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.
Previously, I scoffed at the notion that there was as much crossover between the Sanders and Trump camps, but even I have to admit I was wrong. I, like probably many of us, was thinking of myself and like-minded people, because I managed to fall into the trap of believing that Sanders' voter base was 20-somethings who are pissed about income inequality. While that is a sizable and not inconsequential base (one that I've noticed many of Clinton's media supporters love to yell "WE DON'T NEED YOUR VOTE" at, but I digress) we're all forgetting about constituencies like West Virginia. Like this absolute piece of shit article that treats everyone in that state, and others who have suffered immensely from economic downturn in small town America, as if they are totally irrelevant. Desperation is very real, but that makes for uncomfortable realities, especially for the pundits who make their living reporting on the election game. So let's just call them disgruntled white men and move on! There is no other possible way they would show the voting habits that they have shown.

This isn't meant to support the "Bernie or Bust" movement, which is absurd and not something I am apart of. But acting like there are only four or five neat little boxes to pile the electorate into has gotten us in a whole lot of trouble before. And let's be clear: Clinton has not shown once to have a good understanding of voters. The Dems can very well still blow this election, and if they do it will be because they have shown to be wholly incompetent.




In agree that the Democrats have, traditionally, showed an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and someone who is "not a natural politician" like HRC worries me.

I'm not so worried about her lack of white support in comparison to 2008, because I think a lot of her white support in states like WV and OH and PA were due to the fact that she was running against a black man. But I am worried about her ability to win the Bernie voters -- young and liberal or neither -- now that she's the almost certain nominee.

It does seem like we're back to the notion that Sanders and Trump are speaking to/demagoging the same fears. I agree that there's an ivory tower around journalists in DC and NYC -- or in this case London, where the author is likely trying to reassure a nervous liberal London readership -- that prohibits understanding why why people vote the way that they do. I think you hear journalists reflecting the language of campaigns which really do run on data and demographics in increasingly sophisticated ways. But that may be inadequate to address a decision (voting) that is at least in part emotional, especially now at the end of one era (Obama) and the beginning of the next, and with the worst of the economic crisis behind us but a (for many) less appealing future in front of us. Sanders/Trump share an emotional language and invective towards easy enemies (Bankers/Mexicans) that goes far in times like these.

We're on our 14th consecutive day with measurable precipitation here inside the Beltway. There's been no sun to speak of, and none likely until at least the weekend, then after what looks like another week of clouds and rain. Everyone is talking about the gloom. It's mid-May. The best time of year in this city. What happened to our famous spring weather we're promised after a bleak winter? Outside its America?
 
Last edited:
It does seem like we're back to the notion that Sanders and Trump are speaking to/demagoging the same fears.


Oh come on now. I hate having to be the "guy who defends Sanders" because I'm not so sure I'd want him as my president. I'm also one of the people who has suggested they share a sizable amount of their electorate. But not because they're playing to people's fears.

Sanders is by no means playing down to peoples' fears. Are he and Trump both firebrands? Definitely. Most presidential candidates tend to be. But the reason they'd share a voting base is because of individuals who are irritated with establishment politics, who don't have strong core beliefs. i.e. a decent amount of disaffected independents.
 
Oh come on now. I hate having to be the "guy who defends Sanders" because I'm not so sure I'd want him as my president. I'm also one of the people who has suggested they share a sizable amount of their electorate. But not because they're playing to people's fears.

Sanders is by no means playing down to peoples' fears. Are he and Trump both firebrands? Definitely. Most presidential candidates tend to be. But the reason they'd share a voting base is because of individuals who are irritated with establishment politics, who don't have strong core beliefs. i.e. a decent amount of disaffected independents.



i feel comfortable saying they are both demagogues. they *are* playing to people's fears, offering simplistic solutions to complex problems, and among the things they're both blaming is "the establishment" (whatever that is). it's no surprise that they have overlapping voter bases.

the difference is Sanders' diagnosis of the situation is much better than Trump's.
 
Isn't Hillary's recent counter-punch to Trump's whole "Make America Great Again" thing "America Is Already Great"? I thought I saw the Democratic Party trying to sell hats like that. That's exactly the shit I'm talking about. Sanders and Trump ARE speaking to people's fears, because Clinton isn't. Clinton is quite often pretending they don't exist. Which sort of gets back to why Hillary is such an unpalatable candidate to many on the left: her whole platform is essentially American Exceptionalism.
 
i feel comfortable saying they are both demagogues. they *are* playing to people's fears, offering simplistic solutions to complex problems, and among the things they're both blaming is "the establishment" (whatever that is). it's no surprise that they have overlapping voter bases.



the difference is Sanders' diagnosis of the situation is much better than Trump's.


Being a demagogue and playing to someone's fears are not the same thing. By all means, call Sanders a demagogue.

You come off with a big Clinton bias when you say something like this. I don't know what fears Sanders plays to, and I certainly don't know how they're the same as Trump. He's not going after immigrants and people of different religions as scapegoats. He's not blaming foreign countries for our trouble. He's not overstating foreign terrorism and ISIS. These aren't the same at all.

And if you don't know what the establishment is after this primary election cycle, I don't think you've been paying attention.
 
Isn't Hillary's recent counter-punch to Trump's whole "Make America Great Again" thing "America Is Already Great"? I thought I saw the Democratic Party trying to sell hats like that. That's exactly the shit I'm talking about. Sanders and Trump ARE speaking to people's fears, because Clinton isn't. Clinton is quite often pretending they don't exist. Which sort of gets back to why Hillary is such an unpalatable candidate to many on the left: her whole platform is essentially American Exceptionalism.


I thought Hilary's counter to the absurd Trump slogan is one of the best things she has said, on the superficial scale. We don't need to make America great again, because on the whole it's already pretty great.

Of course she followed it up with nonsensical babble saying we need to make it "whole again," which made me barf a little bit. I think she was trying to say we just need to go back to working on the things we aren't so great at, even if overall it's pretty great. Didn't come out that well, though.
 
You come off with a big Clinton bias when you say something like this.


yeah, see, this is what's starting to get to me about this cycle. because i've criticized Sanders, i'm now filled with "Clinton bias" -- as if preferring one candidate to another after careful consideration means one is incapable of clear thinking. when you do this, you sound like a conservative pundit claiming "media bias." it's feeling like the "true progressive" card is being played in moments like these.

Sanders has consistently said that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is the root cause of all of America's problems. he blames the banks, and the "millionaires and billionaires." that's non-specific, he's offered no real solution beyond taxes, and it's a message designed to appeal to lower socio-economic classes (and their sympathizers). that IS the definition of a demagogue.

i have searched myself, deeply, as to why i can't get on the Sanders train this election cycle. i obviously admire Obama, and have never loved HRC, especially in 2008. but as this campaign wears on, and i increasingly come to the realization that Bernie is scapegoating me by virtue of vowing to raise my taxes and tax me at the same rate as people who make double or triple my salary, and for him to say that i'm the problem, somehow, is really irritating. i agree with progressive taxation. i think single payer is better. i believe in regulation. but i also find myself right in that income bracket that's going to be squeezed the most, and also feel the most pain because i look rich on paper to Sanders -- who lumps me in, through his tax plan, as a "millionaire and billionaire" -- even if reality is vastly different.

maybe i've changed. maybe you do get more conservative when you get older. maybe if you have actually laid down roots and put stakes into the present you do have something to lose in a way that you don't when you were 23. i have every reason to want the present to get incrementally better, i have no reason to want some sort of vague "do you hear the people sing" white nonsense. adults know that problems aren't solved with "political revolution." what a dumbshit, empty phrase. if we want to take the most successful social movement of the past 10 years, same-sex marriage, we have to go back to its roots in 1993 in Hawaii. and then Vermont. or even the AIDS crisis. and then dozens of tiny battles waged over decades that culminated in a sea change. there is no revolution. there is only the hard work and toil of people willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work necessary. people like Evan Wolfson, for example.

finally, i am quite sympathetic to people who have worked for the Democratic party for years, who have worked to win the Senate, the Congress, to put up viable candidates so we can have a national party that can compete with the organized and disciplined Republicans, and then a candidate for their party's nomination turns around and calls them "establishment" and pretends that they are the enemy. i can understand the irritation of NARAL or Planned Parenthood at being called "establishment." a lot of these people are very much "fuck off, Bernie. where the fuck have you been these past 25 years? awfully fucking easy to be pure when you only have to win a state of 660,000 people. the rest of us live in the real world."





I don't know what fears Sanders plays to, and I certainly don't know how they're the same as Trump.

both men play to fear of the future in what has become the New Normal.


He's not going after immigrants and people of different religions as scapegoats. He's not blaming foreign countries for our trouble. He's not overstating foreign terrorism and ISIS. These aren't the same at all.


i'm not comparing what their blaming, i am comparing how they are appealing to voters. through fear and loathing of a vague, all-powerful group of people who are stealing their futures from them. we're talking blueprints, not specifics.


And if you don't know what the establishment is after this primary election cycle, I don't think you've been paying attention.


define it for me.
 
Last edited:
I thought Hilary's counter to the absurd Trump slogan is one of the best things she has said, on the superficial scale. We don't need to make America great again, because on the whole it's already pretty great.

Of course she followed it up with nonsensical babble saying we need to make it "whole again," which made me barf a little bit. I think she was trying to say we just need to go back to working on the things we aren't so great at, even if overall it's pretty great. Didn't come out that well, though.
You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It goes back to what Headache and I were discussing with "white privilege" a couple pages back. Do you think the people in this country who have had a really rough go of it financially for quite a while want to hear about how great America is? It hasn't been great for them. And it's incredibly tone deaf of Clinton to talk about how great America is when so many are struggling. But as the media people who eat up her campaign talking points are so thrilled to tell us: she does not need their votes because, according to her numbers, most of them come from demographics she doesn't care about.
 
Well said PhilsFan in your OP.

I said it once before there maybe a legit crossover of Bernie voters to Trump whether to spite Clinton herself or to take down the entrenched.

There was a poll that show 10-20% of Bernie voters crossing over to Trump. And another percentage staying home.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Wait, what? I don't see how Sanders is a demagogue. Populist, perhaps. Demagogue, no.

adults know that problems aren't solved with "political revolution." what a dumbshit, empty phrase.

Paging Vlad...
 
dem·a·gogue
ˈdeməˌɡäɡ/
noun
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
synonyms: rabble-rouser, agitator, political agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand, fomenter, provocateur
"he was drawn into a circle of campus demagogues"
(in ancient Greece and Rome) a leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people.
 
Wait, what? I don't see how Sanders is a demagogue. Populist, perhaps. Demagogue, no.







Paging Vlad...


I suppose a demagogue and a populist are two similar things. One could make an argument, but I would be on the side of saying he's not. Not unless every firebrand populist is a demagogue.
 
You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It goes back to what Headache and I were discussing with "white privilege" a couple pages back. Do you think the people in this country who have had a really rough go of it financially for quite a while want to hear about how great America is? It hasn't been great for them. And it's incredibly tone deaf of Clinton to talk about how great America is when so many are struggling. But as the media people who eat up her campaign talking points are so thrilled to tell us: she does not need their votes because, according to her numbers, most of them come from demographics she doesn't care about.


I read that discussion and I appreciated it. I got the point, but I'm not asking for how people feel. I'm not making a privileged argument. I know there are problems. And, making a comment on how people feel is different from how people are. Which, this was sort of the conclusion of your discussion with headache.

It was a rebuttal on Clinton's part though. Not just a declaration. If you don't think Trump's insistence that America needs to be made great again is a total overstatement, you're seeing history through rose tinted glasses. The great America Trump dreams of never existed. He just reminisces about when certain problems didn't exist but other problems did.
 
I cannot for the life of me understand why Clinton's campaign strategy isn't to display that not only is Donald's rhetoric totally empty from the standpoint that he has no enactable plans, but also from the standpoint that his history in business is mostly a series of failures propped up by nothing other than being born wealthy. She should point out he's a fraud, not that he's "dangerous." Instead, she's preaching to the pundit class with a "what will the world think of us if we elect someone like him???" attitude. She still does not seem to understand how far apart the values of the media are from the values of the electorate.
 
Sanders lost fairly resoudningly in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania... so Sanders would actually be a terrible choice for VP.

Right, so the majority of one-tenth of this November's general election voters in those states for the Democratic primary preferring the Presidential candidate on his ticket means he would hurt them in swing states.

I really hope that was a joke. There's no connection between how a candidate does in their primaries to how they would do nationwide. Or do you really think Trump is the best candidate for the GOP?

If anything, if we look at the people that aren't actually Democratic party members that would vote for the ticket regardless, Sanders is the one that has actually got them to the polls and involved in this primary. That's exactly the sort of reason to have him on the ticket.
 
I cannot for the life of me understand why Clinton's campaign strategy isn't to display that not only is Donald's rhetoric totally empty from the standpoint that he has no enactable plans, but also from the standpoint that his history in business is mostly a series of failures propped up by nothing other than being born wealthy. She should point out he's a fraud, not that he's "dangerous." Instead, she's preaching to the pundit class with a "what will the world think of us if we elect someone like him???" attitude. She still does not seem to understand how far apart the values of the media are from the values of the electorate.

She doesn't need to do any sort of strategy. It's in the bag. I don't know why people even pretend he's a threat to win this thing.
 
Instead of just defining a demagogue, why don't you actually detail how Sanders is a demagogue?


i thought i did? "millionaires and billionaires" and "wall street bankers" are presented as the source of all our problems.

1. vague
2. appeals to prejudices and emotions
3. appeals to lower socio-economic classes
4. no rational solutions offered, just enemies
 
exactly. they've fucked this up before.

No, they haven't. Show me where they had a consistent ten point nationwide lead for basically a year like Clinton does over Trump...hundreds and hundreds of polls. You throw in four more years of Republican voters dying and being replaced by liberal, younger ones and it only gets easier every Presidential election as the country continues to tilt to the left.

Obama led by basically the same margin in general election polls throughout 2008 and 2012...nothing really ever changed. This is a freakin' cake walk and I don't even know why people are scared.
 
I cannot for the life of me understand why Clinton's campaign strategy isn't to display that not only is Donald's rhetoric totally empty from the standpoint that he has no enactable plans, but also from the standpoint that his history in business is mostly a series of failures propped up by nothing other than being born wealthy. She should point out he's a fraud, not that he's "dangerous." Instead, she's preaching to the pundit class with a "what will the world think of us if we elect someone like him???" attitude. She still does not seem to understand how far apart the values of the media are from the values of the electorate.

But they know he's a fraud, they just don't care. Everyone has pointed out he's a liar, a failure, and has flip flopped on every single major issue of this election, they just don't care. This is not about issues with them, this is not about if he's a fraud or not. You could put Charles Manson up there, put him in a suit, put an R behind his name, tell him to yell about the Mexicans and Muslims, and tell the people he's not "establishment" and they would vote for him.

Actually pointing out he's dangerous is the best thing she can do now. Other than that she needs to step back and let him resort to his child like antics, let him weasel his way out of debates or squash him in debates, but other than that there's not much else she can do. She needs to play it cool, don't galvanize those that might stay home, if she can do that the math is on her side.
 
i thought i did? "millionaires and billionaires" and "wall street bankers" are presented as the source of all our problems.

1. vague
2. appeals to prejudices and emotions
3. appeals to lower socio-economic classes
4. no rational solutions offered, just enemies

It's not vague. It's part of a stump speech in an era of the political soundbyte, so it's not like he has hours to go into detail on all this, nor does he need to since progressives no exatly where he stands.

And he offers plenty of solutions. Breaking up the banks, stringent restrictions on trading activity, and most importantly, heavy taxation. These are the same solutions proposed (to a lesser degree) by most Democrats.

Not so sure your lower socio-economic thing is exactly true...Clinton appeals to the poorest group of them all (black voters) while Sanders handily won the Democrats Abroad electorate which tends to be wealthy people living elsewhere.

Sanders accurately assesses a lot of our problems and if you think he's way off, then why on earth would you vote for a Democrat in the first place?
 
Trump has received 10.9 million primary votes. Romney received 60.9 million general election results. I rest my case. Unless you think someone as vile as Trump is going to get all 50 million of those outstanding voters that have yet to cast a ballot for him and somehow earn another 5 million plus from god-knows-where (as the share of the white vote has consistently slipped by the exact same degree every four years), then there really is no need to even remotely be worried.

If men with higher favorability ratings and better numbers in general election polls couldn't do it, why would this idiot succeed? Especially when he's already drawing groups like Latinos to register in excessively large numbers just so that they can vote against him in November.
 
yeah, see, this is what's starting to get to me about this cycle. because i've criticized Sanders, i'm now filled with "Clinton bias" -- as if preferring one candidate to another after careful consideration means one is incapable of clear thinking. when you do this, you sound like a conservative pundit claiming "media bias." it's feeling like the "true progressive" card is being played in moments like these.

You can make irrational claims like this about my post to you, but all I did was say you're portraying a bias towards your preferred candidate. I'd say the same thing if you were targeting Clinton over Benghazi or some garbage. Those are the conservative pundits. They're not negotiable with. I'm not out to get Clinton. It's you who is out after Sanders. Attempting to equate his approach as fear mongering is not right -- it's not what he's doing.

Sanders has consistently said that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is the root cause of all of America's problems. he blames the banks, and the "millionaires and billionaires." that's non-specific, he's offered no real solution beyond taxes, and it's a message designed to appeal to lower socio-economic classes (and their sympathizers). that IS the definition of a demagogue.
And that's not fear mongering. I'm not even debating the demagoguery. Call it what you want, that's fine. But it's not fear mongering.

i have searched myself, deeply, as to why i can't get on the Sanders train this election cycle. i obviously admire Obama, and have never loved HRC, especially in 2008. but as this campaign wears on, and i increasingly come to the realization that Bernie is scapegoating me by virtue of vowing to raise my taxes and tax me at the same rate as people who make double or triple my salary, and for him to say that i'm the problem, somehow, is really irritating. i agree with progressive taxation. i think single payer is better. i believe in regulation. but i also find myself right in that income bracket that's going to be squeezed the most, and also feel the most pain because i look rich on paper to Sanders -- who lumps me in, through his tax plan, as a "millionaire and billionaire" -- even if reality is vastly different.

And I have similar concerns with Sanders.

finally, i am quite sympathetic to people who have worked for the Democratic party for years, who have worked to win the Senate, the Congress, to put up viable candidates so we can have a national party that can compete with the organized and disciplined Republicans, and then a candidate for their party's nomination turns around and calls them "establishment" and pretends that they are the enemy.

And I wasn't debating whether or not it was a stupid concept. I'm "pro establishment" on both sides.


i'm not comparing what their blaming, i am comparing how they are appealing to voters. through fear and loathing of a vague, all-powerful group of people who are stealing their futures from them. we're talking blueprints, not specifics.


And while you might be saying that, I'm saying that I don't agree whatsoever. That's not Trump's main point, and it's not fear mongering.
 
It's not vague. It's part of a stump speech in an era of the political soundbyte, so it's not like he has hours to go into detail on all this, nor does he need to since progressives no exatly where he stands.

And he offers plenty of solutions. Breaking up the banks, stringent restrictions on trading activity, and most importantly, heavy taxation. These are the same solutions proposed (to a lesser degree) by most Democrats.

Not so sure your lower socio-economic thing is exactly true...Clinton appeals to the poorest group of them all (black voters) while Sanders handily won the Democrats Abroad electorate which tends to be wealthy people living elsewhere.

Sanders accurately assesses a lot of our problems and if you think he's way off, then why on earth would you vote for a Democrat in the first place?



it's the limitation of Sanders' view of the problems that gets me. i don't see any of his solutions as either realistic, in concept, or detailed, in execution. not even he knows how to "break up the banks." heavy taxation sounds nice, to some, but get that through Congress and not suffer heavy losses in the 2018 midterms.

your analysis of poor black voters and rich Americans abroad is pretty limited and rooted in stereotypes. the language he uses -- "millionaires and billionaires" -- is indeed pitched to appeal to lower socio-economic brackets, but those aren't the only people who would find that message resounding. there are many who make plenty of money who choose to ideologically align themselves with those below them in income -- is anyone more concerned with the working classes than academia? a lot of this is cultural positioning, and progressives playing more-progressive-than-thou. which can become really patronizing.

i think you're right that what Sanders is proposing isn't actually radical. many Democrats DO agree with him, they just think it needs to be implemented slowly, cautiously, and with specifics. there's not that much daylight, really, between Clinton and Sanders on policy, so what he's done is try to die her to, again, the "millionaires and billionaires" and the "Wall Street bankers" who, god forbid, have given her money. (they gave Obama money too).

this, more than anything, is what should give Democrats hope. whoever Wall Street backs tends to be who wins. they backed W, and then they backed Obama. we could argue for purity and assume that any politician with the support of Wall Street is the enemy, but then we'd never have had Barack Obama.

but, still.

John Kerry
Al Gore
Martha Coakley
Michael Dukakis

it's a terrifying list.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom