US Presidential Election XII

[Diemen]

This is amazing.

__________________

[Debra S]

Originally Posted by Axver

But what I want to know is why they are trying to work from the top down rather than the bottom up. Win some local councils, achieve the balance of power in state legislatures, etc. Establish a reliable supporter base and use it as the foundation to attain higher office. This is Electioneering 101.

OK, I'm aware they have a handful of councillors, and maybe here I have the problem of looking from a distance, but I have the impression that the US Greens by and large do a presidential electoral drive-by every four years and are otherwise missing in action, even at midterms.

That's true. I worked for the Green Party for a season, and they were talking about who they would support on the Dem ticket.

[Debra S]

Originally Posted by BVS

I just think you believe the speech to be a little more important than it really was. Apparently there were those in the crowd that didn't like his focus on "the blacks" and then there were many black people who attacked his speech and said he still missed the point.

Side note: have you seen insult comic dog's fake Trump ads focus group on real Trump supporters? Comic gold.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

lol

[Debra S]

I just watched the Jill Stein town hall on CNN. She has an impressive (African American) running mate, who has made some inflammatory remarks but generally sounds sincere.

Stein has an impressive bio, but like Carson lacks real credibility on policies. I am taken aback about her anti-militaristic, "let's remove all American bases around the world" statement, and the general idea that sanctions and banning arms sales will bring peace to the Middle East. She thinks the US hasn't been attacked yet, so no immanent threat, so....cumbauya! Uh, San Bernadino, Orlando...?

She does think that Hillary's actions have been dangerous, citing Libya for instance, and she thinks that she does not have the right Feminism, which should be nurturing, not militaristic...hmmm.


Oh, and she's courting the 43 million youth vote by promising to remove all student debt. That's her way of corralling the Sanders voters, I suppose, even with such a long shot third party vote...

Anyone else catch this?

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Axver

But what I want to know is why they are trying to work from the top down rather than the bottom up. Win some local councils, achieve the balance of power in state legislatures, etc. Establish a reliable supporter base and use it as the foundation to attain higher office. This is Electioneering 101.

OK, I'm aware they have a handful of councillors, and maybe here I have the problem of looking from a distance, but I have the impression that the US Greens by and large do a presidential electoral drive-by every four years and are otherwise missing in action, even at midterms.

The obsession with the presidency strikes me as somewhat fetishistic and naive myself. Even a significant Green bloc in Congress could have real impact in a way that a (hypothetical, nevergunnahappen) Green President could not. For all the lazy condemnation thrown their way, that (congressional races) is indeed where both the Dean and Sanders campaigns, respectively, turned/are turning their sights when the two morphed into post-presidential-run organisations.

That said, it's not clear to me that I would support the US Greens. Not so much because they're too leftwing; because they're too incoherent, and at times just silly. If I lived over there, I'd be one of those left-wing-of-the-Democrats people.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm just going to copy-and-paste this comment from Metafilter, regarding Hillary Clinton's "extremely careless" email practices:

wow

[BigMacPhisto]

Outsiders just don't understand how impossible it is to win legislature seats, even at the state level, when the majority of Americans are so fixed into two party politics and afraid of the spoiler vote.

And to top all that off, many states have now added a Top Two voting system where you have to be in the Top Two in an open primary just to make it to the General Election (hence why California has two Democrats running for the Senate this November and no Republicans). It makes it even harder to get anywhere since there's the looming fear that splitting the left vote could lead to two Republicans on the general election ballot.

This is the same shitty system that Bill Clinton supported in 2008 after it was clear Hillary was going to lose the nomination. The idea being that there would be an open nationwide primary and the top two would advance to the General, basically ensuring that each side votes for the person with the most name recognition out of fear that splitting the vote could lead to two Rs or two Ds as the choices for President. Hillary would have beat Barack 3-to-1 had that been instituted.

Keep in mind that every single party has come out against the Top Two system as it takes away their own primaries and vetting process. It's been a corporate ploy that gullible voters have supported at the ballot thinking it will somehow lead to more moderate candidates, but all it really does is make it likelier that, say, the banking industry can get behind the same candidate throughout the entire process rather than risking money on someone that can't even win their primary. And in the jungle primary, just how on earth is a Green candidate ever going to make it to the top two with no corporate interests funding them and so many Americans worried about the spoiler effect?

[Kieran McConville]

If what you say is true, that does indeed throw a spanner in the works. Makes me wonder if my early 2000s opinion on all this (the Greens, if serious, ought to attempt a generation-long takeover of the Democratic party, the way the modern conservative movement did the GOP) is closer to the mark.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Diemen

This is amazing.

Says who?

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

That said, it's not clear to me that I would support the US Greens. Not so much because they're too leftwing; because they're too incoherent, and at times just silly. If I lived over there, I'd be one of those left-wing-of-the-Democrats people.

I wonder if this might be true of me as well. The US Greens remind me more of the Mana Party/Internet Party electoral alliance in the last New Zealand election (which probably means nothing to anybody here, oh well, but went very badly thanks to incoherent silliness) than the Green parties we've got down here.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Outsiders just don't understand how impossible it is to win legislature seats, even at the state level, when the majority of Americans are so fixed into two party politics and afraid of the spoiler vote.

I looked into this a bit more and I note that the US Greens have managed to win a handful of state seats - but that the individuals who won them consistently leave the party within months to sit as an independent or a Democrat. That's really damning. It's the sort of thing that has killed the credibility and long-term supporter base of multiple parties in Australia, I can tell you that. It suggests a lack of party discipline, commitment, or common cause.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

BVS - I'll check it out




He did speak for several minutes about Education in inner-city school systems.

How do you feel about his proposal to retain good teachers with Merit-Based pay?

Giving more power to get rid of bad teachers who are protected by the NEA (in the pocket of the Democratic Party) ?

I went to a diverse public middle-class school district in New Jersey. I was in the Honors tract so I had some fantastic teachers. Some of my gym/art teachers were obviously just phoning it in with their tenure protected. I can easily see where the problem can exist where bad apples can stay, preventing opportunity for new inspiring teachers to enter the system.

He also touched on charter schools. A GOP promoted policy for the past 2 decades. Not a cover-all solution for everybody but there are success stories.

I've never had a chance to see the documentary 'Waiting for Superman' that deals with education in urban centers. Did catch some of the commentary on families having to go through the lottery system to send their kids to better schools. Seemed like it was a make or break moment for their kid's futures.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

45 minutes of semi-coherent babble doesn't make up for 18 months of incoherent babble.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Debra S

I am taken aback about her anti-militaristic, "let's remove all American bases around the world" statement, and the general idea that sanctions and banning arms sales will bring peace to the Middle East. She thinks the US hasn't been attacked yet, so no immanent threat, so....cumbauya! Uh, San Bernadino, Orlando...?

Why exactly are you taken aback?



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[martha]

This is an interesting take on the third party situation in the US.

The legacy of 2016: Trumpism, broken politics and third-party futility - Salon.com

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Axver

Says who?



I wonder if this might be true of me as well. The US Greens remind me more of the Mana Party/Internet Party electoral alliance in the last New Zealand election (which probably means nothing to anybody here, oh well, but went very badly thanks to incoherent silliness) than the Green parties we've got down here.



I looked into this a bit more and I note that the US Greens have managed to win a handful of state seats - but that the individuals who won them consistently leave the party within months to sit as an independent or a Democrat. That's really damning. It's the sort of thing that has killed the credibility and long-term supporter base of multiple parties in Australia, I can tell you that. It suggests a lack of party discipline, commitment, or common cause.

Call it Clive Palmer Syndrome, maybe.

To me, the Greens, in their US incarnation, come off as a messianic cult with not a whole lot of substance. Probably they're hobbled by all sorts of factors that I as an outsider can't quite grasp, as has been hinted at. I suspect they are trying to be all things to all people who inhabit that netherworld to the left of the mainstream discourse (which is rather a lot of people actually). You can't be all things to all people unless you've got a Hollywood budget. Snark intended.

[phanan]

Originally Posted by Diemen

This is amazing.

Comedy gold.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders built his firebrand presidential campaign on calls for financial transparency.

Now that his campaign is over — meh.

Sanders has officially skirted having to file the most recent reports on his personal finances — after asking twice for delays in his campaign’s dwindling final act, theCenter for Public Integrityreported Thursday.

The self-described Democratic socialist will now never have to reveal the impact his campaign may have had on his personal wealth. Sanders himself raised questions just this month when the senator — who reported a $200,000 income from two years ago — dropped nearly $600,000 on alakefront summer home.

Federal law required Sanders to reveal his most recent personal finances in the middle of May.

But the Sanders campaign asked for, and received, a 45-day extension from the Federal Election Commission.

The campaign asked for another extension June 30 — weeks after Hillary Clinton unofficially clinched the Democratic nomination — blaming “the current campaign schedule and officeholder duties.” The FEC granted the request once again.

Now that Sanders has at last ended his White House bid, the campaign says those reports just ain’t gonna happen.

"We were told that since the senator no longer is a candidate there was no requirement to file," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs told the Center.

Feel the Bern.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

The obsession with the presidency strikes me as somewhat fetishistic and naive myself. Even a significant Green bloc in Congress could have real impact in a way that a (hypothetical, nevergunnahappen) Green President could not. For all the lazy condemnation thrown their way, that (congressional races) is indeed where both the Dean and Sanders campaigns, respectively, turned/are turning their sights when the two morphed into post-presidential-run organisations.

That said, it's not clear to me that I would support the US Greens. Not so much because they're too leftwing; because they're too incoherent, and at times just silly. If I lived over there, I'd be one of those left-wing-of-the-Democrats people.

I said to a friend earlier, that the laziness of the Greens to show up every 4 years, and to not have a palatable, broad-based, appealing platform to the electorate, which first wins them local, then state, then congressional seats first, THEN move onto the Presidential arena - garners resentment not resonance.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Feel the Bern.

I swear, there is something really damning in his past returns. I would love to know what it is. But i'm guessing he declined a VP vetting opportunity, or was not asked because of it...

[martha]

Saint Bernie? No way.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by phanan

Comedy gold.

This is the very same Michael Cohen, special counsel to Donald Trump, who said of Ivana Trump's claim that Donald raped her: "and, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can't rape your spouse."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Feel the Bern.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/2.../#161d7d5f60ab


that brings him up to three homes now -- he owns property in DC and VT.

what about the 99% of Americans who can't afford three homes?