2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII
- Thread starter Oregoropa
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
I definitely agree that national polls taken today don't mean a whole lot. But, if you can decipher the reason for their results, I think something can be taken away from it.
I'm going to agree and disagree with you here though. I agree that the likes of Sanders and Kasich have the most room to fall, but I disagree with their untouched campaigns being the reason they're ahead.
Much like Trump, Sanders appeal is that he is a regular old white guy who is running his campaign that says "fuck the system." Lots of voters love that. Especially a certain brand of independents.
Independents are not to be confused with moderates. Moderates generally either belong to a party and can be swayed, or are independents who have political beliefs that are firm, but mix. Caleb is a moderate, by that description. I'm the type of independent who supports a Trump/Sanders candidate. Not that Ill ever support Trump. I am sympathetic to the Sanders movement but I'm not sure (not that it matters).
Which leads me to John Kasich. John Kasich is a happy medium moderate. The guy defunded planned parenthood so republicans would take him seriously. But let's be honest, he doesn't give a shit about any of that stuff. His consistent thing with gay marriage is "oh let's just move on from it now" in his oh so Midwestern family man voice. He's successfully gathering the not-so-crazy republicans, as well as moderates from both sides who can't deal with the polarity. Or, those who simply aren't excited by the continuously evolving, now on holographic, Hilary Clinton (who would otherwise also be a moderate, were she not a populist).
There's good qualitative descriptions as to why these candidates do so well when put head to head. It's not because nobody knows anything bad about them. I agree that certainly can change the picture, but they're doing well due to positions and qualities that other candidates do not offer.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
From day one the Right has characterized Obama as some extreme Socialist who takes the far left stance on everything. So had Obama actually taken the stances he was getting attacked for, he would have gained liberal credibility while moving the center for compromise leftward...and all of that with no downside since he was already being portrayed as someone taking that stance to begin with.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
John Kasich and his policies aren't anywhere close to moderate. They may look that way compared to just how crazy that party has become, but other than accepting free money for Obamacare, he has led a continual campaign against worker and women's rights. The guy is no moderate. It's the media's caricature of him (and liking of him, since he's less batshit) that's led to him doing so well in these general election polls. Once the public actually sees the sort of garbage he supports, he'd fall down to the support level of another also-ran like McCain or Romney.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Oh and the important bit of news, Sanders is now tied with Clinton nationwide in the polling average. Obviously, I wish that would have happened a lot sooner, but I'll take it.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
If McCain and Romney aren't moderates, I think you have a skewed vision of American politics. You might not like where the middle currently is, but that is the middle.
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
They built the Tea Party around the fact that a black socialist had moved into the White House. They came out and in droves and voted at the mid terms. What do you think they'll do when someone who actually proudly claims to be a socialist is in the White House?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
That's not how politics works at all, and you make innumerable false assumptions not only of the popularity of your own positions, but of their efficacy as well.
I fully agree that the GOP went batshit crazy, but staking out a far left position isn't by default the right thing to do, nor is it a way to gain the support of the center and center-left who are needed to actually garner support and vote people in and out of office in off year elections. If you want to blame anyone, blame the young people who enable the craziness of the GOP by not voting in 2010 and 2014.
Also, sometimes, leftists positions are bad policy. And sometimes the worst policy is no policy. Would you rather not have Obamacare? Would you rather not have Dodd-Frank? Lily Ledbetter? Repeal of DADT? Would you rather Sotomayor and Kagan not nominated for the sake of people less moderate? Would we then not have marriage equality in all 50 states?
Last edited:
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I really want to express immense hate but I don't have proper gif to do it.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
As someone who lives in Ohio, I can say that BigMacphisto is right about Kasich. Yes, he's made himself appear to be more moderate over the last few years, and as I've said before, I am genuinely appreciative of him allowing the medicaid expansion to happen here, as that is my health coverage now, but the reality is that he was elected governor as part of the 2010 conservative wave elections, and in his first two years in office, he was more or less attempting to emulate the Scott Walker model, going after public pensions and unions and things like that. He was just less successful than Walker was and, once he realized the state wasn't loving his attempts to do what Scott Walker did, he started moving toward a more moderate persona, I'm sure with this run for president in mind.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
Regarding Bernie vs Hillary(apologies for the length):
I am a progressive liberal. Generally speaking, I think Bernie's ideas are the right ones and for progressives, it is refreshing to hear a politician running for president say these things out loud. That is why I voted for him in the Ohio primary. That said, I never really believed he would be the nominee, and I fully understand, and even to a large extent, agree, with those that say he hasn't been able to convincingly explain how he's going to get these things done.
I am not, however, overly excited about Hillary. I think one of the broader reasons Bernie excites a large faction of liberals is that he represents the hope of making the Democratic party what it was up until the mid-late 80s, once again. The Democratic party was the party of the New Deal, of the Great Society, and it largely worked until the beginning of the 70s. Then the economic malaise of that decade set in, and the GOP began two decades of dominance in presidential politics, using that economic malaise as leverage to move economically towards neo-liberalism, worship of free markets, and Reaganomics/Voodoo Economics/Trickle-Down Economics/Supply-Side Economics, whatever you want to call it.
From 1968 until 1992, the Democrats only had the White house for four years, 77-81, under Carter. The Democratic party suffered humiliating, borderline comical electoral collage defeats with McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, and Dukakis in 1988. And so there was a very conscious decision made by the party to move from the left to center-left so that it would be more electable. The Democratic Leadership Council was formed in 1985, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, the Blue Dog Coalition became a thing shortly after, and that's basically been the Democratic party for the last 25 years.
There's a valid argument to be made that that was necessary in order to remain electable and retain power as a political party. But it's 2016 now, and I think there's a large faction of liberals and Democrats who feel like the country as a whole is considerably further to the left now than it was 25 years ago and that maybe the Democratic Party doesn't need to be the party of the center-left anymore, that maybe it's ok to say out loud that we could be the party of the New Deal and the Great Society again. I think that's a huge part of what Bernie's campaign and the fanatical support for him is about, and I think for that faction, Hillary represents the notion that the party ought to remain the party of the center-left.
I don't think Hillary would be bad president at all. I think she'd a fairly good one. But I think a lot of people feel that, on the heels of everything Obama has accomplished, that there's a chance to move the country in a certain direction, and that Hillary won't do it. I'd vote for a third Obama term over Hillary, to be honest.
I understand that incrementalism is largely how things get done in politics, but with Obama I always had a basic confidence that his incrementalism was moving towards certain liberal ideals, and I am less confident about that with Hillary.
I think Hillary will be a fine, probably even good, president. It's just to hard to be excited about it. And although Bernie excites me, although I think he's a good man with great conceptual ideas, I'm not convinced that he'd have the ability to make any of his proposals reality.
So, I voted for him in the primary, and I will happily, but with less excitement, vote for Hillary in the fall.
I am a progressive liberal. Generally speaking, I think Bernie's ideas are the right ones and for progressives, it is refreshing to hear a politician running for president say these things out loud. That is why I voted for him in the Ohio primary. That said, I never really believed he would be the nominee, and I fully understand, and even to a large extent, agree, with those that say he hasn't been able to convincingly explain how he's going to get these things done.
I am not, however, overly excited about Hillary. I think one of the broader reasons Bernie excites a large faction of liberals is that he represents the hope of making the Democratic party what it was up until the mid-late 80s, once again. The Democratic party was the party of the New Deal, of the Great Society, and it largely worked until the beginning of the 70s. Then the economic malaise of that decade set in, and the GOP began two decades of dominance in presidential politics, using that economic malaise as leverage to move economically towards neo-liberalism, worship of free markets, and Reaganomics/Voodoo Economics/Trickle-Down Economics/Supply-Side Economics, whatever you want to call it.
From 1968 until 1992, the Democrats only had the White house for four years, 77-81, under Carter. The Democratic party suffered humiliating, borderline comical electoral collage defeats with McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, and Dukakis in 1988. And so there was a very conscious decision made by the party to move from the left to center-left so that it would be more electable. The Democratic Leadership Council was formed in 1985, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, the Blue Dog Coalition became a thing shortly after, and that's basically been the Democratic party for the last 25 years.
There's a valid argument to be made that that was necessary in order to remain electable and retain power as a political party. But it's 2016 now, and I think there's a large faction of liberals and Democrats who feel like the country as a whole is considerably further to the left now than it was 25 years ago and that maybe the Democratic Party doesn't need to be the party of the center-left anymore, that maybe it's ok to say out loud that we could be the party of the New Deal and the Great Society again. I think that's a huge part of what Bernie's campaign and the fanatical support for him is about, and I think for that faction, Hillary represents the notion that the party ought to remain the party of the center-left.
I don't think Hillary would be bad president at all. I think she'd a fairly good one. But I think a lot of people feel that, on the heels of everything Obama has accomplished, that there's a chance to move the country in a certain direction, and that Hillary won't do it. I'd vote for a third Obama term over Hillary, to be honest.
I understand that incrementalism is largely how things get done in politics, but with Obama I always had a basic confidence that his incrementalism was moving towards certain liberal ideals, and I am less confident about that with Hillary.
I think Hillary will be a fine, probably even good, president. It's just to hard to be excited about it. And although Bernie excites me, although I think he's a good man with great conceptual ideas, I'm not convinced that he'd have the ability to make any of his proposals reality.
So, I voted for him in the primary, and I will happily, but with less excitement, vote for Hillary in the fall.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I have tickets to the Giants Sunday night game. We should get Headache to come to town too!I hate how you never invite me to Packer games.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I'll buy some long johns and buy beer for tailgating!
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Luckily it's an early October game so you would only need 3 layers of clothing.
I'll buy some long johns and buy beer for tailgating!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Bernie is holding a rally down the street from me Monday evening. Getting home from work is going to be a peach.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Well at least now we know why you will be voting for Hillary Tuesday. No traffic tie ups for a better America.
#Christiesdownfall
Indeed.
They really should have done this thing tomorrow. The 7 train at rush hour is crazy enough. Now add in 20,000 hippies and communist sympathizers and nobody's going anywhere.
I should get a Hillary sign and hang it from the balcony. Or maybe a Trump one just for shits and giggles.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Bernie Bros are winning
Bluer White
New Yorker
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Part of what keeps me awake at night is not knowing why she hasn't been able to put Bernie away. I would like to think that it's more his skill than her flaws. It may be both. I also think that she hasn't really gone for the jugular so as not to alienate his supporters, because she knows she will need them (and him) in the fall. So, she's being very cautious in a way she would not be with a Republican in the general. I remember it being said in '08 that one reason to prefer HRC over O was because the Clintons would slit throats to win. That's still true, I think.
But then I wonder if she isn't actually a weak candidate. She's not a movement candidate, like Obama or Reagan or even her husband, or like Sanders would be. She's more of a policy wonk status quo candidate who is, in effect, Obama's VP. So she's more a Gore or a Bush 1. I hope.
My deep fear is she's a Dukakis or Mondale.
But probably not. Right?
But then I wonder if she isn't actually a weak candidate. She's not a movement candidate, like Obama or Reagan or even her husband, or like Sanders would be. She's more of a policy wonk status quo candidate who is, in effect, Obama's VP. So she's more a Gore or a Bush 1. I hope.
My deep fear is she's a Dukakis or Mondale.
But probably not. Right?
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
It's a shame Warren is not in at the spot Sanders is occupying now.
Last edited:
Bluer White
New Yorker
Mrs. Clinton could be that, a Dukakis or Mondale type.But she STILL probably beats up the current opposition on the other side, come the general.
I think this election cycle proves once and for all that having just two political parties in a country as vast and varied as this one is just fucking stupid.
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
Similar threads
- Locked
