The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Elheru Aran]

BREAKING: VP pick will be Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who REALLY hates gays.

And also may cost us any chance of picking up the Gov. mansion in Indiana. Damn.

'us' who? Pence is *Trump's* pick, not Clinton's. I would think Trump picking Pence would be a good thing for the Democrats? Unless losing the election means Pence finishes out his term in office or something and he's supposed to go on a ways past the election or something?

[maraxus2]

BREAKING: VP pick will be Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who REALLY hates gays.

And also may cost us any chance of picking up the Gov. mansion in Indiana. Damn.

'us' who? Pence is *Trump's* pick, not Clinton's. I would think Trump picking Pence would be a good thing for the Democrats? Unless losing the election means Pence finishes out his term in office or something and he's supposed to go on a ways past the election or something?

Pence is in a tough re-election fight against former State House Speaker John Gregg. The race has been unusually close, given Indiana's conservatism and the death of the Democratic Party out there. It's likely been close because: A. Gregg happens to be a pretty solid candidate, and B. Pence cannot help stepping on his own dick (see RFRA).

If he's actually going to be the Veep, he cannot run for re-election. Indiana does not permit running for two positions at the same time. Since he's already won the Primary, the Indiana GOP will have the opportunity to replace him on the ballot. Presumably, this means that they'll have a candidate who *doesn't* insist on stepping on his own dick. The Dems have done the same with their Senate nominee, now that Evan Bayh is apparently serious about going back to the Senate.

TL;DR: If Trump does pick Pence, it moves the Indiana Governor's race from a toss-up to a lean GOP race.

[Elheru Aran]

Pence is in a tough re-election fight against former State House Speaker John Gregg. The race has been unusually close, given Indiana's conservatism and the death of the Democratic Party out there. It's likely been close because: A. Gregg happens to be a pretty solid candidate, and B. Pence cannot help stepping on his own dick (see RFRA).

If he's actually going to be the Veep, he cannot run for re-election. Indiana does not permit running for two positions at the same time. Since he's already won the Primary, the Indiana GOP will have the opportunity to replace him on the ballot. Presumably, this means that they'll have a candidate who *doesn't* insist on stepping on his own dick. The Dems have done the same with their Senate nominee, now that Evan Bayh is apparently serious about going back to the Senate.

TL;DR: If Trump does pick Pence, it moves the Indiana Governor's race from a toss-up to a lean GOP race.

Thanks for the clarification. It's easy to forget that some local elections can be just as important as the national ones, in many ways more so for individuals given that they are more directly affected by those races.

[Dalton]

Pence has already suspended his campaign, according to the IndyStar, so it's pretty much a lock that he'll be Veep.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am loath to use CNN as a source (though in this case, it might actually give the argument more credibility, since CNN isn't exactly a highly progressive or pro-Bernie source), but its mentioned here (I bolded some relevant text):

Kaine would be a blatant attempt to pander to centrists at the expense of progressives, and for a number of reasons would be unpalatable to progressives, including the fact that he is too cozy with the big money. He would be a terrible choice, even leaving aside the blatant racial/gender pandering of "I need to pick a white man so white men will vote for me."

Edit: As to the question of Warren's electability in future races, that depends on many things. But it is my view that a party should make its best effort every time, rather than assume that some races are un-winable. And part of that is making sure we have a strong slate of candidates, which means taking our rising stars and building their resumes via cabinet positions or VP slots. I think Warren would be a fine progressive Presidential contender, so I would like to see her resume built up for a possible future run.

Granted, their are possibilities other than Warren. I'd like to see O'Malley run again, and long-term, I have high hopes for Congresswoman Gabbard as well, just to pick two possibilities.

"Blatant attempt to pander to centrists." Right. Kaine is a middle-of-the-road Democrat, which doesn't mean much to you, but today means he's still well to the left of anyone in the GOP. Your evidence that he's too cozy with "big money" is to point out that he accepted $160,000 in gifts while he was Gov in Virginia, which is true but not super relevant since there's no evidence of any kind of quid-pro-quo. You're imagining the strategery on his selection in an extremely simplistic way; Hillary is not thinking "I need a white dude so white dudes will vote for me," largely because white dudes *won't* vote for her, regardless of whom she picks.

First, that last is inaccurate. I never claimed that was the only reason Clinton would pick him, but it would pretty likely be one of the reasons.

Secondly, the gifts are not the only thing in the article that I bolded, although they certainly are concerning, and would add to the stench of dubious dealings and untrustworthiness that already is Clinton's greatest impediment.

Again, when CNN (hardly a Bernie-loving or highly progressive source) says that a candidate's ties to Wall Street are a problem, and that picking him would be seen as a move against Sanders supporters, you might want to take note.

Re: Elizabeth Warren's electability, I don't think I was saying that the Dems shouldn't try to win every election they can. Obviously they should. But in eight years, Warren will be 75, which is mighty old for someone seeking the Presidency. More than that, though, she'll have to fight against the inevitable fatigue if Hillary wins two terms. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for the incumbent party to hold the Presidency in five consecutive elections?

Yes. It has, however, happened on two occasions in American history. The first was the string of Democratic-Republican Presidents from Jefferson through John Quincy Adams (1801-1829). The second was FDR-Truman (33-53).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... ted_States

And given what a cluster fuck the modern Republican Party is...

Also, people live longer than they used to. 75 is only one year older than the Bern is now, and 75 is the new 65.

You like Tulsi Gabbard because she endorsed Bernie and TYT loves her. That is not a good qualifier for the Presidency.

Here's a fun idea:

Why don't you address what I actually say rather than trying to put words in my mouth and ascribe to me the motivations you want me to have for your little straw man?

I like Tulsi Gabbard because she's a progressive and a Bernie supporter, yes. I also like her as a future Presidential candidate because of her range of experience (business degree, veteran (but not a war hawk), former DNC Vice Chair, and Congresswoman). And while I'll concede that her resume is a bit thin to be President now, she has plenty of time to expand it before she would have a shot at the nomination. I also like her because she represents the diversity of the country and the Democratic Party (she was the first American Samoan and first Hindu elected to Congress, and a non-Christian President is another overdue milestone). And I like her because she demonstrated integrity, courage, and commitment to ideals over self-interest when she resigned her position as DNC Vice Chair to campaign for Bernie (unlike Shultz, who stayed in her position and used it to favour Clinton).

I couldn't give a horses' ass about what TYT said. I'm not even sure who you're referring to with that acronym, so I'm fairly certain its not a source that I regularly use.

But please, tell me, what are your objections to Gabbard that made you feel that such a snide and misrepresentative response was warranted? Do you actually have any reason to think she would be a bad candidate besides the fact that I like her and she likes Bernie?

[SolarpunkFan]

So... Hillary and Trump are now tied in the polls: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/po ... f=politics

Goddammit.

[Borgholio]

Wait until her VP announcement. That will tip things, I'm sure.

[SolarpunkFan]

Wait until her VP announcement. That will tip things, I'm sure.

Yeah.

I know I sound like a chronic Eeyore, but just seeing all this racism and hatred and seeing it do so well is just... disheartening? That seems like too mild a word to describe it.

[Borgholio]

I agree. All we can do is vote for the people who aren't racist asshats and hope society changes over time.

[maraxus2]

First, that last is inaccurate. I never claimed that was the only reason Clinton would pick him, but it would pretty likely be one of the reasons.

Secondly, the gifts are not the only thing in the article that I bolded, although they certainly are concerning, and would add to the stench of dubious dealings and untrustworthiness that already is Clinton's greatest impediment.

Again, when CNN (hardly a Bernie-loving or highly progressive source) says that a candidate's ties to Wall Street are a problem, and that picking him would be seen as a move against Sanders supporters, you might want to take note.

I would take greater note if they bothered to explain in any detail, rather than using your preferred tactic of boldly asserting something and then declining to back it up. What is your concern about his "Wall Street ties?" Who views his potential selection as a rejection of everything Sanders campaigned on? Given Sanders' supporters rapid movement into Clinton's camp, who gives a shit what they think? If you personally have objections to Kaine, it is incumbent on you to back them up, not go quote-mining in vague-ass articles by a garbage media outlet.

Yes. It has, however, happened on two occasions in American history. The first was the string of Democratic-Republican Presidents from Jefferson through John Quincy Adams (1801-1829). The second was FDR-Truman (33-53).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... ted_States

And given what a cluster fuck the modern Republican Party is...

Also, people live longer than they used to. 75 is only one year older than the Bern is now, and 75 is the new 65.

Yes, but of those two examples listed, one (1824) was a victory from an actual corrupt bargain where the Speaker of the House (Henry Clay) had his representatives vote for Adams, despite Adams receiving far fewer votes, and was then appointed Secretary of State. The other (1948) was the biggest political upset in American political history, and Truman came quite close to losing anyway. Had it not been for 20K votes in California, 8K votes in Ohio, and 30K votes in Illinois, he would have lost the election.

This merely re-enforces the point I was trying to make, namely that running for the fifth consecutive party win is really fucking difficult and people who care about Warren's political future should very much not want her to be on the ticket.

I admire your commitment to unintentionally proving people's arguments for them.

Here's a fun idea:

Oh good! I'm always up for a fun idea.

Why don't you address what I actually say rather than trying to put words in my mouth and ascribe to me the motivations you want me to have for your little straw man?

Oh. Shit, that doesn't sound fun at all!

I like Tulsi Gabbard because she's a progressive and a Bernie supporter, yes. I also like her as a future Presidential candidate because of her range of experience (business degree, veteran (but not a war hawk), former DNC Vice Chair, and Congresswoman). And while I'll concede that her resume is a bit thin to be President now, she has plenty of time to expand it before she would have a shot at the nomination. I also like her because she represents the diversity of the country and the Democratic Party (she was the first American Samoan and first Hindu elected to Congress, and a non-Christian President is another overdue milestone). And I like her because she demonstrated integrity, courage, and commitment to ideals over self-interest when she resigned her position as DNC Vice Chair to campaign for Bernie (unlike Shultz, who stayed in her position and used it to favour Clinton).

Let's be real for a second here. You'd never have heard of Tulsi Gabbard had she not become a Sanders surrogate. She's a backbench House Democrat who was one of four DNC Vice Chairs. She only has name recognition because she was literally one of a handful of Bernie's elected surrogates. There are people in Congress with a very similar profile (Tammy Duckworth, for instance) who you don't name-drop in these sorts of posts. I'm going to take an educated guess and say that this is because you don't know about them, because you don't know about Members of Congress.

I couldn't give a horses' ass about what TYT said. I'm not even sure who you're referring to with that acronym, so I'm fairly certain its not a source that I regularly use.

TYT = The Young Turks, AKA Bernie News Network.

But please, tell me, what are your objections to Gabbard that made you feel that such a snide and misrepresentative response was warranted? Do you actually have any reason to think she would be a bad candidate besides the fact that I like her and she likes Bernie?

It's really more of an objection to you, but I have my problems with Gabbard as well. She's a backbencher who is great at getting media attention and pretty piss-poor at everything else. She ran a shitty primary campaign against a truly abominable Democrat in 2012 and managed to win with only 54% of the vote in a crowded field. This does not speak well of her campaign skills. She actually is pretty hawkish, or at least given to making hawkish statements, such as getting on board with the "OBAMA MUST SAY RADICAL ISLAM" idiocy. She also very publicly very publicly criticized Obama and supported Putin on bombing Syria. So much for not being a war hawk.

As for her integrity, where was that integrity when she opposed SSM, as she did for years prior to running for Congress in 2012? This seems like a pretty important issue to flip-flop on, especially when she fought vociferously against SSM when she was in the Hawaii State Ledge.

In my view, Tulsi Gabbard is a step backwards from when Mazie Hirono was in that seat. I'm glad Hirono is in the senate now, and I just wish the Hawaii dems didn't have to choose between Gabbard and the horrible Mufi Hanneman in 2012.

[Flagg]

So... Hillary and Trump are now tied in the polls: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/po ... f=politics

Goddammit.

It's the VP baby bump and it's still 5 months until the election. When the conventions are over and the 2 candidates have finished exchanging talking points on stage, then I may care about polls. As opposed to the ones attached to the floor and are getting buffed by crotch on a regular basis. Mmmmm firefighter taint.

[The Romulan Republic]

More likely, since the VP news only broke in the last day, its a post-"We're not going to indict her but she did all sorts of irresponsible things" announcement from the FBI drop.

I expect it'll go back up following the usual convention boost and the debates, barring some catastrophe in the meantime.

[Flagg]

More likely, since the VP news only broke in the last day, its a post-"We're not going to indict her but she did all sorts of irresponsible things" announcement from the FBI drop.

I expect it'll go back up following the usual convention boost and the debates, barring some catastrophe in the meantime.

And the media reporting on Trumps foul campaign and the bigoted shit he says with no condemnation because they weren't taught how to be real journalists, just stenographers with Botox and bad hair.

[maraxus2]

And the media reporting on Trumps foul campaign and the bigoted shit he says with no condemnation because they weren't taught how to be real journalists, just stenographers with Botox and bad hair.

? There's plenty of condemnation of Trump's remarks. What are ya talkin about, Flagg?

[Alyrium Denryle]

And the media reporting on Trumps foul campaign and the bigoted shit he says with no condemnation because they weren't taught how to be real journalists, just stenographers with Botox and bad hair.

? There's plenty of condemnation of Trump's remarks. What are ya talkin about, Flagg?

Translation: Flagg is saying that the modern news media have degenerated to basically being overblown stenographers rather than journalists who provide critical commentary regarding current events.

[maraxus2]

Translation: Flagg is saying that the modern news media have degenerated to basically being overblown stenographers rather than journalists who provide critical commentary regarding current events.

Sure, cable news channels are the worst. But to say that they're overblown stenographers is, at best, quite the stretch. I can't turn on my twitter feed without being bombarded by people doing in-depth analysis (some good, some bad, mostly whatever) on any topic that you could name. I just don't buy this nostalgia stuff.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Translation: Flagg is saying that the modern news media have degenerated to basically being overblown stenographers rather than journalists who provide critical commentary regarding current events.

Sure, cable news channels are the worst. But to say that they're overblown stenographers is, at best, quite the stretch. I can't turn on my twitter feed without being bombarded by people doing in-depth analysis (some good, some bad, mostly whatever) on any topic that you could name. I just don't buy this nostalgia stuff.

Neither do I, but it does require effort. Your twitter feed is self-selected. The "low information" voters who decide elections on the other hand just watch cable news...

[Dominus Atheos]

Some epic level of trolling by the Obama administration:

"I know that Gov. Pence did do some important work with the administration to expand Medicaid in his state," Earnest told reporters when asked what Obama thinks of the governor.

For those that don't get it, "Obama likes him" and "He likes Obamacare" are two of the worst most vile insults you could give somebody in the conservative world.

[Elheru Aran]

Translation: Flagg is saying that the modern news media have degenerated to basically being overblown stenographers rather than journalists who provide critical commentary regarding current events.

Sure, cable news channels are the worst. But to say that they're overblown stenographers is, at best, quite the stretch. I can't turn on my twitter feed without being bombarded by people doing in-depth analysis (some good, some bad, mostly whatever) on any topic that you could name. I just don't buy this nostalgia stuff.

Neither do I, but it does require effort. Your twitter feed is self-selected. The "low information" voters who decide elections on the other hand just watch cable news...

Cable news does have a certain degree of analysis on the various talk shows and what not... but those are obviously going to be so slanted a snail would have to use rope to get up the slope, therefore useless. Otherwise, 'analysis' is going to consist of stuff like "Trump said something abominable. A lot of people think he's a dick. More after the break. Where'd you buy that tie, Joe?"

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sure, cable news channels are the worst. But to say that they're overblown stenographers is, at best, quite the stretch. I can't turn on my twitter feed without being bombarded by people doing in-depth analysis (some good, some bad, mostly whatever) on any topic that you could name. I just don't buy this nostalgia stuff.

Neither do I, but it does require effort. Your twitter feed is self-selected. The "low information" voters who decide elections on the other hand just watch cable news...

Cable news does have a certain degree of analysis on the various talk shows and what not... but those are obviously going to be so slanted a snail would have to use rope to get up the slope, therefore useless. Otherwise, 'analysis' is going to consist of stuff like "Trump said something abominable. A lot of people think he's a dick. More after the break. Where'd you buy that tie, Joe?"

It may be my bias talking, but I do tend to enjoy Rachel Maddow, but then, she actually has a PhD in political science so...

[maraxus2]

Neither do I, but it does require effort. Your twitter feed is self-selected. The "low information" voters who decide elections on the other hand just watch cable news...

Meh, I don't think it's all that necessary for people to be high-information voters. Their votes don't county any less than mine, and I've come to appreciate how Cable news et. al. make the issues relatively simple and easy-to-understand, even if they lose a lot of important nuance to do so.

Basically, I think we'd be better off as a country if we had more straight-ticket voters who broke into two parties; Democrats for liberals and Republicans for conservatives. Understanding policy details really isn't important for voters' every-day lives, or at least is much less so than understanding that one party or the other broadly represents their interests and views.

[Flagg]

Yeah, Maddow is great. I'm mostly talking about reporting, as opposed to a show like hers which is analysis of the news. But there was a time when investigative journalism was common, you couldn't just lie without being challenged, and you essentially just repeat each sides talking points. I mean look at the Palin/Couric interview where Palin said she read "all of them" when asked which news magazines she reads. Couric just gave a perplexed look at the camera but didn't push anymore, she let it drop. It was everyone else that roasted Palin for her stupidity, Katie just stood there.

[Flagg]

Neither do I, but it does require effort. Your twitter feed is self-selected. The "low information" voters who decide elections on the other hand just watch cable news...

Meh, I don't think it's all that necessary for people to be high-information voters. Their votes don't county any less than mine, and I've come to appreciate how Cable news et. al. make the issues relatively simple and easy-to-understand, even if they lose a lot of important nuance to do so.

Basically, I think we'd be better off as a country if we had more straight-ticket voters who broke into two parties; Democrats for liberals and Republicans for conservatives. Understanding policy details really isn't important for voters' every-day lives, or at least is much less so than understanding that one party or the other broadly represents their interests and views.

Are you being sarcastic?

[Mr Bean]

It may be my bias talking, but I do tend to enjoy Rachel Maddow, but then, she actually has a PhD in political science so...

I still enjoy Maddow from time to time because she's great at giving context in some pieces she's trying to push or analogy she's trying to make but she's hideously uncritical to favored guests.

Recent example, add spending VS Trump shows no or negative correlation. As in during this campaign season spending money on anti-Trump aids has either been a waste of money or it shows a negative effect for the person running them. Rachel Maddow for about a month now has done the occasional piece about how utterly shite Trump campaign fund raising efforts are (A valid story) but only recently has started running stories about how it still does not seem to matter that both outside groups and Clinton campaign ads are also utterly failing to move the needle in states where ads are being run.

Who does she have on to discuss this? Why one of those dark money outside Super-pack money groups who of course says "The ads will totally work, we are learning what's not working don't worry boys we got this"

Now correct me if I'm wrong but I'd figure in that story you'd bring on a pollster who's crunched the numbers showing the ads having that terrible effect your talking about, not the group who's job it is to raise money to run more ads.

Side note there's was an interesting bit I saw elsewhere that suggested part of Trump's media tricks is all of his ads are small aid buys with some line or fact wrong so every new outlet covers every single one of his ads and gives it dozens of hours of free runtime. This was in response to the fact that someone asked why every single Trump ad always seem to contain some blatant minor lie or used stock footage from the wrong country or otherwise had some easy to pick apart thing wrong with it. If true it's just another remind that Trump is a carnival barker and not a politician.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Neither do I, but it does require effort. Your twitter feed is self-selected. The "low information" voters who decide elections on the other hand just watch cable news...

Meh, I don't think it's all that necessary for people to be high-information voters. Their votes don't county any less than mine, and I've come to appreciate how Cable news et. al. make the issues relatively simple and easy-to-understand, even if they lose a lot of important nuance to do so.

Basically, I think we'd be better off as a country if we had more straight-ticket voters who broke into two parties; Democrats for liberals and Republicans for conservatives. Understanding policy details really isn't important for voters' every-day lives, or at least is much less so than understanding that one party or the other broadly represents their interests and views.

See, I think it would be better for our democracy overall if more people were reasonably well informed about policy that affects their lives.