US Presidential Election XII - Page 59 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-06-2016, 10:02 PM   #871
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
So, the American people hearing the word "Socialist" bandied about would have sunk his numbers lower than Clinton's? Really? Clinton's numbers were garbage during the primaries and they're garbage now, why would you not think Sanders would have been able to keep up his? It's not like Clinton is really getting attacked by a major ad blitz or anything - people just don't like her.

Biden's choice had nothing to do with being ready. He didn't have a prayer once Bernie became a big thing and polling proved that time and again which is why he admitted he didn't join the race in the first place.

Now, the sad part is that Clinton supporters all would have been way better off with Biden. You'd have somebody in the same range politically with hardly any of the baggage. But they weren't willing to compromise on the dream of electing the first female President because it was her turn.

You can pretend all you want and remain in fantasy land, but the truth has been pointed out to you time and time again; Bernie was never really vetted nor put up against Republican voters. If you don't get that, you NEVER will.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 10:10 PM   #872
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Just going to echo the to your post about immigration, namkcuR. Your posts in general in these political discussions have been very balanced and thoughtful and well-argued, and I very much appreciate that and wanted to let you know that .
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 09-06-2016, 10:26 PM   #873
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You can pretend all you want and remain in fantasy land, but the truth has been pointed out to you time and time again; Bernie was never really vetted nor put up against Republican voters. If you don't get that, you NEVER will.
And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

That's a pretty big fucking deal in my mind. Just the 3% of the vote on Election Day for Stein will be about 4 million votes. That's almost the margin between Romney and Obama last time alone - and virtually all of them would have voted for Sanders had he been the nominee.

You can come up with all of your vetting nonsense of which no facts can ever possibly exist since Sanders was never the nominee, but the only evidence we have are the match-up polls and favorability polls taken by the American people in which they really liked Mr. Sanders to a much greater degree. Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that a lot of this has to do with Mrs. Clinton and not some vast right wing conspiracy to discredit her. Trump has fuck all to do with millions of liberals being disgusted by Hillary Clinton, just as they were disgusted by Bill Clinton and gave Nader almost 3,000,000 votes at the turn of the century.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 10:42 PM   #874
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).
No, I do get its because they are the nominees. That's what you don't get, that's how poor of a candidate Sanders was, a better candidate with Sanders' platform slightly tweaked, AND actually had a plan on how to implement things would have cleaned house.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that a lot of this has to do with Mrs. Clinton and not some vast right wing conspiracy to discredit her.

It's simpleton assumptions like this that keep you from having a real conversation with the adults in here.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 10:45 PM   #875
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Yeah, because plans and policy details were so important among the Clinton primary voters who by a much wider margin couldn't even name a single policy plank of her platform. Not to mention that Sanders' supporters will leave this planet with college degrees by about a 2-1 margin over Clinton voters.

And then go and call the other poster a child because he blames Clinton's own actions for why people don't trust her. Insult the queen and BVS is always ready to jump in and declare "Heresy!"

Because those of us that have spent our entire political lives are being babies for not considering the Clintons as liberals despite them not being a key part of the civil rights movement, anti-free trade movement, anti-bank movement, anti-imperialist movement, environmental movement - and have usually worked in ways that are antithetical to such causes. Nor were they part of the policies supported by the far-left press over the last six decades or did Bill even do anything to help unions, the bedrock of liberal politics, during his tenure as President.

She is the one trying to suddenly wrap herself in the clothing of something she never was simply because it's the politically prescient thing to do and nearly half the Democratic primary voters saw through the charade and said otherwise. Her policies and actions do not have to be accepted by people that have lived their lives on the far-left nor were they forgiven at the ballot box by such people in 2000 or 2016 (if the Stein numbers even remotely hold up).

Call Clinton the leader of the Democratic Party or the only real option out of the current two choices or whatever else you want. But don't call her a liberal, or suggest that those that call themselves one are being childish, because it's really not a thought process based in reality. The liberal movement is something that has stood outside the confines of the Democratic Party organization and has accomplished a tremendous amount without their support (and often against their attacks, such as DOMA and the Iraq War vote). It does not need to fold itself under the banner of one individual simply because of an established party structure, nor should it be silenced for pointing out wrongs and hypocrisy because one party is considered less odious than the other.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 10:59 PM   #876
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,966
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

I really struggle with the assertion that Sanders would play better among centrists than Hillary.

I say this as kind of a centrist myself. I'm socially pretty mainstream Democrat but economically close to dead center. And honestly the idea of Sanders as president scared me. I would have voted for him against Trump because Trump is uniquely apocalyptic. Or even against most of the Republican clown car (Kasich is the only one who would have made it a close call, I guess). But I substantially prefer being able to vote for Hillary because she's much closer to my views - as a centrist. And it's not hard to imagine someone a couple shades redder than me crossing the GOP line against Sanders more easily than I would have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 11:04 PM   #877
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,091
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Won't someone think of the poor dead horse!

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app
__________________
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 11:14 PM   #878
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post

And then go and call the other poster a child because he blames Clinton's own actions for why people don't trust her. Insult the queen and BVS is always ready to jump in and declare "Heresy!"
You really don't get it do you? I've stated several times that it's Clinton's actions. You're building a strawman so you can post another canned rant. I've stated time and time again that I'm not excited about casting my vote for Clinton, but that's how bad the choices were this campaign.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 11:34 PM   #879
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,052
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees.
This is far too Americentric a view. The rise of minor parties as a challenge to the established party system (whether it be binary, trinary, whatever) is a wider phenomenon of Western liberal democracy in the past couple of decades. In Australia, we have between a quarter to a fifth of the vote going to minor parties at both state and federal elections, with that percentage consistently increasing from election to election (as recently as last decade the minor party share of the vote was just a tenth). In New Zealand, no party has had a majority in parliament for two decades - and this in a country where, off the top of my head, there had been majorities dating back to the 1890s.

Those are the two polities with which I have the best knowledge, but it's a trend mirrored in many other countries, with new insurgent parties stealing vote shares from the established parties. Europe is full of such examples. And often the candidates of the established parties are very talented and charismatic. The Greens in Australia, for example, achieved most of their gains against Kevin Rudd - who, as much as he is now a whipping boy, was at the time polling record popularity figures.

What I'm saying is that whoever the Democrats and Republicans nominated, we should expect to see an increase in the minor party vote. It would be remarkable if there weren't one, and we would need to ask why (because as much as the US system has its peculiarities, so does every polity; it usually fits into broader Western trends and, indeed, often sets them). Now, yes, the unpopularity of Clinton and Trump will quicken the drift to minor parties, but that drift would occur anyway.

I would also suggest your argument against Clinton is overblown, because Republicans are clearly choosing the Libertarians over Trump at a far greater rate than Democrats are going Green. To tell you the truth, I think Stein's figures are terrible. How the fuck is she only polling 3% in 2016? Especially if this apocalyptic unpopularity of Clinton is true?
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
Old 09-06-2016, 11:53 PM   #880
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:39 AM
US Presidential Election XII

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I really struggle with the assertion that Sanders would play better among centrists than Hillary.

I say this as kind of a centrist myself. I'm socially pretty mainstream Democrat but economically close to dead center. And honestly the idea of Sanders as president scared me. I would have voted for him against Trump because Trump is uniquely apocalyptic. Or even against most of the Republican clown car (Kasich is the only one who would have made it a close call, I guess). But I substantially prefer being able to vote for Hillary because she's much closer to my views - as a centrist. And it's not hard to imagine someone a couple shades redder than me crossing the GOP line against Sanders more easily than I would have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference




This is where the election will be won. Hillary can easily peel off the middle and even some right-leaning women. Bernie is enough out of the mainstream that he could easily cause some socially moderate supply siders -- terrified at the thought of higher taxes and socialized medicine -- to look at Trump and rationalize that "at least he'll surround himself with good people." And pull the lever.

The 1990s were a good time for most. Especially the affluent. Her husband's economic record bathes her in a good enough light for these folks.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 11:56 PM   #881
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I've stated time and time again that I'm not excited about casting my vote for Clinton


Which is now part of the FYM rules. No one can possibly admit to thinking that she might be a highly competent executive with a sophisticated understanding of world affairs plus an understated but glowing record of bipartisan accomplishments in the Senate, a seat she won handily twice.

Just admit that she's unlikeable.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:07 AM   #882
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Which is now part of the FYM rules. No one can possibly admit to thinking that she might be a highly competent executive with a sophisticated understanding of world affairs plus an understated but glowing record of bipartisan accomplishments in the Senate, a seat she won handily twice.

Just admit that she's unlikeable.
I can admit to all of what you just said, while simultaneously acknowledging that she is, ideologically, not as much to the left as I would like, particularly on foreign affairs(too interventionist). I don't care at all about the unlikeable or untrustworthy numbers. Politicians in general are an untrustworthy bunch.

Generally speaking, I am holding out hope that she is indeed to the left of where Bill was when he was President on a multitude of things, and that she is genuine about attempting to accomplish the stuff in her platform that was added for Bernie($15 minimum wage, free public college tuition, public option, opposition to the worst parts of the TPP, etc). We'll see.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:08 AM   #883
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Just going to echo the to your post about immigration, namkcuR. Your posts in general in these political discussions have been very balanced and thoughtful and well-argued, and I very much appreciate that and wanted to let you know that .
Hey, thanks
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:18 AM   #884
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 03:39 AM
You're welcome .
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:56 AM   #885
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Axver, regarding Stein, she has absolutely no money to compete with and absolutely zero media attention. The American system requires money in order to compete whereas elsewhere parties can emerge out of the woodwork in the UK and randomly start winning local and district elections, etc.

I generally think your assumption is wrong regarding it being normal for third party support to quickly grow to a sizable share of the electorate and I feel that this is just a unique case due to Trump and Clinton being so disliked. I think the Libertarian party probably has more room for growth, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Libertarian/Green vote in 2020 was under 5%. Americans are just too stuck in their ways of voting for these two parties and feel it's the apocalypse if the other side wins, thus making them afraid of the spoiler effect. I really think R and D will dominate through the end of my lifetime and nothing will change, especially if major campaign finance and/or electoral reform doesn't happen. Doesn't help either that the non-white share of the country (as in, the growing majority of the population) has been pulled under the banner of the Democratic Party. Blacks aren't going to want to rebel against the party of Obama nor are Latinos going to quickly jump ship from the group they joined recently to stop Trump.

On the other hand, millennial (and future generation) whites will make up the majority of the third party vote just as they are now to the point where Trump is polling fourth with millennials. Those that are anti-government but don't relate to the "whites are getting screwed" rhetoric will vote Libertarian while the white liberals that don't have a social connection to the Democratic Party will go Green or whatever because they don't have a historical and/or emotional connection to the Democrats. Call it white privilege if you will, but I think it really is more due to circumstances. Nader's spoiler effect, Obama and Trump running, etc. These are historical events effecting the chances for future third parties and the makeup of their voters and without them we might have a different storyline entirely.

Although it should be pointed out that blacks, for example, are supporting Stein and Johnson by about the same numbers within the community as the rest of the country although you can argue that's because Trump is polling at 2% among that group...but it isn't just whites, obviously, that are willing to shift from the two party structure although they have more reason to do so because of the lack of emotional attachment or having to care about a particular racial demographic's cause. To young whites, the Democratic Party just represents nothing more than a group that has been weak-willed against Republicans and whose leaders have gone along with abhorrent causes like the War in Iraq, repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. There's no real legislative positive from Democrats other than Obamacare from the lens of a person whose political life begins in this century.

Thinking about it more, the millennial (and younger) vote is what's going to be key for the life of these third parties. It's clear that virtually all of the Johnson/Stein voters are young people (which is why they are both doing better than Trump among that group), but if you get, say Tulsi Gabbard as the nominee in the future or even someone like Obama that can be seen as a liberal savior despite the reality, you're going to see that Green Party vote dissipate quickly. Likewise, the only hope for the Republican Party in the future is to basically just become the Libertarian Party, so if you get a Gary Johnson-type Republican Presidential nominee, there goes the sizable Libertarian protest vote.

It's basically a reaction to the nominee. Bush wasn't the right kind of Republican, hence Perot. Clinton wasn't a liberal and betrayed the cause, hence Nader. When the candidates are adequate for the party faithful like W Bush or Obama, the protest votes dries up almost immediately and thus hampers the third parties for years to come in terms of support, money, infrastructure, etc.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com