The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[Simon_Jester]

I have meant a candidate outside the current pool of morons and political cripples that they have.

Does. Not. Compute.

They dont have any. Their base is too radicalized to permit anyone sane through a primary election on a national scale. This is why they have had to pull ridiculous stunts like obstruct SCOTUS appointments. It is the only way they can keep their incumbencies and even then they are slowly losing to the reactionary wing of their party.

Anyone the national republicans can nominate, cannot win the general election where sanity prevails.

Romney won in 2012, and defeated several crazies in order to do so. So I'm not sure your basic conclusion is actually true. I'd like to believe it but I'm not sure.

What is most likely true is that a crazy CAN defeat all sane contenders IF conditions are favorable, IF the sane Republican vote is split too widely allowing the crazy to gain momentum, and IF the crazy has the right background and skills to avoid simply melting down in front of Republican primary voters. Trump's nomination in 2016 qualified on all three counts.

In and of itself, Trump's decision to run was an anomaly. But if Trump-like nominees become 'the new normal' for Republicans, if others decide to try imitating him on a regular basis, the Republican Party as we used to know it will probably cease to exist for the reason you cite.

[LaCroix]

]Romney won in 2012, and defeated several crazies in order to do so. So I'm not sure your basic conclusion is actually true. I'd like to believe it but I'm not sure.

Actually, him winning the primaries and losing in the general was was spurred the crazies into their frenzy, providing them the 'proof' that a moderate can't win. (Because he is not right-wing enough to appeal to 'true' americans.)

4 years of constant harrasment by the right wing later, the GOP provided us with the last palette of 'viable' candidates...

And if(cough*when*) Donny D loses to Shillary - it will be rants of stolen elections, democrat shills, etc, and then they'll try to be even more right wing than last time. To finally appeal to 'true americans'. That's what they did every time they lose.

Yeah, I'm with Aly... Stick a fork in it, the GOP is done.

[Simon_Jester]

A few basically normal and sane Republicans ran (e.g. Kasich, Bush) and quite a few others ran who were at least normal politicians and not slavering lunatics like Trump.

I understand what you're saying. I wouldn't rule out a sane-looking Republican nominee in 2020, though.

[Although if this actually happens, it may be the event that finally triggers the split in the Republican Party; the long term issue you've identified is very real]

[SolarpunkFan]

Actually, him winning the primaries and losing in the general was was spurred the crazies into their frenzy, providing them the 'proof' that a moderate can't win. (Because he is not right-wing enough to appeal to 'true' americans.)

4 years of constant harrasment by the right wing later, the GOP provided us with the last palette of 'viable' candidates...

And if(cough*when*) Donny D loses to Shillary - it will be rants of stolen elections, democrat shills, etc, and then they'll try to be even more right wing than last time. To finally appeal to 'true americans'. That's what they did every time they lose.

Yeah, I'm with Aly... Stick a fork in it, the GOP is done.

Frenzy is a good way to put it. I'd allude to sharks, but sharks are too intelligent to be slandered with such an association.

As for the increasing fundamentalism and extremism in the GOP, it was started by the Southern Strategy, but it really took front and center after the 80s AM talk radio (and later, Fox "News") got started.

It's way too late to fix things at this point. At this point it will either melt down or alternatively just break up with the sane GOPers rebuilding things.

[Elheru Aran]

Well, well... here's something interesting...

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/nc-demo ... irebombed/

Democratic officials in North Carolina have asked law enforcement to step up protection of campaign workers after Orange County offices for both the Republican and Democratic parties were targeted on the same day.

On Sunday, the Republican Party said that its Orange County headquarters was set ablaze by vandals. Graffiti found on a nearby building said, “Nazi Republicans leave town or else.”

In a message posted to Twitter, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump blamed the attack on “[a]nimals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina.”

But Orange County Democratic Party Chair Matt Hughes told Raw Story on Monday that vandals had also targeted his offices in Carrboro. Both attacks were said to have occurred early Sunday morning.

According to Hughes, staffers found the words “Death to Capitalism” scrawled on the OCDP headquarters when they came into work.

“There’s a chilling effect,” he explained. “We have staff and we have volunteers who work in that office… I’m one of those folks who sometimes works late into the night in a party office and you wonder about your safety when you look at things like what happened [to the GOP office] in Hillsborough or something like ‘Death to Capitalism.’ A lot of folks see that as a threat, not even a veiled threat.”

Hughes called the two incidents “a heck of a coincidence.”

“If they are connected, it is someone who adheres to a very-far-out-there political ideology,” he remarked.

[maraxus2]

I have meant a candidate outside the current pool of morons and political cripples that they have.

And who would that be?

[K. A. Pital]

I have meant a candidate outside the current pool of morons and political cripples that they have.

And who would that be?

Someone more like Romney. But that's a hypothetical - I am not saying he is among the current crop.

[maraxus2]

I have meant a candidate outside the current pool of morons and political cripples that they have.

And who would that be?

Someone more like Romney. But that's a hypothetical - I am not saying he is among the current crop.

More like Romney, a pile of money made animate? He sure as hell didn't break up the Obama Coalition, since he, y'know, got owned by the Obama coalition.

To be clear, I think there are Republicans who would be able to unite their party and give the Obama Coalition a run for its money, and I can name names too. You clearly can't. It seems incumbent on you to back up your broad assertions with at least a little bit of reasoning, rather than just asserting it to be true.

[Q99]

I wonder how much the 'it's rigged' argument will convince Trumpites to stay home.

And from last page:

Fucking stupid Democrats. The NC GOP who rent that office were just caught suppressing the vote, again, and were the driving force behind House Bill 2, which banned trans people from using the bathroom of their gender, along with deleting any local anti-discrimination measures for LGBT persons. How about instead of making some big "we support our opponents" monetary gesture, just condemn the attack and donate your money to the Trevor Project or something? Trans and LGBT people are dying, and you spend your money on repairing an office that was unoccupied and insured? Fuck everyone who donated to that piece of shit.

It costs little, builds goodwill, and importantly, distances us from the attack. Which in turn helps us win, which lets us help Trans and LGBT people.

Note how much we roll our eyes whenever someone says "We aren't with those doing the attacks (but you should totally do what the attacks say and we won't do anything about it."

And doing so discourages future such attacks, and said attacks could build backlash against the Democrats/sympathy for the GOP, rather than highlighting our differences.

Showing we're above such attacks is, itself, a reasonable tactical move, as well as the right thing to do.

[Dalton]

A new Kentucky poll shows Trump leading by only 3-4 points. Three separate Texas polls show Clinton trailing within the margin of error. Texas is being characterized as a swing state now by some orgs.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Anyone the national republicans can nominate, cannot win the general election where sanity prevails.

I have been a proponent of this thinking for a while.
That basically any Conservative candidate who is conservative "Enough" to win the nomination, is by default TOO conservative to win the general. Romney at least tried hard to "pivot" back during the general election, but could not escape his own past nor a slew of Gaffs he made to conservative audiences.

I would warn however to some here touting the "Death" of the GOP because of this...
On a State level, the GOP is and will be a considerable force to be reckoned with, controlling most aspects of state senate, representatives, and governor seats.
Sure, the PRESIDENT may be out of their grasp for some time to come. But on a state by state level, their force is in no way diminished.

[K. A. Pital]

Someone more like Romney. But that's a hypothetical - I am not saying he is among the current crop.

More like Romney, a pile of money made animate?

Yes, more like Romney, a pile of money made animate. Buddy with all the bankers and oligarchs on Bloomberg TV 24-7, just like Clinton. Money bags win in an oligarchy, if they are not total retards whose political reputation is a tombstone at the start of any race. Clinton and Obama are pro-oligarch politicians as well. So the question is, whom the oligarchs will favor as their chosen. Clearly not Trump or his likes, as evidenced by the stock market reaction to Trump's potential successes and Clinton's actual rise in the polls when his campaign bombed.

He sure as hell didn't break up the Obama Coalition, since he, y'know, got owned by the Obama coalition.

Clinton is much more loathesome than Obama. The latter's sly. Clinton is not.

To be clear, I think there are Republicans who would be able to unite their party and give the Obama Coalition a run for its money, and I can name names too.

Please do. Probably they're low-prob candidates like Kasich.

You clearly can't.

Clearly you were not paying attention. First of all, I said that in the current crop, they're not to be found. It was a hypothetical scenario where an electable, sly, and oligarchy-favored politician would get nominated from the Repubs. That's not very probable - Repubs have gone too far off from the acceptable establishment political discourse, too far to the right - and this became a distant and remote possibility.

It doesn't change the overall point. Stop being childish.

[TheFeniX]

A new Kentucky poll shows Trump leading by only 3-4 points. Three separate Texas polls show Clinton trailing within the margin of error. Texas is being characterized as a swing state now by some orgs.

I think that's mostly because even the swing from "impossible" to "merely highly improbable" is such a huge swing. My buddy texted me something about gambling sites giving Texas 14-1 odds at going blue this election. I figured it'd be in the realm of possibility now or in 2020.

Texas has been registering new voters at record levels this election. And, while still way behind the national average, it could cause a shift either way. Because Hispanics aren't a cohesive voting block. I recall something to this effect (getting African-American registered back in 2008) bit the Dems in the ass a bit, but I can't recall the specifics. Something about local elections? Whatever, it's not important, but a lot of the concern around Texas might just be we have no idea what COULD happen, much less what will happen. If Hispanics do vote in force, you're basically counting on them to vote against Trump rather than voting for Clinton because the most liberal Texan is still pretty damned conservative.

Also, you know, voting against a vile racist.

I'm still betting that by 2024, Republicans will have to fight tooth and nail in this state to carry it which does not look good for the party at all. Because even if the party doesn't completely crater before that's even a possibility: Angry old white guys can't live forever. Or maybe they can? Curse you Obamacare!

[Q99]

I do like that the split between states is shifting- Too many elections of a near-static map with the same swings is a *bad* thing.


As for Romney, I think he could've gone center enough to be hypothetically electable (maybe not against Obama, but perhaps against someone like Kerry, given some luck)- but he didn't really skew center hard enough in the general, instead focusing more on keeping his base energized, which was a mistake. Of the last three Republican candidates, he's the one I view as least flawed- but, of course, that's relative since even the most 'reasonable' one comes saddled with their rather toxic party.

If Hispanics do vote in force, you're basically counting on them to vote against Trump rather than voting for Clinton because the most liberal Texan is still pretty damned conservative.

Texas is more complex than that, it does have liberal areas in it. The state's pretty much three states in one, in multiple respects.

[maraxus2]

Someone more like Romney. But that's a hypothetical - I am not saying he is among the current crop.

More like Romney, a pile of money made animate?

Yes, more like Romney, a pile of money made animate. Buddy with all the bankers and oligarchs on Bloomberg TV 24-7, just like Clinton. Money bags win in an oligarchy, if they are not total retards whose political reputation is a tombstone at the start of any race. Clinton and Obama are pro-oligarch politicians as well. So the question is, whom the oligarchs will favor as their chosen. Clearly not Trump or his likes, as evidenced by the stock market reaction to Trump's potential successes and Clinton's actual rise in the polls when his campaign bombed.

He sure as hell didn't break up the Obama Coalition, since he, y'know, got owned by the Obama coalition.

Clinton is much more loathesome than Obama. The latter's sly. Clinton is not.

To be clear, I think there are Republicans who would be able to unite their party and give the Obama Coalition a run for its money, and I can name names too.

Please do. Probably they're low-prob candidates like Kasich.

You clearly can't.

Clearly you were not paying attention. First of all, I said that in the current crop, they're not to be found. It was a hypothetical scenario where an electable, sly, and oligarchy-favored politician would get nominated from the Repubs. That's not very probable - Repubs have gone too far off from the acceptable establishment political discourse, too far to the right - and this became a distant and remote possibility.

It doesn't change the overall point. Stop being childish.

Where are you getting this notion that Bloomberg TV is some influential media outlet? It really isn't. None of them are particularly influential, with the singular exception of Fox News, which is also currently riven by conflict. Money doesn't always win in elections, certainly not for the presidency. Trump didn't raise or spend much of anything to win the Primary. Romney raised more money than Obama. Yet one of them lost, despite the sincere love of Wall Street guys, and one of them won, despite the fear and loathing the political class has for Trump.

However loathsome Clinton is to you is totally irrelevant. She's perfectly acceptable to the Democratic Party, which is the only thing that accounts when you're running for election/re-election.

As far as candidates who could be dangerous in the not-too-distant future; I think Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton would be especially fierce, since he already has the support of the warmonger foreign policy guys. I think that Brian Sandoval, the Governor of Nevada could have been very dangerous given his ability to win cross-party support. Same thing with New Mexico's governor Susanna Martinez.

The GOP by no means has locked themselves out of the Presidency - all it would take is an economic downturn for them to become more electable as votes peel off of the Democratic coalition.

You being unable to name people who could potentially win the Primary and the Presidency is relevant. You asserted that any candidate other than Trump would be wiping the floor with Clinton. When questioned about this, you backtracked and said that none of the ones currently running would be able to do so. When asked to name names, you backtracked further and have now said that it's not very probable and a distant and remote possibility that someone could win the primary and wipe the floor with Hillary.

Which is it? Is it very likely, somewhat likely but not in this election cycle, or a distant and remote possibility?

[Patroklos]

Romney did not raise more money than Obama.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

[maraxus2]

Romney did not raise more money than Obama.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Let me refine my point a bit. Including outside groups and individual Super PACs, Romney had more money spent on his behalf than Obama did.

Link

President Barack Obama’s campaign relied on smaller donors to fuel a robust ground game and summer advertising seeking to define Republican rival Mitt Romney, and then widened its fundraising advantage as the campaign reached its apex. But it was actually outspent by Romney and the big-donor-funded outside groups that supported him. They banked on larger donations to flood the airwaves in the final weeks to turn late-deciding voters against the incumbent in a backloaded strategy that left them with money in the bank at the end – typically a no-no in presidential politics

The same thing was true of Republicans nationwide in that campaign. Sheldon Adelson spent around 200M of his own money to elect candidates nationwide, and came away with a single victory out of the 30+ candidates he supported.

Plus there are lots of examples on the state level of people outspending their opponents by huge margins, only to lose the election in the end. Meg Whitman spent around $140M of her own money to not get elected Governor in California back in 2010.

[K. A. Pital]

Where are you getting this notion that Bloomberg TV is some influential media outlet? It really isn't.

I am not saying it is a popular influential media. You are misunderstanding. I am saying that that the US democracy is a corrupt system where only pro-oligarchic, pro-rich candidates can be allowed to become elected. Therefore it matters a great deal whom the oligarchs choose. And Trump, given his ravings, was considered a risk and not an asset by the global oligarchy, unlike Clinton. But could a Republican be considered an asset and favored by the oligarch capitalist puppeteers? Surely.

Trump didn't raise or spend much of anything to win the Primary.

Trump is a one-off phenomenon. It is also true that Romney raised more money than Obama, but Obama was an acceptable candidate for Wall Street, too. Or turned out to be, in the end. This time with Clinton, she is surely a more acceptable candidate than Trump.

As far as candidates who could be dangerous in the not-too-distant future; I think Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton would be especially fierce, since he already has the support of the warmonger foreign policy guys.

This does not automatically help you win or even get nominated, though. Granted, the role of the US war machine is big in every election, but being supported by warmongers is not automatically good.

I think that Brian Sandoval, the Governor of Nevada could have been very dangerous given his ability to win cross-party support. Same thing with New Mexico's governor Susanna Martinez.

Agreed on Sandoval. That is a candidate who could, theoretically, rise after a Trumpist meltdown and challenge Democrats, and he would not have problems receiving the blessing from oligarchs, too. Don't know enough about Martinez to say whether she's potentially dangerous. But even a worse candidate than these two would do much better than Trump. The fact that such a walking atrocity of a human being used to poll quite strongly before the campaign meltdown is itself damning.

Which is it? Is it very likely, somewhat likely but not in this election cycle, or a distant and remote possibility?

Given the situation with Trump, I am pretty sure that even a weak candidate, but without such scandalous instances that automatically ruin the campaign in the eyes of the electorate, could prove a severe obstacle for Clinton. Actually, on second thought, even Cruz could've been a much stronger contestant than Trump. And given Clinton's performance against a monstrosity like Trump... well, let me say I am deeply unconvinced that the voters would have chosen her.

But this is only the opinion of a side observer.

[Flagg]

I know you're not a racist Stas, I agree with you a lot of the time, I genuinely like you, but every time you talk about puppet masters and shit I get flashbacks to beer halls and 'The Learned Elders of Zion'.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think in terms of a permanent circle, club or ruling cabal. It is more a class thing. My view of your election is, well... this:

[The Romulan Republic]

That's categorically wrong, both because it implies the insipid, tiresome, dangerous, and objectively false "they're both the same/just as bad as each other" false equivalency that a lot of third partiers in the US seem so fond of, but because a lot of of the traditional corporate backers, like the Koch brothers, have ditched Trump- not because he's better or less corrupt than Clinton, but because their's a limit to how much insanity even they are willing to stomach in a candidate (or maybe they just know when to abandon the sinking ship).

[Flagg]

I don't think in terms of a permanent circle, club or ruling cabal. It is more a class thing. My view of your election is, well... this:

Yeah, that guy looks awfully "Jewey".

[Iroscato]

I don't think in terms of a permanent circle, club or ruling cabal. It is more a class thing. My view of your election is, well... this:

Yeah, that guy looks awfully "Jewey".

Very helpful blazing green $ sign as well. I'm such a sucker for subtlety...

[The Romulan Republic]

The more I look at that cartoon, the more I see to pick apart.

At least the depiction of the Trumpublicans as a thuggish, baseball bat-wielding jester is a fairly close fit, but putting the Hillary Clinton donkey in stereotypical womens' kitchenware? Really?

Oh, and let's not forget the apparently all-white, mostly blond audience. Yeah, I doubt their was an intended message their, but if the cartoonist wanted their audience to reflect the electorate, it was thoughtless and lazy at best.

[Crazedwraith]

Considering the url implies it's from Jan 2015, I don't think it's specifically about Trump and Clinton.