The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Civil War Man]

Once again, I can count on Kevin Drum to put into words feelings that would take me whole essays to explain

TL;DR version: In order to get what you want, you have to be ready to fight for it to the bitter end, so Bernie and all his supporters should just give up and stop trying to change the system.

So, I supported Bernie in my state's primary, and I fully acknowledge that barring something catastrophic he is probably going to lose. However, I also support him continuing the campaign not because I think he will win, but because it best serves the cause he is championing. Because, despite what the linked article claims, Bernie's not going to disappear into the ether as soon as the primary's over.

Think about it. Before this campaign, few people knew who Bernie Sanders was. Those who did really only saw him brought on to cable news talk shows as a bit of a sideshow act so the audience could gawk at the spectacular old Jewish socialist senator. Now, even those he's almost certainly going to ultimately lose the primary, he's gathered enough support that people are being forced to start taking him more seriously. He's already stated in so many words that, regardless of the primary's outcome, he's going to stay in the Democratic party, so if the Democrats take back the Senate in November he's going to be well-positioned to compete for a big leadership position. If he ends up in a leadership position, he's going to continue getting airtime. If he continues getting airtime, it creates an opening for more progressive candidates to compete for seats on the federal, state, and local levels.

And that's how you start a revolution.

The thing is, in order to do that, he has to prove that he and his supporters will no longer be ignored. In order to do that, he has to continue to demonstrate that his political views have a broad base of support. In order to do that, he has to stay in the race. Dropping out now just gives the conservative Democratic establishment carte blanche to completely write off the progressive base and continue sprinting to the right like they've done for the past few decades.

So I support part of what Drum is writing about. In order to change things, you need to be ready to fight for it. However, contrary to what he argues, doing that means continuing to challenge the Democratic establishment in order to pull the party kicking and screaming back to the left. It's hilarious that he brings up the New Deal as an example of change you have to fight for, considering that the modern Democratic establishment has worked hand-in-hand with the Republicans in order to dismantle it and Bernie's one of the few people in government who's trying to bring it back.

In essence, the left wing of America needs to learn a lesson from the Tea Party and force the Democratic party to start taking them seriously.

[The Vortex Empire]

Once again, I can count on Kevin Drum to put into words feelings that would take me whole essays to explain

TL;DR version: In order to get what you want, you have to be ready to fight for it to the bitter end, so Bernie and all his supporters should just give up and stop trying to change the system.

So, I supported Bernie in my state's primary, and I fully acknowledge that barring something catastrophic he is probably going to lose. However, I also support him continuing the campaign not because I think he will win, but because it best serves the cause he is championing. Because, despite what the linked article claims, Bernie's not going to disappear into the ether as soon as the primary's over.

Think about it. Before this campaign, few people knew who Bernie Sanders was. Those who did really only saw him brought on to cable news talk shows as a bit of a sideshow act so the audience could gawk at the spectacular old Jewish socialist senator. Now, even those he's almost certainly going to ultimately lose the primary, he's gathered enough support that people are being forced to start taking him more seriously. He's already stated in so many words that, regardless of the primary's outcome, he's going to stay in the Democratic party, so if the Democrats take back the Senate in November he's going to be well-positioned to compete for a big leadership position. If he ends up in a leadership position, he's going to continue getting airtime. If he continues getting airtime, it creates an opening for more progressive candidates to compete for seats on the federal, state, and local levels.

And that's how you start a revolution.

The thing is, in order to do that, he has to prove that he and his supporters will no longer be ignored. In order to do that, he has to continue to demonstrate that his political views have a broad base of support. In order to do that, he has to stay in the race. Dropping out now just gives the conservative Democratic establishment carte blanche to completely write off the progressive base and continue sprinting to the right like they've done for the past few decades.

So I support part of what Drum is writing about. In order to change things, you need to be ready to fight for it. However, contrary to what he argues, doing that means continuing to challenge the Democratic establishment in order to pull the party kicking and screaming back to the left. It's hilarious that he brings up the New Deal as an example of change you have to fight for, considering that the modern Democratic establishment has worked hand-in-hand with the Republicans in order to dismantle it and Bernie's one of the few people in government who's trying to bring it back.

In essence, the left wing of America needs to learn a lesson from the Tea Party and force the Democratic party to start taking them seriously.

Well said. And in addition to that, contrary to the usual narrative, studies repeatedly show that people's political views pretty much get locked in in their 20s. Bernie has won the youth, the future of the Democratic Party, for social democracy. In a decade or two, as the olds start dying off, the Party will have no chioce but to adopt his platform to maintain a voting base.

[Flagg]

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

[The Vortex Empire]

I live in Rhode Island. The odds of my vote tipping it over to Trump are 0%.

[Flagg]

I live in Rhode Island. The odds of my vote tipping it over to Trump are 0%.

True, it does depend on what state you live in. After all, some animals are more equal than others.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR is in the coming to terms with a hint of denial temper tantrum phase of your loser candidate losing. I remember, 2004 was a bitch.

I have no denial at all when it comes to the fact that Hillary Clinton is the far more likely victor. Annoyance, yes. Irritation, yes. "Why would you throw away this fucking chance, America"?, yes.

I acknowledge that its possible theoretically for Bernie to win because a) the delegate numbers agree with me and b) I'm annoyed at the pattern of people trying to marginalize him and push him out of the race.

But I fully acknowledge that its implausible. I still think he should stay in for now though regardless, for reasons I've already explained.

Where I draw the line would be the possibility of him contesting the convention with a clear minority in the pledged delegates and popular vote. That would just be stupid, petty, pointless, and embarrassing, and I hope he doesn't do it.

Let the contests play out, then come together at the convention behind whoever's in the lead.

Well he can always vote Trump out of revolt against the democrats. And doing that might just get Sanders into power eventually. I mean, if anything is going to make americans want a revolution than it's 4 years of President Trump.

Hell will freeze over before I vote for that fascist. I can honestly say that I would vote for George W. Bush's third term, were it possible, before him or Cruz.

Besides, its highly unlikely Sanders will run again if he can't do it now (the guy is in his 70s after all), and voting for certain damage to the country now on the chance that it will lead to future success is simply gambling with/sacrificing the well-being, security, rights, and even lives of a lot of people. Its not something I could morally justify even if I thought that it would work.

As for revolutions... considering how bad things are now, four years of Drumpf and I'm more worried about people wanting the "line them up against the wall" kind of revolution instead of Sanders' peaceful political revolution. Not that I'm predicting that their will be a civil war if he's President or anything. But I do think we'll see an emergence of more of a Left wing counterpart to the kind of violent radicalism we get from the Tea Party's worst elements and the Bundy crowd, and I don't consider the increased radicalization of American politics a good thing.

[Purple]

Don't be hyperbolicly panicky. The left historically only gets violent around the time that you start getting food riots.

[Iroscato]

With Clinton, you're essentially getting another 8 years of Obama* - I can think of far worse fates to befall a country.

*Please note I mean this in the roughest of senses. But as best as I can gather Clinton will on average be quite similar to Obama. Kindly correct me if I am drastically wrong here.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't be hyperbolicly panicky. The left historically only gets violent around the time that you start getting food riots.

What exactly is hyperbolic or panicky about suggesting that some on the Left might turn to violence? Nothing. I mean, we're already seeing reports of violence from protesters at Drumpf events, and threats directed at him (granted, I suppose some of that could be from Republican rivals). And there was considerable Left wing radicalism in the Sixties. You could probably also file at least some ecoterrorism under Left wing terrorism.

Like I said, I'm not talking about full blown Communist revolution or something. But a Left wing version of shit like the Tea Party and the Bundys.

Edit: As to Obama vs. Clinton, well, Clinton has basically tried to paint herself as another four years of Obama in the election at times. However, Clinton is highly inconsistent, so its hard to say how close she'll be to that. Probably broadly similar, in that she is a centre establishment politician.

[Purple]

What exactly is hyperbolic or panicky about suggesting that some on the Left might turn to violence? Nothing. I mean, we're already seeing reports of violence from protesters at Drumpf events, and threats directed at him (granted, I suppose some of that could be from Republican rivals). And there was considerable Left wing radicalism in the Sixties. You could probably also file at least some ecoterrorism under Left wing terrorism.

The idea that it will move beyond what it already is and into some sort of terrorism or similar movement. You need another decade or two of economic and social decay before that becomes a thing.

Like I said, I'm not talking about full blown Communist revolution or something. But a Left wing version of shit like the Tea Party and the Bundys.

I know. It's just that again you need a lot more starving people before that happens.

Edit: As to Obama vs. Clinton, well, Clinton has basically tried to paint herself as another four years of Obama in the election at times. However, Clinton is highly inconsistent, so its hard to say how close she'll be to that. Probably broadly similar, in that she is a centre establishment politician.

Honestly I think she'll be worse. All indications are that she'd be a step back to the era of her husband, shrub and similar presidents. You can say what you want about Obama but he at least did not start any new wars. With her, I wouldn't be so sure.

[The Romulan Republic]

You could argue that Obama started new wars in Syria and Libya. Although Libya was fairly limited and part of a larger coalition, and Syria is tied to the aftermath of Iraq.

[Purple]

You could argue that Obama started new wars in Syria and Libya. Although Libya was fairly limited and part of a larger coalition, and Syria is tied to the aftermath of Iraq.

If by started you mean provided moral support with a token military "aid" than sure. But in my book that infinitely beats stuff like invading Iraq. Frankly it is my opinion that every time an american president pulls the trigger on an imperial adventure like that it destabilizes the world further and leads to nothing but grief for everyone.

[Raw Shark]

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

Because voting for the Republican would be a +1 instead of a null, I don't believe in Clinton, and I want to send a, "Give us something or after four years of outrage we will actually get the stoners off the couch, go all Tea Party, and primary you hard," message. It might have as much chance of getting read as a bottle flung into the ocean, but when you're on a desert island you do what you can to pass the time and give yourself hope. I don't whine. I throw glass things.

[Flagg]

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

Because voting for the Republican would be a +1 instead of a null, I don't believe in Clinton, and I want to send a message. It might have as much chance of getting read as a bottle flung into the ocean, but when you're on a desert island you do what you can to pass the time and give yourself hope. I don't whine. I throw glass things.

You throw glass things while repeating Republiturd talking points.

[Raw Shark]

You throw glass things while repeating Republiturd talking points.

I'd be interested to see you expand on this comment.

[The Romulan Republic]

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

Because voting for the Republican would be a +1 instead of a null, I don't believe in Clinton, and I want to send a, "Give us something or after four years of outrage we will actually get the stoners off the couch, go all Tea Party, and primary you hard," message. It might have as much chance of getting read as a bottle flung into the ocean, but when you're on a desert island you do what you can to pass the time and give yourself hope. I don't whine. I throw glass things.

Voting Republican isn't plus one, its saying "fuck it, let's drive the country off a cliff."

Clinton, at worst, would be zero progress. That's better than deliberate self-destruction. I'll take zero movement over movement in the wrong direction, thanks.

And a Left wing Tea Party (the thing I was described as hyperbolic and panicky for worrying about) is not a solution. I'd be open to primarying Clinton in four years, but I'll still vote for her now. Because the Tea Party mentality (with the refusal to compromise and tendency towards political violence it entails) is not something the Left needs. All it would mean is that their'd basically be no one sane left in American politics.

[Raw Shark]

I'd be open to primarying Clinton in four years, but I'll still vote for her now. Because the Tea Party mentality (with the refusal to compromise and tendency towards political violence it entails) is not something the Left needs. All it would mean is that their'd basically be no one sane left in American politics.

Maybe some of us are more sane than others. You can be the sane one. I'll be the guy with the can of gasoline and the match. We all come together under the big Democratic Tent!

[Flagg]

You throw glass things while repeating Republiturd talking points.

I'd be interested to see you expand on this comment.

I wasn't really meaning you in particular. Half the shit I see on FB and various political boards is shit right from the Republiturd playbook. I've seen shit about Benghazi, Monica BlewClintsky, and I'm waiting for some shit-eater to get into Vince Foster bullshit. Plus, as I've seen almost every day for a solid 6 months; THE INDICTMENTS ARE GONNA DROP ANY DAY NOW!!!

[Napoleon the Clown]

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

Oh, everyone who pays attention at all and isn't wildly delusional has known from the outset that the Democrats were getting their dynasty this election. Bernie's entire goal from the outset has been more raising awareness than any sort of belief that he was likely to win the nomination.

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

On foreign policy Clinton is a Republican! She got up the same same shenanigans as Ronald Reagan. Selling weapons to people who hate us because they'll use those weapons against people we both hate. Interventionism. Toppling other governments because they don't serve our interests. It can be hard to morally justify voting for someone who already has that track record, especially when you're in a state that's either solidly red or solidly blue every election. If you are opposed to military interventionism at every turn, it's rather odd to vote for someone who has been consistently in favor of it.

When things get closer and there are better statistics on how Utahans are likely to vote, I'll be in a better position to make a firm decision on if I'll hold my nose and vote for someone who has done frankly evil things or if I'll vote third-party. As it stands, Hillary vs The Donald could turn Utah into a swing state.

[Flagg]

I'd be open to primarying Clinton in four years, but I'll still vote for her now.

Why? What if she turns out to be a good POTUS?

[Flagg]

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

Oh, everyone who pays attention at all and isn't wildly delusional has known from the outset that the Democrats were getting their dynasty this election. Bernie's entire goal from the outset has been more raising awareness than any sort of belief that he was likely to win the nomination.

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

On foreign policy Clinton is a Republican! She got up the same same shenanigans as Ronald Reagan. Selling weapons to people who hate us because they'll use those weapons against people we both hate. Interventionism. Toppling other governments because they don't serve our interests. It can be hard to morally justify voting for someone who already has that track record, especially when you're in a state that's either solidly red or solidly blue every election. If you are opposed to military interventionism at every turn, it's rather odd to vote for someone who has been consistently in favor of it.

When things get closer and there are better statistics on how Utahans are likely to vote, I'll be in a better position to make a firm decision on if I'll hold my nose and vote for someone who has done frankly evil things or if I'll vote third-party. As it stands, Hillary vs The Donald could turn Utah into a swing state.

Lesser of 2 weevles.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd be open to primarying Clinton in four years, but I'll still vote for her now.

Why? What if she turns out to be a good POTUS?

If Clinton does a wonderful job for four years, I might feel more kindly disposed towards her. I said I'd be open to primarying her, not that I definitely would support it no matter the circumstances.

It would also depend, of course, on the political situation at the time, and weather there was a remotely viable alternative.

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

Oh, everyone who pays attention at all and isn't wildly delusional has known from the outset that the Democrats were getting their dynasty this election. Bernie's entire goal from the outset has been more raising awareness than any sort of belief that he was likely to win the nomination.

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

On foreign policy Clinton is a Republican! She got up the same same shenanigans as Ronald Reagan. Selling weapons to people who hate us because they'll use those weapons against people we both hate. Interventionism. Toppling other governments because they don't serve our interests. It can be hard to morally justify voting for someone who already has that track record, especially when you're in a state that's either solidly red or solidly blue every election. If you are opposed to military interventionism at every turn, it's rather odd to vote for someone who has been consistently in favor of it.

When things get closer and there are better statistics on how Utahans are likely to vote, I'll be in a better position to make a firm decision on if I'll hold my nose and vote for someone who has done frankly evil things or if I'll vote third-party. As it stands, Hillary vs The Donald could turn Utah into a swing state.

I think its a bit much to say that anyone who ever thought Bernie had a chance of winning was either ignorant or "wildly delusional".

As to Clinton... at worst, you can say she resembles a typical Republican from ten to twenty years ago or so on some issues. Nowadays, the Republicans have taken a nose dive off the deep end.

[Purple]

As to Clinton... at worst, you can say she resembles a typical Republican from ten to twenty years ago or so on some issues. Nowadays, the Republicans have taken a nose dive off the deep end.

Why is it that when ever I listen to any conversation on politics irregardless of the nation, culture or political affiliation of the persons speaking they always default to a stark belief that the side opposite them is crazy or evil?

[jwl]

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

Oh, everyone who pays attention at all and isn't wildly delusional has known from the outset that the Democrats were getting their dynasty this election. Bernie's entire goal from the outset has been more raising awareness than any sort of belief that he was likely to win the nomination.

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

On foreign policy Clinton is a Republican! She got up the same same shenanigans as Ronald Reagan. Selling weapons to people who hate us because they'll use those weapons against people we both hate. Interventionism. Toppling other governments because they don't serve our interests. It can be hard to morally justify voting for someone who already has that track record, especially when you're in a state that's either solidly red or solidly blue every election. If you are opposed to military interventionism at every turn, it's rather odd to vote for someone who has been consistently in favor of it.

When things get closer and there are better statistics on how Utahans are likely to vote, I'll be in a better position to make a firm decision on if I'll hold my nose and vote for someone who has done frankly evil things or if I'll vote third-party. As it stands, Hillary vs The Donald could turn Utah into a swing state.

Isn't Trump somewhat of an anti-Interventionist? Why not vote Trump wholeheartedly if that is your primary criteria?

[The Romulan Republic]

As to Clinton... at worst, you can say she resembles a typical Republican from ten to twenty years ago or so on some issues. Nowadays, the Republicans have taken a nose dive off the deep end.

Why is it that when ever I listen to any conversation on politics irregardless of the nation, culture or political affiliation of the persons speaking they always default to a stark belief that the side opposite them is crazy or evil?

I don't know.

But the Republican Party of today... well, considering who their front runner is, if the label fits...

They're increasingly moving towards being the Fascist Party of America in all but name.

It wasn't always that way, of course. Back in the mid-20th. Century, for example, while both parties had serious failings, they both had people I could respect. Hell, any time in American history between the 1850s and the FDR's Presidential bid, I'd have probably been a Republican (mostly because back then, the Democrats were the foremost white supremacist stronghold).

But the Republican Party today is nothing but the rotten corpse of what it once was.