though? That they'd regroup and be much better in 2016? And now they've gone the other way!

My thought after 2012 was that they were screwed unless they started to appeal to minorities and young people. Romney won white married people comfortably, but Obama killed him everywhere else.

It seems that the GOP has doubled down on the old white angry vote, which means they are likely going to get clobbered in the general.

But, as always, anything could happen. Health issues for a candidate. A major terror attack. We just don't know. Authoritarians do well when people are scared. I hope nothing too scary happens between now and November. Trump is cut from the same rancid cloth as UKIP or the National Front. Our two party system has diluted these racist, nationalist voters. But they seem to be in control of the GOP at the moment.

 

[cobl04]

it's weird. I remember, in 2012, asking if I was right in saying the GOP should be extremely concerned having lost. There were so many criticisms of Obama at the time, if I recall correctly. He seemed to be losing momentum and the GOP gaining momentum. But then, because of the reasons you stated if the first two sentences of your post, the Dems were just so much more comfortable, because they had a good spread. Whereas the GOP was riding on the loud support of white married people.

And then, in the next four years, I feel like there was a huge groundswell in the progressive circles in many areas. Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage. Black Lives Matter rose as black people became sick to death, literally and figuratively, of being assaulted and killed by police. There's been more support for gender diversity. Feminism has become more popular (and Hillary has used that to her advantage). Which should all point to the Dems being the powerhouse...

...but then I also feel like there's been an equally huge groundswell in conservative, but more specifically racist, sexist, homophobic, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!! circles. Like, in equal to progressive thought become louder. And now they have been given a voice by Donald Trump, who I give some credit. I don't think the Trump we see is necessarily really him. I think he's cottoned on to a sense of "fuck the status quo" that he likes and he's doing this as a power trip, and it's huge for his ego, and he's comfortably winning.

It'll be really interesting to see what happens in November. Because I think the one similarity to 2012 is that at that time the GOP seemed to have all the momentum, and they ended up getting wiped. This time around, they have all the momentum too, but might still get wiped.

I don't know. Any Americans please feel free to tell me to shut up, I'm just talking out of my arse. It's just how I'm reading it.

 

[cobl04]

At any rate, this is the fucking country you live in. I could spend the rest of my life trying to understand how this sign is a real thing and never get any closer to understanding how.

[TWEET]705925944297414656[/TWEET]

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

...but then I also feel like there's been an equally huge groundswell in conservative, but more specifically racist, sexist, homophobic, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!! circles. Like, in equal to progressive thought become louder. And now they have been given a voice by Donald Trump

Yep. When people who support him say they like him because he "tells it like it is", I read "tells it like it is" as: "He's saying all the racist, sexist, xenophobic stuff we want to say but don't have the guts to say/feel we can't say without getting shut down by the 'PC police'."

And I've definitely heard a LOT of conservatives griping about the Black Lives Matter movement online. Saying stuff like, "All lives matter, not just black ones" (thus showing they're totally missing the point of that phrase), or defending the police in those instances, saying they had the right to do what they did and people just need to learn to respect law enforcement better (because apparently you can't respect what law enforcement does as a whole while also criticizing the flawed elements of it. Nope. Gotta be one side or the other).

As for your comment on that gun photo, I'm just going to leave this here:

Iowa's Kid-Friendly Gun Bill - The Daily Show with Trevor Noah Video Clip | Comedy Central

I'll remind you we're just a little over three years past Sandy Hook.

Also, thanks, Iowa politiicans, for making my state look bad.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I know it's just shorthand for a certain politico/cultural tendency, but I find all the white people this and white people that a little tiresome at times. It's a little bit like the media's love of 'generationalism'. Put it this way, I'm pretty sure some white married people, even some white married old people, voted for Obama both times.

 

[cobl04]

Well yeah obviously it's a generalisation.

 

[Irvine511]

I know it's just shorthand for a certain politico/cultural tendency, but I find all the white people this and white people that a little tiresome at times. It's a little bit like the media's love of 'generationalism'. Put it this way, I'm pretty sure some white married people, even some white married old people, voted for Obama both times.

Except there is actual polling data with specific percentages to back up these assertions. Smart people who are good at math work hard to get accurate polling, and campaigns build strategies and spend resources based upon these numbers.

 

[Oregoropa]

So this happened . . .

Glenn Beck was on-air and said "If I was on stage with him (Trump) with a knife, the stabbing wouldn't stop"

Guess who got questioned by the Secret Service today?

 

[bobsaget77]

So this happened . . .

Glenn Beck was on-air and said "If I was on stage with him (Trump) with a knife, the stabbing wouldn't stop"

Guess who got questioned by the Secret Service today?

Sorry Oregoropa, you're wrong. I was watching the show and it was directed at his co host Stu, not Trump. They're good buds and were fooling around.
Already been proven that it was wrongly reported.
Trumpbart.....excuse me Breitbart...ran with the story of course. The Trump people are out to get Beck because he has Trump pegged down and will not stop attacking him.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[deep]

This did happen

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-student-arrested-california-donald-trump-threat-us-election-2016/

 

[PhilsFan]

Fuck Ted Cruz.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Except there is actual polling data with specific percentages to back up these assertions. Smart people who are good at math work hard to get accurate polling, and campaigns build strategies and spend resources based upon these numbers.

Well, I don't think that I dispute that, as a thing that happens. But surely it's exactly this kind of divide-and-conquer politics that has brought us to this pretty pass. It's barely politics at all; it's marketing.

 

[bobsaget77]

Didn't we say this in 2012 when Obama beat Mitt though? That they'd regroup and be much better in 2016? And now they've gone the other way!

No. The Republican Party began to go the way of the Whig Party in the 1850's after the 2012 election. Easy election that should have been won was lost. The party ended in epic choking fashion in 2012.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

No. The Republican Party began to go the way of the Whig Party in the 1850's after the 2012 election. Easy election that should have been won was lost. The party ended in epic choking fashion in 2012.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Epic choking fashion in 2012? What grounds do you have for such a statement? Because you didn't like Obama?

Incumbents are rather hard to win a campaign against. Especially when they didn't do anything particularly notable or wrong. George W. Bush won re-election, and that's after starting two wars.

 

[bobsaget77]

Epic choking fashion in 2012? What grounds do you have for such a statement? Because you didn't like Obama?

Incumbents are rather hard to win a campaign against. Especially when they didn't do anything particularly notable or wrong. George W. Bush won re-election, and that's after starting two wars.

Because Romney ran a terrible campaign and was a weak candidate. His own party didn't even come out to support him. Obama was vulnerable and the republicans just choked it away.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

How was Obama vulnerable? I don't see that at all. Granted, I recall thinking his grasp of Florida was vulnerable (ended up not being true), but overall he seemed pretty safe. Romney did run a bad campaign, but the Repubes have put out two decent candidates. John McCain was screwed by Palin for VP, and otherwise simply was a white old man going up against the first black presidential candidate. Many democrats would happily vote for McCain if they were discontent with their party. In 2008, everyone wanted W's head.

The waters were never favorable for republicans in an Obama election year. Mitt's campaign only suffered further by being stuck with that shitty republican platform that turns away moderates and independents alike.

 

[Oregoropa]

Sorry Oregoropa, you're wrong. I was watching the show and it was directed at his co host Stu, not Trump. They're good buds and were fooling around.
Already been proven that it was wrongly reported.
Trumpbart.....excuse me Breitbart...ran with the story of course. The Trump people are out to get Beck because he has Trump pegged down and will not stop attacking him.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Ahhhh. The Trumpkin Media Complex at its finest

I wouldn't have put it past Beck though. I can never tell if he's off his meds or not.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Glenn Beck might be loopy at times, but I'd venture to say he's a pretty good guy.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

How did you come to the conclusion that "pretty good" is a description you can associate Glenn Beck with.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

How did you come to the conclusion that "pretty good" is a description you can associate Glenn Beck with.

I implore you to read about his personal life. From the illnesses to the substance abuse to the reform.

The dude is crazy, sure, but it's easy to be sympathetic. He backed gay marriage before it was a thing. He's got some decent philanthropy. He's overall a socially... respectable... human being.

Oh, and he left the Repube party because of the ineffective behaviors of people like Ted Cruz, who think shutting the government down is a good way to get what you want. Disagree with the view all you want, but I find that respectable.

 

[mikal]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/...hone-boycott-was-a-massive-failure?source=rss


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irvine511]

Because Romney ran a terrible campaign and was a weak candidate. His own party didn't even come out to support him. Obama was vulnerable and the republicans just choked it away.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Nope. Obama wasn't vulnerable. The country measurably improved by almost every metric from 08-12, and has continued to do so. He is scandal free. He's a decent, well-mannered person with a lovely family who have been exemplary. You may disagree with his policies, but it's nonsense to paint him as having been lucky. He soundly beat the two best possible Republicans, as well as Hillary Clinton. That isn't luck. That's a formidable politician operating at the top of his game in a country that generally likes and supports him.

Instead of saying Romeny was a terrible candidate, why not just say that he has terrible ideas and championed terrible policies that were rejected by the American people?

 

[DaveC]

please feel free to tell me to shut up

Any Americans

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Didn't we say this in 2012 when Obama beat Mitt though? That they'd regroup and be much better in 2016? And now they've gone the other way!

I believe the thought was that they need to regroup or they're dead.

They didn't.

The GOP as we know it, for better or for worse, is dead.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Fuck Ted Cruz.

 

[Irvine511]

The GOP as we know it, for better or for worse, is dead.

i wish the GOP would die not because of Trump, but because we have proof that the core values, philosophies, and policies don't work and, in fact, lead states to social and financial ruin.

look at the mess Bobby Jindal left in Louisiana. here was someone who sought the governorship in order to build up a resume of GOP bonafides of cutting taxes for the wealthy, deregulating industry, cutting education, and slashing social services for the needy. he didn't do what was in the best interests of Louisiana, he did what he thought would make him attractive to a national electorate who fervently believe in this kind of nonsense without any kind of evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mic-disaster-louisianas-governor-left-behind/

BATON ROUGE, La. — Already, the state of Louisiana had gutted university spending and depleted its rainy-day funds. It had cut 30,000 employees and furloughed others. It had slashed the number of child services staffers, including those devoted to foster family recruitment, and young abuse victims for the first time were spending nights at government offices.

And then, the state’s new governor, John Bel Edwards (D), came on TV and said the worst was yet to come.

Edwards, in a prime-time address on Feb. 11, said he’d learned of “devastating facts” about the extent of the state’s budget shortfall and said that Louisiana was plunging into a “historic fiscal crisis.” Despite all the cuts of the previous years, the nation’s second-poorest state still needed nearly $3 billion — almost $650 per person — just to maintain its regular services over the next 16 months. Edwards gave the state’s lawmakers three weeks to figure out a solution, a period that expires March 9 with no clear answer in reach.

Louisiana stands at the brink of economic disaster. Without sharp and painful tax increases in the coming weeks, the government will cease to offer many of its vital services, including education opportunities and certain programs for the needy. A few universities will shut down and declare bankruptcy. Graduations will be canceled. Students will lose scholarships. Select hospitals will close. Patients will lose funding for treatment of disabilities. Some reports of child abuse will go uninvestigated.

“Doomsday,” said Marketa Garner Walters, the head of Louisiana’s Department of Children and Family Services. If the state can’t raise any new revenue, her agency’s budget, like several others, will be slashed 60 percent.

“At that level,” she said in an interview, “the agency is unsustainable.”

But even if Louisiana’s Republican-dominated legislature approves certain tax increases, as most expect, the state still would grapple with problems. The taxes — which could include hikes on everything from groceries to salaries — would dig into the pockets of citizens in a state where 18 percent live in poverty and where the median income is 20 percent below the national average. And the taxes alone won’t close the gap. Nasty cuts will still be necessary, meaning Louisiana will be taking more from its 4.6 million people while offering them less.

“I’m feeling kind of disrespected,” said Christian Washington, 18, a sophomore at Southern University who could lose a state-funded scholarship. “This was an incentive for me. I worked extremely hard. And now they’re trying to strip me of my work.”

Many of the state’s economic analysts say a structural budget deficit emerged and then grew under former governor Bobby Jindal, who, during his eight years in office, reduced the state’s revenue by offering tax breaks to the middle class and wealthy. He also created new subsidies aimed at luring and keeping businesses. Those policies, state data show, didn’t deliver the desired economic growth. This year, Louisiana has doled out $210 million more to corporations in the form of credits and subsidies than it has collected from them in taxes.

Through a longtime adviser, Jindal declined comment for this story. The adviser, Curt Anderson, who was Jindal’s chief campaign strategist, said that the former governor had been “on a mission to grow the Louisiana economy, and he did it, and it required big changes,” including trimming government waste. Anderson said that the state’s population and the wages of workers are higher than they’ve ever been.

Initially, Jindal had been able to cut taxes because Louisiana was buoyed by billions in federal money, an influx to help with the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, which struck in 2005. But as that money ran dry, Jindal said he would veto any bills that would push taxes back to where they had been. Instead, to plug budget gaps, Jindal relied not just on cuts but also on controversial, one-off fundraising methods. The state sold off assets, including parking lots and farmland. It cleaned out money from hundreds of trust funds — among them, one intended to build reefs for marine wildlife. It pieced together money from legal settlements.

For Jindal’s supporters, this was creative problem-solving that helped the state endure without crisis through his term, which ended in January. But in the eyes of Jindal’s opponents, the governor was resisting a more sustainable option — tax increases — that would have proven unpopular nationally among Republicans, whom Jindal was courting in a presidential bid.

Then, as Jindal was on the campaign trail last year, fossil-fuel-rich Louisiana was hit with one more obstacle: The price of oil and natural gas fell off a cliff, causing a retrenchment in an industry that provided the state with jobs and royalties.

When Edwards took office, new estimates from state economists showed that an already large budget gap was $500 million bigger than they had anticipated. Greg Albrecht, Louisiana’s official chief economist, said the state has been “basically taken into a recession.”

similar things have happened in Kansas under Sam Brownback. when you cut taxes and subsidize big business, revenue shrinks and social services are cut and you run up massive devicits. i suppose if you want only to cut taxes for the wealthy and/or make it difficult for poor women to access reproductive health services while rendering states unable to funcdtion, then i suppose these are good models.

at least we have the satisfaction of knowing that Bobby Jindal sold his soul for political gain, and yet received no actual political gain.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

i wish the GOP would die

Murderous liberals want to kill the GOP because of their love for God! Alert the press, this liberal is infringing upon my right to be a Christian!!