2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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.

[PhilsFan]

Yes, that plan has worked out so well in the past for the Democratic Party.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

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

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Yes, that plan has worked out so well in the past for the Democratic Party.

exactly. they've fucked this up before.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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?

[BigMacPhisto]

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.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

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.

[BEAL]

For me the it's the "Us vs Them" mindset that has totally set in. As many others have said, and detailed out, the differences between Clinton and Sanders is not much. Yet, if you go off what has been lobbed over by the Sanders campaign, you'd think Clinton was the one who dropped party association to join the Democratic party.

Clinton has been through the ringer many, many times. She handles it very well (as did Obama), but no such thing has happened to Bernie. He basically is getting to campaign with no push back. Clinton can't really attack him out of fear of really losing his supporters for the general, so it's just bombs being thrown from one side.

There is an issue with $ in politics, and Sanders has run that into the ground. Trump has brought it up a bit too, playing off of that fear that our politicians are all bought and paid for (and some truth is there).

My curiosity is with Sander's campaign finance. I just find it a little odd he's gotten so much money, and very little has looked into where it's coming from. Even Obama joked about it with the line of 100k deposits of $27 each. Just seemed odd that he was able to out fund a candidate that has the backing of all the evil banks and establishment....

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

Yeah, I do not really agree with any of this. I think it's convenient and lazy to just say "they know their candidate is a shithead and they're just totally indifferent to it." And I think calling him dangerous instead of attacking his record and his lack of policy feeds back into his whole "I'm the bold choice because I'm the outsider, I'm not a politician" thing.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

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 .

Shouldn't your equation also include the fact that Romney got 10,031,336 votes in the primaries?

Trump has already received almost a million more and we still have California and a few more states to go.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

No, they haven't.

Scott Brown.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

I hate to say something as simplistic as "duh" but really it is true. The vast majority of people out there vote to further their self-interest.

This is why I don't get why some people are ardently trying to prove that the other side's supporters are the problem or whatever. Hello, how many people out there do you know who will blatantly go against what will further their interest the most?

In the last election I voted directly against my own economic interest but my reasoning was that I was in some ways more personally affected by a non-economic issue at the time (the blatantly racist new 2-tiered citizenship introduced by our old Prime Minister). So even in that case, I voted for something that meant the most to ME, just so happens that by doing so I had to give up certain financial perks.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Yeah, I do not really agree with any of this. I think it's convenient and lazy to just say "they know their candidate is a shithead and they're just totally indifferent to it." And I think calling him dangerous instead of attacking his record and his lack of policy feeds back into his whole "I'm the bold choice because I'm the outsider, I'm not a politician" thing.

I was in your same boat a few months ago, I wanted to believe that the fever would break and people would come to their senses and start actually looking at his policies. They didn't, and they won't. This place is a prime example.

Attempt to have a policy talk with a Trump supporter, it's fucking mind numbing. The media has shown him lying on air, they've dove into his failures, even his own party called him out over and over, they do not care. Heads are buried deep in the sand.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Shouldn't your equation also include the fact that Romney got 10,031,336 votes in the primaries?



Trump has already received almost a million more and we still have California and a few more states to go.

Fuzzy math indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Shouldn't your equation also include the fact that Romney got 10,031,336 votes in the primaries?



Trump has already received almost a million more and we still have California and a few more states to go.

In fairness, it's expected that the winner get more votes this round than in 2012. Trump isn't really... outpacing... Romney.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by BEAL

For me the it's the "Us vs Them" mindset that has totally set in. ....

'There is no them there's only us, only us. There is no them, there's only us'


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

In fairness, it's expected that the winner get more votes this round than in 2012. Trump isn't really... outpacing... Romney.

Yeah, Republican primary turnout is much higher in 2016 than in 2012, so Trump getting more votes than Romney isn't a huge deal.