The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[maraxus2]

It makes me sad that Cruz can't wear a pink boa to goof around with his kid without the right wing labeling him as a [whatever slur for half-assed cross-dressing comes to your imagination here]. This is the first time I have ever felt something positive for the guy.

Meh. To each their own. It's just hard for me to have any regard for a dude's well-being and dignity when he wants to make things so miserable for so many families because his ideology commands it. Also I think he's evil. Evil on an almost Nixonian level.

I agree for the most part - fear of Trump as some kind of Mussolini figure is somewhat exaggerated. The problem is that it's pretty clear that Trump is highly ego-driven, and while any particularly crazy shit he might try to do would likely be blocked domestically, it's a bit frightening to think about the powers granted to him by the Executive Branch and how he might use those powers internationally if he felt the least bit slighted/disrespected. Right now he and Putin seemingly have nice things to say about each other. But how long realistically can that actually last given their radically different and contradictory interests across the international stage?

That's not really the important part though. It's not like Trump would be politically impotent at home, it'd just mean that Paul Ryan is in the Driver's Seat as far as domestic policy goes. Grover Norquist said that the Republicans just need to "Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States," and that's Trump in a nutshell.

[Purple]

Is it just me or does all the (recent) violence at Trump rallies actually come from the anti-Trump crowd?

[Vendetta]

Is it just me or does all the (recent) violence at Trump rallies actually come from the anti-Trump crowd?

Behaviour begets behaviour.

It's an example of why nobody wins when you bring the threat of force into the political process.

[Raw Shark]

It makes me sad that Cruz can't wear a pink boa to goof around with his kid without the right wing labeling him as a [whatever slur for half-assed cross-dressing comes to your imagination here]. This is the first time I have ever felt something positive for the guy.

Meh. To each their own. It's just hard for me to have any regard for a dude's well-being and dignity when he wants to make things so miserable for so many families because his ideology commands it. Also I think he's evil. Evil on an almost Nixonian level.

Maybe he is. But he's nice to his kid, who is so-far-as-we-know innocent and still deserves a good childhood. And if she doesn't get one, society probably gets +1 bad person who will most likely harm somebody.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is it just me or does all the (recent) violence at Trump rallies actually come from the anti-Trump crowd?

At least some of it, sadly, appears to be. Yes, you can argue that Drumpf and his thugs have provoked it, but its still unjustifiable. As I've said before, we don't need a God damn Left wing Tea Party.

[Lagmonster]

Maybe he is. But he's nice to his kid, who is so-far-as-we-know innocent and still deserves a good childhood. And if she doesn't get one, society probably gets +1 bad person who will most likely harm somebody.

I don't think it'd be hard to find people who are caring towards their own, and horribly cruel to outsiders.

[maraxus2]

Maybe he is. But he's nice to his kid, who is so-far-as-we-know innocent and still deserves a good childhood. And if she doesn't get one, society probably gets +1 bad person who will most likely harm somebody.

Lolwhat? Who said anything about her having a crappy childhood? By all means, Cruz is free to be as goofy a dad as he likes. Hell, Obama's at his very best when he's being a goofy dad. But when Cruz is trying to win the primary on the back of a hate-filled anti-trans campaign (to say nothing about his abominable policies), he deserves all the mockery he gets.

FWIW, if there's anything that's going to screw her up for life, it strikes me that having an ideologue and borderline sociopath for a dad, and a walking Jack Chick tract for a grandfather

[maraxus2]

And Bernie continues his long-standing battle against political reality.

Sanders: 'It will be a contested convention'
By DANIEL STRAUSS 05/01/16 04:33 PM EDT

Bernie Sanders predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton would not win enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination ahead of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, and he delivered his most forceful call yet for superdelegates in states he's won to consider throwing their support to him.
Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the Vermont senator argued that Clinton "will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, it will be a contested convention."
Sanders said that in the states where he handily defeated Clinton, superdelegates who aren't supporting him should reconsider aligning themselves with the will of voters of those states.

"In the state of Washington, we won that caucus with almost 73 percent of the vote there — 73 percent of the vote. In anybody's opinion, that is a massive landslide. But at this point Secretary Clinton has 10 superdelegates from the state of Washington, we have zero," Sanders said, offering an example of a state where he won the popular vote but did not collect any superdelegates. "I would ask the superdelegates from the state of Washington to respect the wishes from the people in their state and the votes they have cast."
Sanders' comments came just ahead of Tuesday’s Indiana primary, as his path to the nomination has become even more narrow due to recent defeats. The campaign recently laid off a large number of staff members in states that have voted.

Clinton currently has 1,645 delegates and 520 superdelegates, while Sanders has 1,318 delegates and 39 superdelegates. In total, 2,383 delegates are needed to win the Democratic nomination.
Sanders conceded that it wouldn't be easy for him to close the margin, but he said he would continue fighting.
"For us to win the majority of pledged delegates, we need to win 710 out of the remaining 1083," Sanders said. "That is 65 percent. That is, admittedly, a tough road to climb, but not an impossible one. And we intend to fight for every vote and delegate remaining."

Honestly, I truly don't understand this. Grandstanding and making the Dem establishment annoyed isn't going to increase his influence, and if he fucks up badly enough he'll cost himself whatever power he might get in the Senate.

[Lord MJ]

And Bernie continues his long-standing battle against political reality.

Sanders: 'It will be a contested convention'
By DANIEL STRAUSS 05/01/16 04:33 PM EDT

Bernie Sanders predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton would not win enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination ahead of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, and he delivered his most forceful call yet for superdelegates in states he's won to consider throwing their support to him.
Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the Vermont senator argued that Clinton "will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, it will be a contested convention."
Sanders said that in the states where he handily defeated Clinton, superdelegates who aren't supporting him should reconsider aligning themselves with the will of voters of those states.

"In the state of Washington, we won that caucus with almost 73 percent of the vote there — 73 percent of the vote. In anybody's opinion, that is a massive landslide. But at this point Secretary Clinton has 10 superdelegates from the state of Washington, we have zero," Sanders said, offering an example of a state where he won the popular vote but did not collect any superdelegates. "I would ask the superdelegates from the state of Washington to respect the wishes from the people in their state and the votes they have cast."
Sanders' comments came just ahead of Tuesday’s Indiana primary, as his path to the nomination has become even more narrow due to recent defeats. The campaign recently laid off a large number of staff members in states that have voted.

Clinton currently has 1,645 delegates and 520 superdelegates, while Sanders has 1,318 delegates and 39 superdelegates. In total, 2,383 delegates are needed to win the Democratic nomination.
Sanders conceded that it wouldn't be easy for him to close the margin, but he said he would continue fighting.
"For us to win the majority of pledged delegates, we need to win 710 out of the remaining 1083," Sanders said. "That is 65 percent. That is, admittedly, a tough road to climb, but not an impossible one. And we intend to fight for every vote and delegate remaining."

Honestly, I truly don't understand this. Grandstanding and making the Dem establishment annoyed isn't going to increase his influence, and if he fucks up badly enough he'll cost himself whatever power he might get in the Senate.

I doubt Bernie expects to get the nomination via this (unless Hillary is indicted or something damaging enough comes out of the investigations.) But it is absolutely essential that the message that the party can not continue being a party that serves the corporate and big money establishment any more. That the party needs to once again be focused on the people. That the party commits to getting money out of the political system. He's more interested in that than the party continuing as business as usual but him getting a nice cushy Senate leadership position (which is the typical quid pro quo given to the losing candidate for supporting the winning candidate.)

It also keeps the party and Hilary's campaign from pivoting their positions and messages for the general election. Which in this case is a good thing. Particularly given that if Donald Trump is smart he would try to outflank Hillary from the Left. Which we would be able to do if Hillary pivots to Center-Right.

Now if Bernie does expect to win the nomination out of this, then I don't support him, particularly when there are other means he could use to without getting party insiders to override the will of the voters.

[maraxus2]

I doubt Bernie expects to get the nomination via this (unless Hillary is indicted or something damaging enough comes out of the investigations.) But it is absolutely essential that the message that the party can not continue being a party that serves the corporate and big money establishment any more. That the party needs to once again be focused on the people. That the party commits to getting money out of the political system. He's more interested in that than the party continuing as business as usual but him getting a nice cushy Senate leadership position (which is the typical quid pro quo given to the losing candidate for supporting the winning candidate.)

It also keeps the party and Hilary's campaign from pivoting their positions and messages for the general election. Which in this case is a good thing. Particularly given that if Donald Trump is smart he would try to outflank Hillary from the Left. Which we would be able to do if Hillary pivots to Center-Right.

Now if Bernie does expect to win the nomination out of this, then I don't support him, particularly when there are other means he could use to without getting party insiders to override the will of the voters.

And how is he supposed to do any of that by acting like Abe Simpson and shouting at clouds? And why do you think that Bernie's in a position to demand anything out of the Democratic Party? That'd be the Party that he scorned up until about a year ago when he tried to run for President. And that Party that will determine whether he chairs the Budget Committee when the Dems retake the Senate. He's not really in a position to demand much, given that the majority nominee will also have the majority on the rules, credentials, and platform committees.

You're making an ideological argument that the nominee who received substantially fewer votes should get to set the policies, or at least the tone, of the nominee who resoundingly beat him. The implication, coming from you and others in this thread, is that Bernie voters would take their ball and go home, and be more than happy to see Trump win the nomination. That's not negotiation; that's hostage-taking.

As for the rest of your argument, I'm unclear on what you're talking about. Hillary will support Citizen's in the general election? Trump will be able to out-flank her from the left? Hillary is now Center-Right? Did you think this through before you wrote it? I do not understand what you're talking about.

You can't very well be making an argument that Bernie is the nominee of "the people" when he's earned three million more votes (those would be the things cast by *people*) than Clinton. And you for damn sure can't make that argument when many of his delegates, and virtually all of his big wins, come from caucuses that are not Democratic in any way.

[Lord MJ]

And how is he supposed to do any of that by acting like Abe Simpson and shouting at clouds? And why do you think that Bernie's in a position to demand anything out of the Democratic Party? That'd be the Party that he scorned up until about a year ago when he tried to run for President. And that Party that will determine whether he chairs the Budget Committee when the Dems retake the Senate. He's not really in a position to demand much, given that the majority nominee will also have the majority on the rules, credentials, and platform committees.

Because he has more than enough support that is saying the establishment and corporatism is not going to cut it anymore. That they are tired of big money donors being the guiding force of the party, and the Dems not supporting things that are overwhelmingly supported by the majority of democrats (and a majority of the general populace for that matter.) Pushing for free college tuition by taxing wall st speculation for example is something that there really is no excuse for the Democrats not the support. And if the Democrats won't even fight for it, what is the point of even voting Democrat.

You're making an ideological argument that the nominee who received substantially fewer votes should get to set the policies, or at least the tone, of the nominee who resoundingly beat him. The implication, coming from you and others in this thread, is that Bernie voters would take their ball and go home, and be more than happy to see Trump win the nomination. That's not negotiation; that's hostage-taking.

Nobody has any obligation to support the Democratic party. Particularly if the party is unwilling to listen to what they want. Your argument is that Bernie voters should just bow their heads. Bernie voters hate Trump, they also hate what the Democratic party has become. Also considering that Bernie's supporters in just a few short years would represent the Democratic parties core base. It would be unwise for the party to spurn Bernie's policy platform. Also if say Bernie ends up with 40% of the vote. 40% of your voting base saying that things need to change with the party and that the nominee is part of the problem, is a huge problem that party would need to address. This isn't the same as the 2008 or other elections where we have two establishment candidates that policy wise are not that far a part.

What has Hillary done, or what will she do to earn Bernie supporter's vote?

As for the rest of your argument, I'm unclear on what you're talking about. Hillary will support Citizen's in the general election? Trump will be able to out-flank her from the left? Hillary is now Center-Right? Did you think this through before you wrote it? I do not understand what you're talking about.

Yes Hillary has been largely center right. And in general Dems have been center-right also, largely thanks to money in politics. Yes on social issues Dems are clearly better than the GOP. But on most economic positions Dems have been center-right. GOP has been well anywhere from center-right to far-right to crazy town. Trump could easily outflank Hillary from the left. He has already made left leaning arguments before. Both on domestic and foreign policy. Left leaning arguments that could get Blue Collar voters that would've voted Bernie in the general that would instead support Trump.

You can't very well be making an argument that Bernie is the nominee of "the people" when he's earned three million more votes (those would be the things cast by *people*) than Clinton. And you for damn sure can't make that argument when many of his delegates, and virtually all of his big wins, come from caucuses that are not Democratic in any way.

Do you think that people that are sick of the establishment are going to accept "she won three million more votes?" Not anymore than a black person in the south should support back in Jim Crow days should support Jim Crow, or a woman in a red state should accept the GOP's anti-choice agenda because they won more votes.

[cosmicalstorm]

Not sure how relevant this is with the gerrymandered weirdo election system. Going to be the most interesting election since 2008/2009.

May 02, 2016 - 11:00 AM EDT
Trump leads Clinton by 2 points in Rasmussen poll


BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY 19711 Shares
TWEET SHARE MORE
Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.

Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.

ADVERTISEMENT

This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3-point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.

The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.

Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.

Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.

The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... er-clinton

[Purple]

Do you think that people that are sick of the establishment are going to accept "she won three million more votes?" Not anymore than a black person in the south should support back in Jim Crow days should support Jim Crow, or a woman in a red state should accept the GOP's anti-choice agenda because they won more votes.

But aside from being outraged and "not accepting" it what is the actual practical thing that person can do? Vote Trump? In your political system there are really only three options left to the voter. Vote republican, vote democrat, throw away your vote and let others decide which of the two win. That's it. As long as things are that way your parties are free to devolve into madness to the point where the party that gets 2% of the total national vote will beat the one with 1%. (figuratively speaking)

[Lord MJ]

Do you think that people that are sick of the establishment are going to accept "she won three million more votes?" Not anymore than a black person in the south should support back in Jim Crow days should support Jim Crow, or a woman in a red state should accept the GOP's anti-choice agenda because they won more votes.

But aside from being outraged and "not accepting" it what is the actual practical thing that person can do? Vote Trump? In your political system there are really only three options left to the voter. Vote republican, vote democrat, throw away your vote and let others decide which of the two win. That's it. As long as things are that way your parties are free to devolve into madness to the point where the party that gets 2% of the total national vote will beat the one with 1%. (figuratively speaking)

The establishment is forcing people into this conundrum, vote for our candidate or risk Trump coming to power. The "establishment" refers to the corporations, wealthy (ie the donors).

That is a state of affairs the must be protested up to and beyond the convention.

One scenario would be for people in swing states to hold their nose and vote for Hillary, while having a protest in Red or Blue states where people either vote Green or write in Bernie Sanders. I don't think that protest is being coordinated by anyone, it was just a suggestion of what Bernie supporters should do in the general election without handing the country over to Trump.

[Purple]

The establishment is forcing people into this conundrum, vote for our candidate or risk Trump coming to power. The "establishment" refers to the corporations, wealthy (ie the donors).

That is a state of affairs the must be protested up to and beyond the convention.

One scenario would be for people in swing states to hold their nose and vote for Hillary, while having a protest in Red or Blue states where people either vote Green or write in Bernie Sanders. I don't think that protest is being coordinated by anyone, it was just a suggestion of what Bernie supporters should do in the general election without handing the country over to Trump.

And what exactly does that acomplish? What is the expected outcome of such actions?

[Elheru Aran]

Not sure how relevant this is with the gerrymandered weirdo election system. Going to be the most interesting election since 2008/2009.

[polling bullshit]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... er-clinton

The polls have thus far in this election been useless in actually predicting one thing or another. I wouldn't bother with them until after the conventions, when we will have at least narrowed down the race to two (but probably three) candidates.

[Civil War Man]

The polls have thus far in this election been useless in actually predicting one thing or another. I wouldn't bother with them until after the conventions, when we will have at least narrowed down the race to two (but probably three) candidates.

Even then, national polls are useless because national popular vote is not how presidential elections are decided (see: the 2000 election). Any useful predictions would have to be done the way 538 typically handles it, though compiling state-wide polling (or even county-wide, in the case of the few states that aren't winner take all) and determining how the electoral college would pan out based on those results.

The poll in the article was also Rasmussen, which has had a tendency to have results that skew slightly more towards the Republicans than the final election results.

[Lord MJ]

The establishment is forcing people into this conundrum, vote for our candidate or risk Trump coming to power. The "establishment" refers to the corporations, wealthy (ie the donors).

That is a state of affairs the must be protested up to and beyond the convention.

One scenario would be for people in swing states to hold their nose and vote for Hillary, while having a protest in Red or Blue states where people either vote Green or write in Bernie Sanders. I don't think that protest is being coordinated by anyone, it was just a suggestion of what Bernie supporters should do in the general election without handing the country over to Trump.

And what exactly does that acomplish? What is the expected outcome of such actions?

Show the Democratic party that they have a serious support problem.

In the meantime I hope pressure leading up to and during the convention will force the party to take a hard look at things.

Also in the meantime I really hope the DNC chair Debbie Schultz is booted from her Congress seat in the primaries and by extension booted from her position as DNC chair.

[Purple]

Show the Democratic party that they have a serious support problem.

And that problem would be? The only problem they could have is if they don't win. Otherwise why should they care about what you have to say?

In the meantime I hope pressure leading up to and during the convention will force the party to take a hard look at things.

A hard look on what things? And conclude what exactly? Does this plan have a conclusion beyond "and than they come over to our side for no apparent reason?"

Also in the meantime I really hope the DNC chair Debbie Schultz is booted from her Congress seat in the primaries and by extension booted from her position as DNC chair.

Can't comment on account of not knowing anything about this issue.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indiana today.

Hoping for a Bernie win, of course, regardless of the outcome of the primary. By all accounts, Indiana is close (unless their's a surprise in store).

Don't really care who wins on the Republican side, though if I had to pick, I'd say not Drumpf, for brokered convention fun.

[Soontir C'boath]

You're making an ideological argument that the nominee who received substantially fewer votes should get to set the policies, or at least the tone, of the nominee who resoundingly beat him. The implication, coming from you and others in this thread, is that Bernie voters would take their ball and go home, and be more than happy to see Trump win the nomination. That's not negotiation; that's hostage-taking.

It's not like it's any different than saying ad nauseum that they're better than Republicans.

[Soontir C'boath]

Show the Democratic party that they have a serious support problem.

And that problem would be? The only problem they could have is if they don't win. Otherwise why should they care about what you have to say?

In the meantime I hope pressure leading up to and during the convention will force the party to take a hard look at things.

A hard look on what things? And conclude what exactly? Does this plan have a conclusion beyond "and than they come over to our side for no apparent reason?"

Also in the meantime I really hope the DNC chair Debbie Schultz is booted from her Congress seat in the primaries and by extension booted from her position as DNC chair.

Can't comment on account of not knowing anything about this issue.

Could you guys stop returning arguments with terrible questions acting like it means the original poster is unclear when your dumbass selves can't articulate a proper response?
____________________
I'm fed up with voting for the lesser of two evils and the current and main rhetoric that any Dem is better than a Republican is frankly making me so ill, I think I'll just go for buying a "Make America Great Again" hat. Spite be damned.

[The Romulan Republic]

Show the Democratic party that they have a serious support problem.

And that problem would be? The only problem they could have is if they don't win. Otherwise why should they care about what you have to say?

In the meantime I hope pressure leading up to and during the convention will force the party to take a hard look at things.

A hard look on what things? And conclude what exactly? Does this plan have a conclusion beyond "and than they come over to our side for no apparent reason?"

Also in the meantime I really hope the DNC chair Debbie Schultz is booted from her Congress seat in the primaries and by extension booted from her position as DNC chair.

Can't comment on account of not knowing anything about this issue.

Could you guys stop returning arguments with terrible questions acting like it means the original poster is unclear when your dumbass selves can't articulate a proper response?

People pull that shit on me all the time.
____________________

I'm fed up with voting for the lesser of two evils and the current and main rhetoric that any Dem is better than a Republican is frankly making me so ill,

It may not be a pleasant reality, but that doesn't make it any less accurate.

I think I'll just go for buying a "Make America Great Again" hat.

You don't want to vote for Clinton? You want to sit out this election? Okay. I strongly disagree, but at least you'd only be aiding the fascists by inaction, not directly.

But actively endorsing, supporting, and spreading the message of a fascist for no other reason than to spite people for saying something you don't like?... no.

As far as I'm concerned, if you spout the rhetoric of a fascist (or at least, someone who's putting on a good act of being a fascist and actively encouraging and courting fascists for his own gain, which comes to much the same thing), I see no reason not to regard you and treat you as a fascist.

Do you really find the Democrats so evil that you're willing to wear the slogan of a fascist demagog on your head, and financially support such people, to spite them? And if you are willing to do that... why the hell shouldn't I judge you for that action? We are talking about a man who has the endorsement of both current and former KKK leaders, and is campaigning on an openly bigoted and xenophobic platform.

Sitting it out is one thing. But you are talking about actively supporting a xenophobic, authoritarian thug just to spite some people you don't like.

[Soontir C'boath]

No, but it's great that for the second time in a row, you are making assumptions of my position out of thin air. However, I did say the posts here is making me want to do the opposite of the intended reaction of what you guys probably want.

Kind of like those times when people trying to tell someone to go for one thing, get sick and tired of it, they do the other and this is certainly something to contend with since this kind of attitude wouldn't just be prevalent to myself, but to the political discourse throughout the country in general.

[The Romulan Republic]

"I think I'll just go for buying a "Make America Great Again" hat." Your words. That is the slogan of a xenophobic and authoritarian campaign, it has a lot of very ugly connotations attached to it, and purchasing a hat with that slogan would, I presume, mean giving money to that campaign.

How the fuck is taking that and concluding that you are expressing your intention to symbolically and financially support Drumpf's campaign "making assumptions... out of thin air."? Its quoting your fucking words.

Look, let me try to explain where I'm coming from-

Considering Donald's policy proposals (if you can dignify them with that term), where he's getting a lot of his support from, and the rhetoric he's using, "Make America Great Again" is basically like a polite euphemism for "White Power!" Because that's what these people mean by "Make America Great Again". They mean "Make America a country where the women/Muslims/gays/Mexicans/whatever other group we don't like know their place."

I'm not saying you have to vote Democrat. For the sake of every person who would be harmed by a Trump Presidency, I wish you would, but its ultimately your call, of course. I'm just saying- do you really want to be associated with that ideology? Because its one thing not to vote Democrat. Its another thing to actively support and propagate Donald's message.