2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[Salome]

It's really the dumbest worry. Wait until the convention before you accuse the guy of throwing the party and the election under the bus to suit his own needs. Until he decides not to endorse her, you can't suddenly chastise the man and his supporters for a crime they have yet to commit.

What a weird comment.
So when Sanders would come out and endorse Clinton, this entire campaign based partly on plans without foundations and partly on smearing Clinton (+anyone that can be labeled 'establishment') all of a sudden hasn't taken place?

That sounds downright Catholic, an absolution of sorts.


Riddle me this, if all of this won't matter anymore by the time it is November when all of this will be forgotten, then how could at the same time any of this result in to HRC and the entire democratic party to have moved in Sanders' direction (some sort of la-la-land where the economy grows 5.3% if not more per year), which apparently is his big aim now?

I don't care whether Sanders keeps his campaign going.
But it seems very unlikely to me that it will help the Democratic party and it also seems unlikely that someone who joined the party last year will now cause the party to change its course radically.
It will keep Sanders in the news, that it will achieve.
I'm sure when he finally does acknowledge Clinton as the Democratic candidate the first autobiography will appear soon after.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

The process has been criticized for all sorts of reasons before Sanders was campaigning, including by Sanders himself, and that's counting the big kerfuffle over Super Delegates eight years ago.

What the hell is this "voting class" that you have made up by the way, BEAL? And you could argue that Clinton's appeal is just as limited since young voters, the future of the Democratic party, don't care for her in the slightest.

I also haven't even bothered to look it up, but I can guarantee that Clinton crushed Obama with white voters in the 2008 primaries, yet you act like Sanders doing well with that constituency is suddenly meaningless. The primary winner should be the person who does best with the voters. That was Clinton this time and therefore she should become the nominee. The fact that she does better with minority voters should be meaningless in a party that prides itself on having democracy in its name (which is exactly why the Super Delegates should not have an extra large say). Again, Sanders is the person who has actually brought millions of non-Democrats (potentially) into the fold whereas Clinton is merely earning the votes of groups that were going to vote in November and for the Democratic nominee regardless. The complacent group that asks nothing of their party.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

What is so hard to understand about the damage that's being caused by the Democratic party seemingly looking even more chaotic than the Republicans looked, and they nominated Donald Fucking Trump?

Does he have to drop out? No, he doesn't have to do anything.

But this election is too damn important to burn the house down over the platform of an ideologue not who want even in the party a year ago.

It's not just the looming international disaster of a Trump presidency. We can get over that. It's the Supreme Court. Too much is at risk to play around here.

If he can't win, which even you admit that he can't, he should be working to compromise with Clinton to ensure his message is forefront at the convention while bowing out gracefully and working to unite the party.

The fear of many is that he's not in this for compromise, that he's going to stay in through the party, never sit down and work things out with HTC and the DNC, and walk out after Philadelphia as a defacto third party liberal candidate, even if he doesn't run.

The consequences og which will be, to quote an asshole, uuuuuge.

So much fear. So much fear.

Also, he doesn't owe Clinton or the DNC a damn thing. If they want to get those millions of voters that Sanders has brought into the fold, they'll need to earn them and make concessions via the platform, rule changes, etc. Otherwise, we should have just let Clinton run by herself and she'd currently be in favor of the TPP, the pipeline, etc.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I don't care whether Sanders keeps his campaign going.
But it seems very unlikely to me that it will help the Democratic party and it also seems unlikely that someone who joined the party last year will now cause the party to change its course radically.

It will keep Sanders in the news, that it will achieve.
I'm sure when he finally does acknowledge Clinton as the Democratic candidate the first autobiography will appear soon after.

Addressing the first part, he has already shifted the game more than the potential nominee of either major party in this election cycle, causing Clinton to tilt way over to the left and change her position on multiple issues. He has brought in millions of independent voters into the fold that could potentially vote for Clinton in the fall, so yes, she has every reason to meet him halfway.

And to say he's just doing it to be in the news and for book sales is pretty ludicrous. Dude has had an autobiography out for years that the campaign chucked into people's mail boxes for free when you'd donate while Sanders himself first mentioned running this campaign for the issues and acknowledged the uphill climb that it would take. I can guarantee that if some other liberal face like Warren had jumped into the ring, he wouldn't have even bothered since he'd figure there'd be someone running in the primaries to get the message out.

I just can't believe so many people in this thread are against the right of someone to run for elective office. Let him do what he wants and quit whining about it. If Clinton can't beat Trump, that's all on her, especially if she doesn't give out a significant olive branch to the Sanders supporters. If she can't even do that successfully and needs to be "protected" by having people end their campaigns, limiting the number of debates, etc. what kind of a leader would she make? It's like the Democratic Party picked the person with one-leg to run the 100 yard dash and I think almost any Democratic that would have become the nominee would be faring better in a head-to-head match-up against Trump. She's what baseball analytics people refer to as below replacement level. As in any generic AAA level player would fare better.

Did Clinton stop Obama last time from winning by running her campaign into June?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

NOBODY IS AGAINST THE RIGHT TO RUN FOR POLIICAL OFFICE.

at some point you would hope that the bigger picture would take precedence, but I suppose the true ideologues can't see the big picture; only their own slanted world view.

 

[Irvine511]

It's an opinionated article with an extremely negative headline from a paper that has done everything in its power to hurt the Sanders campaign. I'm somebody who looks at things objectively and believes in the actual facts, but this is merely an editorial with a lot of speculation.

And even then, it doesn't even raise any interesting questions beyond wondering if Sanders is going to ask his supporters to get behind Clinton. To me, the key takeaway from all of this is that Clinton needs people like me more than we need her and we damn sure should make her actually work for her votes rather than just get in line and check the box.

i think my earlier point has been made.

 

[BVS]

It's been grasping at straws like this for months now when it comes to the Clinton supporters. Nothing new here. I think a lot of them just feel overwhelmed when on the internet since like it's a 10-to-1 slant in favor of Sanders due to his large number of young and active supporters whereas Clinton's key constituencies are older voters that barely even use the internet. To them, it feels like the world has gone haywire and that a cult has taken over the party and OMG TRUMP GONNA WIN!!!!

When to the rest of us, we've had two solid candidates having some strong debates over policy specifics and what it means to be a progressive. As I said earlier, if the Democratic party just kowtowed to the fear mongers, we'd have never had President Clinton or President Obama and the person with the most name recognition would instantly win the primary by Super Tuesday every single time.

Just a big divide since the older voters and diehard party members are really into the Iraq War, no fly zones, fracking, Super PACs, minimum wage increases that max out at $12 and the like. I mean, they must be or else they wouldn't be getting behind someone they disagree with politically, right?

God, so many people in this thread love that fracking. It's a shame.

but you're the objective one that believes in facts, right?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

What? That Bernie has taken part of a process that's been going on since the 80s, and only when he joins a race and starts gaining "momentum" he criticizes the process because it doesn't favor him.

The supers were strongly in favor of Clinton in 2008, and they switched over to Obama once he proved he could win swing states and his performance across the board with all voters (not just young, the middle class, and white)

The supers would have switched over to Bernie too had he not been beaten so badly in the south and the swing states. Bernie hasn't shown he can get the voting class needed to win a general election

No conspiracy, the numbers didn't add up in his favor.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I'm not even picking a side or giving my views of the superdelegate system, but read what you wrote. You called Bernie Sanders "part of the establishment" and criticized him for being a hypocrite because he is a superdelegate -- something that he has no control over.

He's the farthest thing from an establishment member of the party, and he's totally allowed to criticize the idea of superdelegates without being a hypocrite. He can't just *not* be one.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's been grasping at straws like this for months now when it comes to the Clinton supporters. Nothing new here. I think a lot of them just feel overwhelmed when on the internet since like it's a 10-to-1 slant in favor of Sanders due to his large number of young and active supporters whereas Clinton's key constituencies are older voters that barely even use the internet.

Wow, how awfully condescending towards and dismissive of older voters.

Just a big divide since the older voters and diehard party members are really into the Iraq War, no fly zones, fracking, Super PACs, minimum wage increases that max out at $12 and the like. I mean, they must be or else they wouldn't be getting behind someone they disagree with politically, right?

God, so many people in this thread love that fracking. It's a shame.

I believe many here have already stated there are plenty of areas where they don't agree with Clinton in terms of policy, so can we not with that, please? There were people who were for gay marriage who voted for Obama in 2008 despite knowing he hadn't come out in favor of that issue, too, remember?

But he came around, didn't he? Same-sex marriage became legal under his presidency in the end. So even if we (speaking in general terms here, not just talking solely about Clinton supporters) personally disagree with Hilary on certain issues, if there's something liberals/Democrats really want her to get on board with, we can press her to make it a priority if she becomes president. And we can vote for politicians who can work alongside her and make it clear issues x, y, and z are what the constituents want.

Whether it's Hilary versus Sanders or Hilary versus Trump, either way, at some point some liberals/Democrats will be supporting her despite the fact they don't agree 100% with her on policy, so... There's plenty of other reasons why they might vote for her beyond policy, after all. I'm pretty sure some of the people who support Sanders or Trump or any of the other people who ran in this race weren't solely focused on policy when they decided who to vote for, too, after all.

 

[BEAL]

i think my earlier point has been made.

Damn non liberal media!!!!




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

NOBODY IS AGAINST THE RIGHT TO RUN FOR POLIICAL OFFICE.

at some point you would hope that the bigger picture would take precedence, but I suppose the true ideologues can't see the big picture; only their own slanted world view.

If you're calling for him to drop out at any time, then you are against his right to run for a political office. End of. Has nothing to do with ideology here.

Trump win = Hillary Be Bad Candidate. Quit preemptively blaming others for your party's nominee being so disliked among the general electorate.

 

[BVS]

something that he has no control over.

He can't just *not* be one.

Well that's not entirely true, he could have stayed where he was; he joined the party to get the benefits of the party and is in return criticizing everything about it. You can see where some find issue with that, right?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

So even if we (speaking in general terms here, not just talking solely about Clinton supporters) personally disagree with Hilary on certain issues, if there's something liberals/Democrats really want her to get on board with, we can press her to make it a priority if she becomes president.

Which is exactly what Sanders is attempting to do at the moment, but you should try and get concessions before someone is elected to office. Otherwise, they won't feel they owe you a damn thing.

Bill Clinton sure as hell didn't listen to the left in his eight years, causing cabinet members like Reich to up and leave. Unions got nothing, gays got nothing, etc. Plenty reason to think his wife won't listen either which is why she needs to earn those votes from the left.

 

[Salome]

Which is exactly what Sanders is attempting to do at the moment, but you should try and get concessions before someone is elected to office. Otherwise, they won't feel they owe you a damn thing.

Must work exactly the opposite in the US than over here in The Netherlands then.
Because during the election cycle here people can promise many things, what they eventually ending up doing when in government (due to having to work with coalition partners etc.) is a different matter.

Good to know that American politicians stay true their election cycle promises though

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If you're calling for him to drop out at any time, then you are against his right to run for a political office. End of. Has nothing to do with ideology here.

Trump win = Hillary Be Bad Candidate. Quit preemptively blaming others for your party's nominee being so disliked among the general electorate.

If a faction or the candidates own party keeps their supporters home in protest, then it has nothing to do with the person being a good candidate for a bad candidate. It's sabatoge.

And yes, he has every right to stay in and he is under no obligation to rally his supporters to vote for the Democratic candidate.

I don't think many on the left would argue that Donald Trump is a "good candidate.". Many on the right would even argue that he isn't. But there they are, rallying around their candidate in order to consolidate the base and attempt to win back the white house. If there weren't so many potential Supreme Court seats up over the next 4 to 8 years would they let Trump whither in the wind? Yea, probably. But they recognize the bigger picture. Their candidates dropped out rather than create chaos in order to prepare for the bigger pixture of a general election.

This has everything to do with ideology.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Yeah, Trump would make for a shitty President. Here's hoping Clinton is a good enough candidate to win. A Trump Presidency is entirely on her shoulders if it happens and it will obviously affect the future of the Democratic Party when it comes to nominating the unlikable/non-liberal from their ranks as that's clearly a losing proposition.

The ball is in Clinton's court. She can either try to appease the millions of people that aren't party members that voted for Sanders, or she can just tell them to fuck off and go it on her own. Either way, it's all up to her and none of the Sanders supporters are responsible for her actions.

 

[Salome]

The ball is in Clinton's court. She can either try to appease the millions of people that aren't party members that voted for Sanders, or she can just tell them to fuck off and go it on her own. Either way, it's all up to her and none of the Sanders supporters are responsible for her actions.

What would appease the Sanders voters?

 

[BVS]

Yeah, Trump would make for a shitty President. Here's hoping Clinton is a good enough candidate to win. A Trump Presidency is entirely on her shoulders if it happens

You do realize this is the "thinking" of a 5 yo child in a tantrum.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Irvine511]

What would appease the Sanders voters?

This is an excellent question.

It would be nice to know that it's still about policy and not a cult of personality.

(Like Josef Stalin or Gandhi)

 

[BigMacPhisto]

You do realize this is the "thinking" of a 5 yo child in a tantrum.

It's a two-party system, Clinton vs. Trump. If Clinton loses, then it's Clinton who lost. Children blame others for their mistakes.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Sanders wants to shift things leftward...maybe make a $15 minimum wage part of the platform, and especially, an agreement to not enter the TPP or whathaveyou.

Meanwhile, rules changes. No more superdelegates. Open primaries in every state so that you can actually draw in millions who aren't Democrats into the process. After the success Sanders had running a far-left campaign, you can believe that someone running in 2024 will try and emulate that...and therefore we need to make sure that the party apparatus isn't doing everything in its power to block that, such as having hundreds of Super Delegates line up years in advance to support Clinton's VP for the nomination, etc. One person, one vote and anyone that wants to join in the process should be welcomed.

It's really not much to ask for and pretty much everything he's railed on about is something supported by a majority of the party's members. It's not much for Clinton to agree to and there's no real downside to doing so, but it's all up to her (along with the party to give enough voice to Sanders' supporters at the convention).

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Must work exactly the opposite in the US than over here in The Netherlands then.
Because during the election cycle here people can promise many things, what they eventually ending up doing when in government (due to having to work with coalition partners etc.) is a different matter.

Good to know that American politicians stay true their election cycle promises though

Not even a clever post whatsoever. It doesn't take a genius to see that someone is more likely to keep a promise they make before getting elected than to make one in office when they no longer need the voters. So, we're just supposed to elect Clinton and then hope for the best once she's in her Ivory Tower for eight years? Come on.

It's a lot easier to hold a politician's feet to the fire if they renege on a promise. Would love to see Clinton unequivocally state that she's against the TPP and any future trade deals of that nature...or would love to see her give full support for transgender rights even though it seems a majority of Americans are dumb enough to believe in the whole bathroom scare (which is why Clinton would never come out in favor of their right to use bathrooms of their choosing if Trump brought it up in a debate). Now is the time to make Clinton earn votes, something she hasn't done this entire cycle as she's merely been bleeding them to Sanders for months.

 

[BVS]

It's a two-party system, Clinton vs. Trump. If Clinton loses, then it's Clinton who lost. Children blame others for their mistakes.

Most of us in here are adults, and we all understand that life is not perfect nor fair, and that sometimes compromises and sacrifices have to be made. So as an adult when you're facing a decision that is either this is as close as I can get with my budget or this one will burn my house down you go with the one that was closer to what you were looking for. You don't say well I'm entitled to the perfect one even though I can't afford it so I'm just going to let my house burn and blame the one that was closest to what I wanted but didn't choose.

Adult vs Entitled Child

You choose...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Well that's not entirely true, he could have stayed where he was; he joined the party to get the benefits of the party and is in return criticizing everything about it. You can see where some find issue with that, right?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It is entirely true.

Yes I agree that he joined and is criticizing and that worth criticism of Sanders.

But in regards to him actually being a superdelegate and acting like he's secretly benefiting from being one while criticizing the system is a joke because he doesn't have an option to not be one. He's a senator in the party. All party senators are superdelegates, whether they agree with the system or not.

So yeah, criticize him for joining, but don't criticize him for being a self supporting superdelegate. Nothing about Sanders' being a superdelegate and the direction he'll choose to vote with it is criticizable. His state voted for him 90-10. There's no hypocrisy over his criticism of the superdelegate system, that's ridiculous.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Which is exactly what Sanders is attempting to do at the moment, but you should try and get concessions before someone is elected to office. Otherwise, they won't feel they owe you a damn thing.

Bill Clinton sure as hell didn't listen to the left in his eight years, causing cabinet members like Reich to up and leave. Unions got nothing, gays got nothing, etc. Plenty reason to think his wife won't listen either which is why she needs to earn those votes from the left.

I'm all for the left pressing Hilary to make sure she's aware of the issues that are important to people pre-election, too. I would love to hear her come out in favor of the sorts of issues you mention. And I want voters to do the same with Bernie, too-politically speaking, yeah, I'm much more aligned with him in terms of policy and things I would support, but I have no problem with voters making sure that he will act on the things he supports and promises, too. I think voters should do that with ANY candidate they support, both before the election and after it.

But again, as noted with Obama and his stance on same-sex marriage pre-election versus post-election, things can always change, too. And voters need to remember to focus not just on holding Hilary or Bernie's feet to the fire, but members of Congress and whatnot as well. So long as Republicans have control of other aspects of government, it doesn't matter how progressive Hilary or Bernie are, they're both going to be fighting an uphill battle if either one of them becomes president, just like Obama's had to for the past eight years.

That's not to say we should just give up and not try and push for what we want, of course, god, no. Some of the best and most long-lasting change in our nation's history has come from that kind of struggle and fight. But it is an obstacle we'll need to figure out how to deal with regardless.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Most of us in here are adults, and we all understand that life is not perfect nor fair, and that sometimes compromises and sacrifices have to be made. So as an adult when you're facing a decision that is either this is as close as I can get with my budget or this one will burn my house down you go with the one that was closer to what you were looking for. You don't say well I'm entitled to the perfect one even though I can't afford it so I'm just going to let my house burn and blame the one that was closest to what I wanted but didn't choose.

Adult vs Entitled Child

You choose...

I've made my choice already. Jill Stein, once again. Thank you electoral college for making California meaningless and the hardest blue state to flip given its massive population.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I'm all for the left pressing Hilary to make sure she's aware of the issues that are important to people pre-election, too. I would love to hear her come out in favor of the sorts of issues you mention. And I want voters to do the same with Bernie, too-politically speaking, yeah, I'm much more aligned with him in terms of policy and things I would support, but I have no problem with voters making sure that he will act on the things he supports and promises, too. I think voters should do that with ANY candidate they support, both before the election and after it.

But again, as noted with Obama and his stance on same-sex marriage pre-election versus post-election, things can always change, too. And voters need to remember to focus not just on holding Hilary or Bernie's feet to the fire, but members of Congress and whatnot as well. So long as Republicans have control of other aspects of government, it doesn't matter how progressive Hilary or Bernie are, they're both going to be fighting an uphill battle if either one of them becomes president, just like Obama's had to for the past eight years.

That's not to say we should just give up and not try and push for what we want, of course, god, no. Some of the best and most long-lasting change in our nation's history has come from that kind of struggle and fight. But it is an obstacle we'll need to figure out how to deal with regardless.

All good points. Two things that I need to mention...

1) It's pointless to even really care about what Sanders is doing at this stage or for voters to look for issues with him as a candidate, etc. It's over, he lost. Unless Clinton suddenly gets a brain aneurysm, he's not going to be the nominee, so I don't understand the squabbling and whatever else. Sanders The Candidate was made irrelevant as someone you can actually expect something from in office once he won the nomination, therefore, his positions on the issues or anything contradictory he is currently doing does not matter whatsoever.

2) My worry with Clinton isn't so much a lack of trying to get liberal things pushed across. I know there will be a Republican House (although a Trump candidacy is the best thing we could have hoped for in order to flip that). Therefore, she will be stonewalled and basically ineffective at getting anything done through Congress. My worry, and that of everybody else on the left, is that she'll compromise with Republicans on gutting our social safety net (cutting medicare, social security, etc.) and engage with them on passing free trade deals (TPP), things bad for the environment (fracking) and more pointless military interventionism. After all, can we really trust a Clinton without help in Congress to do nothing at all or will she try to get right-wing legislation passed so she can look more effective in the history books? I say it's the latter. Evidence? Her husband.

Honestly, if you gave me a Clinton Presidency that could be trusted not to do that. I'd be fine. There'd be her awful war-hawk nature and the continuation of Obama's disgusting drone policy and the like, but if she held the fort and didn't cave to Republicans on the rest of the issues, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...just another waiting-out-the-clock Presidency like the last 3/4 of Obama's, waiting for Dems to get Congress back.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Latest State Polls:

New Jersey: Trump vs. Clinton (Clinton +7)
New Jersey: Trump vs. Sanders (Sanders + 12)

Sanders Spread = 5 points
Poll Source = Quinnipiac (5/19)


New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton (Clinton + 2)
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders (Sanders + 16)

Sanders Spread = 14 points
Poll Source = WBUR/MassINC (5/18)


Arizona: Trump vs. Clinton (Trump + 4)
Arizona: Trump vs. Sanders (Sanders +1)

Sanders Spread = 5 points
Poll Source = PPP (5/17)


Georgia: Trump vs. Clinton (Trump +4)
Georgia: Trump vs. Sanders (Sanders + 5)

Sanders Spread = 9 points
Poll Source = Atlanta-Journal Constitution (5/15)



General Election Polls:

Trump vs. Clinton (Trump + 3)
Trump vs. Sanders (Sanders + 4)

Source = Fox News (5/19)




And we've seen this same thing echoed again and again in national and statewide polls throughout this election cycle. It's a shame Democrats refuse to nominate the progressive that actually gets things done and wins elections.

Or is it a vast right wing poll conspiracy?

 

[BEAL]

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

 

[Irvine511]

No, as we've all said in here Sanders has never been subjected to right wing attacks nor has he conceded a primary he cannot win, so the party has not yet rallied around Clinton the way the Republicans are doing around Trump. It's silly to believe polls like these are indicative of anything other than general name familiarity and the already polarized electorate. It's also silly to think Sanders' numbers would stay the same if he were to become the nominee. I worry about the fact that he hasn't been vetted. He's only ever had to answer to a liberal, rural, super white population smaller than Washington DC. Whereas millions and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent vetting Clinton since 1992.

No one here cries conspiracy other than the "it's rigged!" people.