2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debating polls this far out seems pointless. It will change, and drastically.

Trump has seen a surge in his polling because he is now the nominee of the GOP. Historically the candidate who wins the nomination sees a surge.

Once the dem side is sorted (meaning Bernie concedes), you'll start seeing Clinton's numbers rise as well.

And wait for the debates as well. Trump can do well 1v16, but 1:1 he's going to struggle and struggle bad.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Exactly right. Every one of these polls are nonsense right now. After the conventions and running mates are chosen, and then maybe after the first debate. That is when we can have some actual meaningful numbers.
 
It's kinda funny - I often read Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash on Facebook for the laughs, and occasionally I see people posting actually Marxist things, like Lenin quotes or "seize the means of production" type sayings. Once I even saw someone throw up a picture of Stalin with some alleged quote of his. It makes me chuckle, because I have to wonder if these people have actually looked at Sanders's platform. $15 minimum wage =/= "seize the means of production", regardless of the merits or lack thereof of either proposition.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I mean, after all, it is just a meme page. :wink:

Similarly, I do get a kick out of seeing some Bernie-supporting commentators on Jacobin magazine's Facebook articles take issue with the notion of socialism being anti-capitalist in its definition, followed by 'but the Nordic countries are really great why can't be that type of socialist'.
 
That's not incorrect.


No, this is absolutely correct.
No, it doesn't mean that to liberal Dems, or even most left-leaning ones. BUT, conservative Dems, and everyone to the right of that will really, really be skeptical, if not downright scared and hateful of someone with the socialist title.

Here is the thing. Right now, not one negative ad has been run against Sanders.

Imagine nearly a billion dollars worth of ads saying:

What do we really know about Bernie Sanders.
A Proud Socialist! Declaring he wants to rid America of our personal freedoms and capitalist foundations. (Insert some random out of context soundbite from Sanders)

He and his wife "honeymooned" in Communist Russia and he still praises and supports Communist dictator Castro (Insert video of him praising Castro)

His plan includes taking away all of your rights to privately chose healthcare from a doctor of your choice, expanding the government by nearly 50%!, increasing taxes on all Americans, with our job creators being taxed at a total rate of over 70%.

Sanders doesn't want to be president of the America we know and love. He wants to tear our very country down and build up a socialist empire.
(Insert another video of some out of context ranting)

Vote Trump to ensure a strong American future.

and scene

Played over and over again. That squishy middle of the electorate will flee to Trump, I guarantee you.
 
I disagree with a lot of people in this thread, but - I'm not sure you realise that Vlad is not an electoral pragmatist.
 
No, this is absolutely correct.

I wasn't disagreeing. Equating communism with socialism is actually accurate, though not quite in the same way that fearmongerers would suggest.


No, it doesn't mean that to liberal Dems, or even most left-leaning ones. BUT, conservative Dems, and everyone to the right of that will really, really be skeptical, if not downright scared and hateful of someone with the socialist title.

Of course they would be, it goes without saying. I'm not bothered by right wingers being upset at the 'socialist' label.

Here is the thing. Right now, not one negative ad has been run against Sanders.

Imagine nearly a billion dollars worth of ads saying:

What do we really know about Bernie Sanders.
A Proud Socialist! Declaring he wants to rid America of our personal freedoms and capitalist foundations. (Insert some random out of context soundbite from Sanders)

He and his wife "honeymooned" in Communist Russia and he still praises and supports Communist dictator Castro (Insert video of him praising Castro)

His plan includes taking away all of your rights to privately chose healthcare from a doctor of your choice, expanding the government by nearly 50%!, increasing taxes on all Americans, with our job creators being taxed at a total rate of over 70%.

Sanders doesn't want to be president of the America we know and love. He wants to tear our very country down and build up a socialist empire.
(Insert another video of some out of context ranting)

Vote Trump to ensure a strong American future.

and scene

Played over and over again. That squishy middle of the electorate will flee to Trump, I guarantee you.

I ... I don't particularly care about this? If Sanders was in that position I wouldn't be particularly worried about how Trump would decide to paint him in campaign ads. It would be a fight that cannot be avoided.
 
I wasn't disagreeing. Equating communism with socialism is actually accurate, though not quite in the same way that fearmongerers would suggest.




Of course they would be, it goes without saying. I'm not bothered by right wingers being upset at the 'socialist' label.



I ... I don't particularly care about this? If Sanders was in that position I wouldn't be particularly worried about how Trump would decide to paint him in campaign ads. It would be a fight that cannot be avoided.


I am not worried about right wingers thoughts on socialism/communism either. That is a lost cause. But even this year, i think the fight is always won by getting those people in the middle. Usually they are the least engaged, and informed. So they believe what is fed to them. I think they would be very wary of Sanders and that along with Sanders shaky support with minorities could lead to a Trump win.

Anyway, you are right. It is going to be a big fight, no matter who is the nominee. It's gonnna get crazy.
 
I am not worried about right wingers thoughts on socialism/communism either. That is a lost cause. But even this year, i think the fight is always won by getting those people in the middle. Usually they are the least engaged, and informed. So they believe what is fed to them. I think they would be very wary of Sanders and that along with Sanders shaky support with minorities could lead to a Trump win.

Anyway, you are right. It is going to be a big fight, no matter who is the nominee. It's gonnna get crazy.


That is completely wrong.

1) Sanders is the one who is actually drawing people in the middle, both based on polling and the fact that millions of those people are actually showing up to vote for the guy in the primaries.

2) Sanders doesn't have "shaky support" with minorities. They're just voting for Clinton for their own reasons - a lot of it being name recognition. Again, his favorability within the party is practically hitting the ceiling. Minorities would have no problem voting for the guy if he where the Democratic nominee.

People need to stop pretending like the idiosyncratic nature of a small group of primary/caucus voters represents how a much larger voting base in a particular state will happen to vote, especially when resources weren't spent evenly whatsoever from one state to the next (such as the Sanders campaign not spending a single dollar in at least a dozen states). Is Clinton now doomed to lose Vermont and Washington in the general election because she got whomped there? Of course not.

I still think the public's general reaction to the Socialist label would be one big "so what?" and the advertisements would be entirely ineffective. If it were so damaging, we wouldn't see Sanders holding such high favorability ratings with both the general public and within his own party. This is 2016, not 1956. Hell, Republicans used that very line of attack against Obama and gained no real traction with it.
 
I still think the public's general reaction to the Socialist label would be one big "so what?"


You keep saying this, but what are you basing this on? Do you not remember 2008?

Yes, people are scared by it, even within the Dem party.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
One of the reasons i voted for Clinton was because i feel her Minimum wage plan is much more well thought out, balanced and passable.

1) She had no problem jumping on the bandwagon when New York state recently passed a $15 minimum wage.

2) People need to stop holding onto the myth of incremental progress. There's been multiple editorials from bright minds bringing up the point that getting things through congress actually tends to happen exceedingly fast for the left, but only when they have these short windows of actually holding the congress (and better, the Presidency as well). Failures in health care reform in the 90s, for example, have nothing to do with ObamaCare which itself can be traced back to a push for health care reform that began in congress (which the Democrats controlled) right before the 2008 primary season.

$12 an hour will never pass with Republicans in there, but $15 can easily pass if Democrats hold Congress and the Presidency, especially since it's what these officials constituents will demand. Plus, $15 an hour will be worth like $13 anyway in today's dollars by the next time Democrats have that sort of control. I'm a proponent of thinking big if something can reasonably be passed by a Democratic congress and that there's absolutely zero advantages to attempting legislation that might get Republican votes when we all know that never happens. Case in point? Roughly the first five years of Obama's Presidency before he wised up and too this hard line stance of pushing things through the executive branch.

You can debate your own economic merits of the $15 wage although it really won't be too big of an adjustment for this country given the studies we've seen on it. There will be job losses in some industries/areas, but the collective benefit in income (particularly for the service industry) would do a lot to really get the economy moving again as none of these people are really able to spend much with their current checks. But actually getting passed? That's a cake walk once Democrats have control. I imagine it would happen almost immediately, even, although they might step up the rate increases year-by-year and have $15 occur like six years down the road or whatever.
 
You keep saying this, but what are you basing this on? Do you not remember 2008?

Yes, people are scared by it, even within the Dem party.

What is there to remember by it? Obama handily trounced McCain and won the Presidency.

The Democrats that were "scared" by it were mainly older, whiter voters for whom that was an issue in the past, but they were really just scared of Obama being black. Once again, they have their favorite white candidate to vote for in the primaries, now that she's back in the hunt. :up:
 
That is completely wrong.

1) Sanders is the one who is actually drawing people in the middle, both based on polling and the fact that millions of those people are actually showing up to vote for the guy in the primaries.


do you have evidence for this? evidence that these are people who would not vote if not for Bernie? what are those numbers? how do we know they are in the middle? if there are so many, why is he so far behind? much farther behind that HRC ever was in 2008.



2) Sanders doesn't have "shaky support" with minorities. They're just voting for Clinton for their own reasons - a lot of it being name recognition. Again, his favorability within the party is practically hitting the ceiling. Minorities would have no problem voting for the guy if he where the Democratic nominee.


while i agree that most Democrats would vote for Sanders in the general (not so sure about those in the middle or moderate Republicans), i think your explanation for her strong minority support is pretty patronizing. you're doing to minorities what you think the Democratic party does to the white far left -- expecting them to fall in line because they won't have any other options in November.
 
Last edited:
1) She had no problem jumping on the bandwagon when New York state recently passed a $15 minimum wage.

2) People need to stop holding onto the myth of incremental progress. There's been multiple editorials from bright minds bringing up the point that getting things through congress actually tends to happen exceedingly fast for the left, but only when they have these short windows of actually holding the congress (and better, the Presidency as well). Failures in health care reform in the 90s, for example, have nothing to do with ObamaCare which itself can be traced back to a push for health care reform that began in congress (which the Democrats controlled) right before the 2008 primary season.

$12 an hour will never pass with Republicans in there, but $15 can easily pass if Democrats hold Congress and the Presidency, especially since it's what these officials constituents will demand. Plus, $15 an hour will be worth like $13 anyway in today's dollars by the next time Democrats have that sort of control. I'm a proponent of thinking big if something can reasonably be passed by a Democratic congress and that there's absolutely zero advantages to attempting legislation that might get Republican votes when we all know that never happens. Case in point? Roughly the first five years of Obama's Presidency before he wised up and too this hard line stance of pushing things through the executive branch.

You can debate your own economic merits of the $15 wage although it really won't be too big of an adjustment for this country given the studies we've seen on it. There will be job losses in some industries/areas, but the collective benefit in income (particularly for the service industry) would do a lot to really get the economy moving again as none of these people are really able to spend much with their current checks. But actually getting passed? That's a cake walk once Democrats have control. I imagine it would happen almost immediately, even, although they might step up the rate increases year-by-year and have $15 occur like six years down the road or whatever.


No, No, No. Sorry.

First, she didn't just "jump on board" with 15 in New York.
She has always supported the Dem plan of 12 dollar fed wage and 15 or more for any high cost of living metro area that sees fit.
She stood by every major city that raised their wage to 15.

If anyone "jumped on" it's Sanders.
He jumped on the "fight for 15". Why? Because its like all his other proposals. Sounds great. Shout it out, rile up the crowd. Send in your 27 dollars. Rinse and repeat.

Like i have said here numerous times.

A 2 bedroom apt in NY, LA, San Fran, Boston, etc... 2000 to 3000 or so.
A 2 bedroom apt in Lena, IL. Or Chester, OK is 500 a month.

The economic reality and result/consequence of this wage hike, is vastly different in large cities with hundreds of thousands of businesses and major industries, than it is for the 10's of thousands of rural communities around the country.

passing a FED minimum of 15 makes absolutely no sense. Clintons take is right on, and is in line with liberal states like Oregon, and i believe NY, that passed 15 in metro areas, and lower wages in rural areas.

It doesn't matter if we get the senate and congress back in this respect, it still doesn't make Sanders plan right.
 
multiple editorials from bright minds

:)





$12 an hour will never pass with Republicans in there, but $15 can easily pass if Democrats hold Congress and the Presidency,


agreed. so we'll look forward to you and the rest of the Sanders people, and especially Bernie Sanders himself, helping out the Democratic Party in the fall so they can take back at least the Senate, which is totally possible.

i'll totally feel the Bern then.

i really will.
 
:)








agreed. so we'll look forward to you and the rest of the Sanders people, and especially Bernie Sanders himself, helping out the Democratic Party in the fall so they can take back at least the Senate, which is totally possible.

i'll totally feel the Bern then.

i really will.

This is one of the many frustrating aspects of the Bernie campaign. He's done next to nothing to help gather the support needed down the ticket.

The ONLY way he would get any of his proposals through is to have a D majority in both houses.

Clinton has been on the trail campaigning for those in her party. Maybe I've missed it, but Bernie hasn't.
 
This is one of the many frustrating aspects of the Bernie campaign. He's done next to nothing to help gather the support needed down the ticket.

The ONLY way he would get any of his proposals through is to have a D majority in both houses.

Clinton has been on the trail campaigning for those in her party. Maybe I've missed it, but Bernie hasn't.


Add that to him SAYING - I will do everything in my power to make sure Donald Trump does not get into the White House. Yet, look at the behavior right now. I would say it's anything but helping keep Trump from the white house.

Lots of talk. No action.
 
What is there to remember by it? Obama handily trounced McCain and won the Presidency.


:facepalm:

But he had to fend off the term from the left and right.

The American left is not as far left as you'd like to believe. You're purposely obtuse at times and very isolated from reality, which I guess is needed to have your perspective, but you said you deal in facts. SO I ask again, where's your evidence that a majority would say "so what"?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
2) Sanders doesn't have "shaky support" with minorities. They're just voting for Clinton for their own reasons - a lot of it being name recognition. Again, his favorability within the party is practically hitting the ceiling. Minorities would have no problem voting for the guy if he where the Democratic nominee.


So they wouldn't be the assholes that some Sander's supporters are being by saying "give me something" or I'll stay home?

Interesting:hmm:


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
do you have evidence for this? evidence that these are people who would not vote if not for Bernie? what are those numbers? how do we know they are in the middle? if there are so many, why is he so far behind? much farther behind that HRC ever was in 2008.

Do you not even have a basic understanding of the math? Sanders has drawn millions of votes, some of those millions are not Democrats and many of them don't plan on supporting Clinton (or really, voting at all if she's the nominee), hence why the polls between her and Trump have closed a bit and Nate Silver even did an article on this fairly recently (check out the one I posted in here yesterday, I believe). Just because Sanders has lost doesn't mean he isn't drawing people into the fold.

Nearly 90% of Clinton's voters in the campaign so far (I think it was along the lines of 87% in the infographic I saw) are Democratic party diehards. They are voting for the D in November no matter what.
 
So they wouldn't be the assholes that some Sander's supporters are being by saying "give me something" or I'll stay home?

Interesting:hmm:

Yeah, it's called complacency. Of course the more politically active people are always going to demand more than those that feel Democracy starts and ends with a vote in November.
 
Do you not even have a basic understanding of the math? Sanders has drawn millions of votes, some of those millions are not Democrats and many of them don't plan on supporting Clinton (or really, voting at all if she's the nominee), hence why the polls between her and Trump have closed a bit and Nate Silver even did an article on this fairly recently (check out the one I posted in here yesterday, I believe). Just because Sanders has lost doesn't mean he isn't drawing people into the fold.

Nearly 90% of Clinton's voters in the campaign so far (I think it was along the lines of 87% in the infographic I saw) are Democratic party diehards. They are voting for the D in November no matter what.


where is this information you keep referencing? it has nothing to do with math and everything to do with words you keep presenting as facts. i'm looking for information beyond your say-so. you were dead wrong about "Sanders does better in open primaries and therefore the entire primary should be open in all states. or caucuses." how can we be sure you're correctly understanding this information?

seems like it's an even grimmer picture for Sanders than i initially thought. if all these millions and millions of people who are not Democrats and won't vote in November are awakening from their political slumber and turning out for him in massive numbers and he's still 3 million votes behind, that makes me really worried for him in November.
 
Last edited:
This is one of the many frustrating aspects of the Bernie campaign. He's done next to nothing to help gather the support needed down the ticket.

The ONLY way he would get any of his proposals through is to have a D majority in both houses.

Clinton has been on the trail campaigning for those in her party. Maybe I've missed it, but Bernie hasn't.


This is a truly horrific post.


1) Your first line says Bernie should do more to help people down ticket. Um, so what does that entail exactly? I'm all ears.

2) Your second line is just friggin' ridiculous because Clinton is faced with the exact same dilemma. I'm absolutely bewildered by people believing that her being President will somehow make Republicans suddenly reach across the aisle and pass left-leaning legislation. Have you been asleep these last seven years?

3) Clinton has been doing fundraising where the DNC pays her money and gives her a share for her Presidential run. It does not solely benefit members of her own party. And of course Sanders is supporting all sorts of Democrats in November and wants them to win. Give me evidence where he has said otherwise.


Clintonistas. Outnumbered on the internet and not in tune to the future of the party. I wish you all weren't so in love with big banking, fracking and racism (superpredators, 08 campaign, Goldwater girl) and could see the real problems in this society and just how we need to change them. I want to stop Trump so bad from winning in November and it's people like you that have left us with such a terrible Democratic candidate. You really don't care about winning or helping the party and just want to sabotage everything to elect somebody whose name you recognize despite her persistent shortcomings. At least we will all know who to blame when her scandals come back to bite her in the ass in November, harming the party down ticket and potentially costing the left the Presidency. :up:
 
Add that to him SAYING - I will do everything in my power to make sure Donald Trump does not get into the White House. Yet, look at the behavior right now. I would say it's anything but helping keep Trump from the white house.

Lots of talk. No action.

And what action are you supposed to take in politics which is literally all talking aside from writing legislation. Is he supposed to go club Trump on the head? Is he supposed to bow down in defeat in front of Clinton, kiss her feet and declare her the Queen of Progressives?

Again, Clinton is the nominee. Her race to lose. She's to blame. End of. Nobody should be bending over backwards to suit her needs because she's such an inferior candidate. If she can't close the deal in November, that's on her. The history books will give the reasons as to why Clinton failed and it certainly won't be because Bernie friggin' Sanders decided to get a handful of concessions at the convention. If she can't withstand something like that, how can she be an effective leader when it comes to foreign policy for example?
 
Clintonistas. Outnumbered on the internet and not in tune to the future of the party. I wish you all weren't so in love with big banking, fracking and racism (superpredators, 08 campaign, Goldwater girl) and could see the real problems in this society and just how we need to change them.



here it is.
 
This is a truly horrific post.





1) Your first line says Bernie should do more to help people down ticket. Um, so what does that entail exactly? I'm all ears.



2) Your second line is just friggin' ridiculous because Clinton is faced with the exact same dilemma. I'm absolutely bewildered by people believing that her being President will somehow make Republicans suddenly reach across the aisle and pass left-leaning legislation. Have you been asleep these last seven years?



3) Clinton has been doing fundraising where the DNC pays her money and gives her a share for her Presidential run. It does not solely benefit members of her own party. And of course Sanders is supporting all sorts of Democrats in November and wants them to win. Give me evidence where he has said otherwise.





Clintonistas. Outnumbered on the internet and not in tune to the future of the party. I wish you all weren't so in love with big banking, fracking and racism (superpredators, 08 campaign, Goldwater girl) and could see the real problems in this society and just how we need to change them. I want to stop Trump so bad from winning in November and it's people like you that have left us with such a terrible Democratic candidate. You really don't care about winning or helping the party and just want to sabotage everything to elect somebody whose name you recognize despite her persistent shortcomings. At least we will all know who to blame when her scandals come back to bite her in the ass in November, harming the party down ticket and potentially costing the left the Presidency. :up:


This is tiring.

It's like a false dichotomy. It's either black or white, all or nothing there is no grey, no middle ground, no compromise.

We get it, you only want a candidate who will pass EVERYTHING they have proposed or NOTHING at all. You're happy if Bernie is in White House and nothing passes because well at least he campaigned on the ideology you believe in. There can be no compromise on these values. He must get it all, or nothing is fine too.

I feel Obama has done the best anyone could ever do with the shit he had to deal with. Think of the progress we as a country have seen since he took office.

Agree with it or not but we missed a Great Recession/Depression era.

Our Foreign Policy, while not perfect, is no longer a joke.

And social issues have been a huge focus, and progress made there.

All under Obama, and myself, and others feel Clinton will continue this legacy. No it won't make us the socialized fantasy of what Bernie wants, but we are inching closer to it. Incremental changes, it's how our society was set up, and it's doing just that. Even with as fucked up as it is

And you should know very well how Bernie can help other Dems on the ticket for November....He can show up at their campaign events, he can ENDORSE, and he can raise money for them.

Something every other politician has done for their party since the beginning.

Without those Dems taking seats from GOP, his policies are dead, cause we all know he won't compromise at all with anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Yeah, it's called complacency. Of course the more politically active people are always going to demand more than those that feel Democracy starts and ends with a vote in November.

So let me get this straight; Sanders supporters = 'more polically active entitled assholes'.

and once again; women and minorities = complacent sheep that can't think for themselves.

Got it :up:
 
It's like a false dichotomy. It's either black or white, all or nothing there is no grey, no middle ground, no compromise.

We get it, you only want a candidate who will pass EVERYTHING they have proposed or NOTHING at all. You're happy if Bernie is in White House and nothing passes because well at least he campaigned on the ideology you believe in. There can be no compromise on these values. He must get it all, or nothing is fine too.

That is not what I'm saying at all. Passing anything left-leaning would be a step in the right direction. I'm arguing that Clinton is just as ineffective with a Republican Congress as Bernie would be. Neither will be given an inch by the GOP.

And some people in this thread still don't understand compromise. Compromise is fine if the GOP were willing to compromise. They're not. Not one inch. So if Clinton finds common ground with them on major legislation, it's automatically something that is anathema to the left, such as Obama working Republicans for TPP votes. That's exactly why the far left fears Clinton. Not because of what she supports as a lot of that is a step in the right direction even if it doesn't go as far as Sanders but because of the common ground she shares with the GOP on a handful of issues.

If the GOP aren't even willing to compromise on making government do its basic functions (passing a budget, confirming justices, etc.) why on earth would they suddenly agree to any of the proposals that Clinton has trumped up in this primary? It's never going to happen.

It's my personal belief that Clinton will care more about history book accomplishments than holding her ground for eight years. If it means agreeing to social security cuts or increasing the military budget or allowing more fracking, she'll go along with it just to get something done amidst the Republican intransigence. And that's good for none of her supporters. With Clinton getting shellacked in the 1994 midterms, we got NAFTA, welfare reform and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
 
Last edited:
So let me get this straight; Sanders supporters = 'more polically active entitled assholes'.

and once again; women and minorities = complacent sheep that can't think for themselves.

Got it :up:

I'd say the entitled ones are the ones arguing that "it's her turn"

And women? Young women are supporting Sanders by overwhelming margins. This primary is really an age issue more than it is a gender or race issue.
 
I'd say the entitled ones are the ones arguing that "it's her turn"

And women? Young women are supporting Sanders by overwhelming margins. This primary is really an age issue more than it is a gender or race issue.

Well, I don't hear anyone saying that in here.

Interesting, that's not what you said in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom