The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders has spoken out very strongly against Islamophobia, and his foreign policy is less militarily interventionist than some. And Clinton has never quite shaken the stigma of having voted for the Iraq war.

Their's also the fact that while he is Jewish, Sanders is not in any way a blind cheerleader for the Israeli government.

And of course Muslim voters also care about issues that have nothing to do with Islam, prejudice, or the Middle East, because they're just people like anyone else, not defined just by being Muslim. Like the guy in the article who likes Sanders' college affordability stuff.

Which is kind of what the article is getting at with criticizing the incredulity at the idea that Muslims could vote for a Jew.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I wonder if part of it may be that as former Secretary of State under Obama, they may think she will continue the status quo of drone strikes. Not to say Sanders won't either, but my impression has been he would be more restrained on that regard.

Hillary Clinton is also an avowed and vocal supporter of Israel; who enjoys the solid backing of the pro-Israel lobby. It is possible that her administration would adopt a foreign policy that is more Israel-friendly and a lot cooler toward the rest of the Middle East than Obama did. Bernie Sanders might be Jewish by blood, but he's very secular; almost certainly the closest to an actual secular humanist we'll get out of this current crop of candidates.

But anyway, Sanders (for a change) dramatically over-performed polling in Michigan last night, a state he was expected to lose badly. It's certainly got poll-watchers in a tizzy (not me, though, a single upset means nothing. If he pulls off victories in Illinois and Ohio next week then, and only then, can we really say that the narrative of this race has changed,) and I imagine the hardcore Sanders supporters will all be insufferably smug for the next week (I admit though, you've earned it.) He still came in worse-than-expected in Mississippi. However, good news! The Deep South is done voting.

And now, for some not-so-good news. Sanders is now behind by over 200 pledged delegates. Being utterly blown-out in the South did not help him one single bit. He's going to have to achieve solid victories in big states ... not just dramatic come-from-behind squeakers, if he is to have any hope of catching up to Clinton.

[Mr Bean]

So a massive suprise Bernie win. He only needs two more unprecedented historic come from behind wins before be is within shouting distance of Clinton. Shams about the pending indictment and all for her or she would have this in the bag.

We live in interesting times beware.

[Iroscato]

Am I right in thinking that if by some minor miracle Sanders overtakes Clinton in the delegate count, the 'superdelegates' will start shifting support over to him?

This whole thing is confusing as hell and I see no reason why it can't simply be a straightforward popular vote.

[Lord MJ]

On the subject of "How does Sanders expect to get anything done? We need to vote for Hillary. Sanders doesn't have the coalitions in the Senate and no examples of legislation he led and got passed."

I get consistently annoyed in that Sanders has explained multiple times how he intends to get his agenda enacted and it's like people have blinders on. And its as if the pundits he's talking to are completely dense and can't comprehend basic logic of playing politics and the democratic process. And when Sanders pushes back on their denseness it looks as if "Sanders can't handle criticism, we don't need that in a leader."

Truth be told, coalitions and relationships can have some benefit to getting policy enacted, but in large part it's almost a complete waste of time and worthless in this money in politics generation. Politicians positions are set for them by their donors. No amount of coalition building and appealing will change a politicians position. Only electoral pressure does.

Until we get rid of money in politics, the ONLY way to affect meaningful change is to force the politicians to make that change by threatening their jobs. You do that by grassroots organizing and "political revolution."

It's the truth that left leaning policies are favored even by conservatives in conservative districts. So you go into those districts (Republican and Democrat) and vigorously campaign for those policies. Furthermore you mobilize supporters. And basically tell the congressmen or Senator "Support this or your political career is over."

Don't be obstinate, be able to make reasonable compromises when appropriate. And at the end of the day you get something meaningful enacted, even if it's not in the original form intended.

This isn't radical revolution, it's Democracy in action. If John Stewart can do it to get 9/11 first responders bill passed in the face of GOP obstinance, surely President Sanders could as well. Barack Obama couldn't do it because he didn't really even try. I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so dumbfounded and dense to this simple basic concept.

The so called Hillary Clinton "pragmatic approach" is very unlikely to accomplish anything other that at best piecemeal change and at worst policies that actually hurt the general public in favor of the wealthy donors.

[Elheru Aran]

Don't be obstinate, be able to make reasonable compromises when appropriate. And at the end of the day you get something meaningful enacted, even if it's not in the original form intended.

This isn't radical revolution, it's Democracy in action. If John Stewart can do it to get 9/11 first responders bill passed in the face of GOP obstinance, surely President Sanders could as well. Barack Obama couldn't do it because he didn't really even try. I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so dumbfounded and dense to this simple basic concept.

So, what do you do when the opposition party will NOT concede to any compromise whatsoever? Because that's pretty much been what the GOP has been doing since Obama took office. I don't see any indication that they'd do any different with Bernie.

[Lord MJ]

Don't be obstinate, be able to make reasonable compromises when appropriate. And at the end of the day you get something meaningful enacted, even if it's not in the original form intended.

This isn't radical revolution, it's Democracy in action. If John Stewart can do it to get 9/11 first responders bill passed in the face of GOP obstinance, surely President Sanders could as well. Barack Obama couldn't do it because he didn't really even try. I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so dumbfounded and dense to this simple basic concept.

So, what do you do when the opposition party will NOT concede to any compromise whatsoever? Because that's pretty much been what the GOP has been doing since Obama took office. I don't see any indication that they'd do any different with Bernie.

If they value their continued employment as congressmen and Senators they will compromise. Gerrymandering makes this a bit more difficult in districts that have been purposely drawn to have the most rabidly conservative voters, but in districts with conservative voters that actually say "You know what, this is a good idea," self preservation will be the motivating factor to compromise. Create a list of target districts with GOP congressmen with sympathetic voters, set up shop in those districts, bring the pressure in those districts. In the Senate there is even more leverage since those are state wide elections.

I guarantee if the Dems had taken this approach we wouldn't have to deal with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In fact we wouldn't have to deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell because he would have been booted out of office this election. Because the Dems decided not to do that, and ran one of the worst candidates imaginable we now have to deal with Mitch.

[Gaidin]

Proposition: Maybe Sanders supporters are sick of business as usual enough to be more likely to hang up on pollsters. I certainly am.

What a conspiracy. The last time pollsters were THIS WRONG was 1984. They were either awkwardly wrong, which has happened before. Or Bernie Bros are conspiring across the state to make them look the fool.

I...yea.

I'll go with mine.

[Starglider]

Polling accuracy has been declining recently due to mainly to the proportion of people actually willing to answer landline calls and supply data dropping sharply and becoming less representative. Online polling has its own difficult set of confounding variables which no one has a really reliable way to strip out yet.

[The Romulan Republic]

Univision debate tonight on CNN.

Pretty fiery. Sanders looks pissed. Clinton is debating well, but with plenty of sleaze and pandering.

They actually asked her if she would step down if indicted. She brushed it off and refused to answer.

Clinton has launched blistering attacks on Bernie on immigration, even trying to tie him to violent Right wing extremism (the Minutemen). Not sure how valid that is, but Sanders didn't do a good job of refuting it. That could hurt him.

Still, I thought his opening was arguably stronger, and both are getting lots of applause.

[The Romulan Republic]

So...

Clinton, tonight, has tried to tie Sanders to violent Right wing extremism, accused him of siding with Republicans and not criticizing Bush, and has all but said that he supports Castro disappearing and murdering dissidents.

Now, I'll admit Sanders hasn't done the best job of refuting those charges. But the idea that Bernie fucking Sanders, of all people, is in league with Republicans is preposterous on the face of it. And the Castro stuff has a distinct undercurrent of McCarthyist Red Scare bullshit.

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton.

[blahface]

Bernie stumbled on the Castro and Sandinista question, but I thought he did, really, really well.

[The Romulan Republic]

They both flubbed the Trump racism question.

How hard is it to just say "Yes, Donald Trump is a racist."?

Really, there's a lot more I could go through here. An intense debate, with a lot of ups and downs. And a very lively (if somewhat pro-Clinton, it seemed) audience. Cheers aplenty, and even some booing.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm still marvelling at how Clinton, tonight:

a) Tried to portray Sanders as an ally of Republicans.
b) Tried to portray him as a supporter of Communist dictatorship.
c) Doesn't seem to get why people think she's untrustworthy (as my Mum pointed out when we discussed the debate).



Seriously, she may have my vote if, God forbid, she gets the nomination, but as I've said before in this thread, that's to keep Trump or Cruz or whoever out of power. Its a vote to keep the sinking ship afloat.

And I wouldn't rule out Primarying her in four years.

[Mr Bean]

If it's Hillary vs Trump I will for sure vote for Trump. How could I not vote for the world's best self proclaimed business man? Every Trump victory brings me one step closer to being able to cackle about the complete insane year that was 2016 when President Trump was elected. Even better as I'm in Ohio I could in theory Florida 2000 hand him this campaign.

Unlike the rest of you I look at the threats of today and say 1995-2010 already pushed us over the edge of decline. Things are going to change regardless why not elect President Nero? Senator Pinkie Pie will be a great addition to the Senate.

[LaCroix]

Hillary is looking VERY unconfortable at the end of the Miami debate, where Bernie received a standing ovation from the crowd...

[Crown]

It's funny how two people can watch the exact same thing but come away with totally different opinions; The Romulan Republic I have no idea what debate you were watching, but Bernie completely creamed Hillary. It got to the point that I was feeling sorry for the corporatist-banker Manchurian candidate.

She only (and really it was the moderators) clipped him a little at the end with the Castro stuff. But that stink won't stick with the young Latino voters and it will mostly wash off with all but the die hard older conservative Latino voters.

[DaveJB]

How hard is it to just say "Yes, Donald Trump is a racist."?

The answer to that probably depends on whether or not they have the time and energy to deal with a slander lawsuit on top of their presidential ambitions.

[Gaidin]

Polling accuracy has been declining recently due to mainly to the proportion of people actually willing to answer landline calls and supply data dropping sharply and becoming less representative. Online polling has its own difficult set of confounding variables which no one has a really reliable way to strip out yet.

No denying this. Just noting that there's a difference between declining accuracy of polls and the trend(not one poll) being off by holy crap 20 points. Those that track the trends have noted exactly what you've just said.

[The Romulan Republic]

If it's Hillary vs Trump I will for sure vote for Trump. How could I not vote for the world's best self proclaimed business man? Every Trump victory brings me one step closer to being able to cackle about the complete insane year that was 2016 when President Trump was elected. Even better as I'm in Ohio I could in theory Florida 2000 hand him this campaign.

Unlike the rest of you I look at the threats of today and say 1995-2010 already pushed us over the edge of decline. Things are going to change regardless why not elect President Nero? Senator Pinkie Pie will be a great addition to the Senate.

Some of us actually have ethical issues with handing America to a fascist because why not?

America may have some rough times ahead regardless, but its all the more important we pick the best possible leader, not a would-be strong man with delusions of grandeur.

[Gaidin]

How hard is it to just say "Yes, Donald Trump is a racist."?

The answer to that probably depends on whether or not they have the time and energy to deal with a slander lawsuit on top of their presidential ambitions.

Not that so much as they don't want to deal with the Trump Campaign until the Democratic Primary is over. One issue at at time. For serious. There's already been a few posts worth of debate in this thread on campaigns pivoting to the general election. This is the perfect example of it. Why provoke and have to deal with someone like Trump if he's A)not yet reached critical number for being the Republican Nominee and B)your own primary apparently can't publicly be played off as over. So don't provoke him. Let him fight his own primary runners.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe, except if you've already been given a question about Trump, with a very obvious answer that will likely go over well with your audience, it really seems a no-brainer to me.

[Gaidin]

Maybe, except if you've already been given a question about Trump, with a very obvious answer that will likely go over well with your audience, it really seems a no-brainer to me.

Except now you've not only opened up a second front for each of the Democratic candidates. You've handed trump the sympathetic victim card in his own primary to play which makes it even harder for someone like Cruz to make his life painful. Which the Democrats(yes, that includes Bernie) want right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I suppose that makes sense.

Still, I wish more people would have the guts to call Trump what he is. Part of the reasons I liked Martin O'Malley so much, might have voted for him if he'd had a chance, and would still like to see him on the VP spot, is because he is, so far as I can recall, the only candidate to flat-out call Trump a fascist.

[Gaidin]

Me, I'm curious what the Party will do should Trump actually complete his win. Because right now insofar as historical lookback we're seeing a good analogue to Goldwater winning in 1964, but I wonder if enough will carry that over into the general election.