The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[TimothyC]

Of course, there's also the possibility that if Clinton were indicted, Obama would simply pardon her before leaving office.

She may not go to jail, but she can't win in that situation. The political pressure inside the Democratic party for her removal would be enough to start nuclear fusion.

[Lord MJ]

On the gun debate (I think Sanders' whole debate performance was a mixed bag), one issue comes to mind. Do you agree that gun manufacturers should be liable for deaths caused by their guns?

[The Vortex Empire]

On the gun debate (I think Sanders' whole debate performance was a mixed bag), one issue comes to mind. Do you agree that gun manufacturers should be liable for deaths caused by their guns?

That would be absurd. Should Nissan be held responsible if I decide to run somebody over?

[Lord MJ]

I think Bernie dropped the ball again on black issues. He once again talked about black issue as being poverty issues and describing blacks as living in ghettos (there are middle and upper class blacks). That is very offensive to black voters and many that I know have had enough of him as a result.

He also talked said "When you are white, you don't need to worry about poverty and discrimination" or something like that. While I'm pretty sure he meant to say that as "when you're an upper class white", people are already pouncing on that line.

[Terralthra]

Pretending that poverty and urban decay aren't problems that overwhelmingly affect African-American communities would be incredibly disingenuous. On a purely practical level, addressing poverty and urban decay are things government can actually legally do.

[Lord MJ]

The issue is that for a black voter that is not below the poverty line but still sees racial justice issues that needs to be solved, Sanders comes off as characterizing blacks as poor.

One thing though that has just occurred to me. All of my fellow African Americans that I have debates and interact with on this issue, are well to do, with good educations and have good jobs or businesses. Not sure if that point is relevant to anything. But it's something that has occurred to me.

[Terralthra]

What issues exactly would they like him to solve? I'm dead serious here. I keep hearing "he's not talking about what we care about", but every time I ask what that is, none of them have an answer, or their answer is provably false.

[Lord MJ]

I think for starters, to stop characterizing blacks as poor.

Beyond that, I don't know. Perhaps addressing hiring discrimination, pay disparity, "fixing white privilege," etc. Perhaps if he could address institutional racism (without tying it to his traditional talking points about Wall St, billionaires, etc).

[Terralthra]

Ah. So they'd like President Sanders to abolish the Constitution. Fair enough. He certainly hasn't promised to do any such thing.

[jwl]

Another issue is this argument around Universal Healthcare and College Tuition.

The USA has 20x the National Debt of the UK

Aside from the fact that that is a right wing talking point. It is also a red herring.

If we were proposing to put this on the credit card (ie deficit spending) to pay for it, then that's one thing. On the other hand if we are actually planning to pay for it. Then the national debt is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The question then becomes whether the plan to pay for it is feasible or not.

When I pointed this out I once again got the comment that I am "delusional," "biased," and it's hard to take me seriously when I say such things.

It seems that people are completely immune to logic. Something I once attributed to Republicans.

I don't think it is unreasonable to bring up the national debt in this situation, because any money raised to spend on healthcare or whatever can instead be spent on paying off the national debt. Unless of course sanders has a plan to pay off all of the national debt during his presidency as well, but I don't get the impression that is part of his plans. You can make the argument that a universal healthcare system or collage tuition is more important than paying off the national debt, but you can't dismiss the issue entirety.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think for starters, to stop characterizing blacks as poor.

I don't recall Sanders ever saying "all black are poor." or anything like that.

What I do think is that he has talked about how poverty disproportionately affects black people, which is, you know, true. And something he'd probably be accused of being racist over if he didn't say it.

Beyond that, I don't know. Perhaps addressing hiring discrimination, pay disparity,

Pay disparity is one he probably should talk about, since he's made a big deal about pay disparity for women.

Hiring discrimination too, though I'm not sure how much a President can do to address these things.

"fixing white privilege," etc.

How exactly would Sander do that, except indirectly by trying to level the playing field in various areas (which he is)? There's no button he can push to make several centuries of discrimination disappear.

Perhaps if he could address institutional racism (without tying it to his traditional talking points about Wall St, billionaires, etc).

Except he has. Not so much when it comes to economic issues maybe, but certainly when it comes to justice reform.

Its criticisms like this, attacking him on obviously, provably false grounds, which makes me suspect bias.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, there's also the possibility that if Clinton were indicted, Obama would simply pardon her before leaving office.

She may not go to jail, but she can't win in that situation. The political pressure inside the Democratic party for her removal would be enough to start nuclear fusion.

Well, yeah, a pardon won't erase her electability issues.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Terminator has endorsed Kasich:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/schwarzeneg ... ction-hero

Hundreds packed the Franklin Park Conservatory Sunday afternoon as Arnold Schwarzenegger officially endorsed longtime comrade, John Kasich at a campaign rally in Columbus, Ohio.

Schwarzenegger, sporting a Kasich campaign jacket, called Kasich an "action hero" who "kicked some serious butt" as a congressman in Washington, citing his record as Chair of the House Budget Committee. And recounting his journey to America in 1968 when he arrived with "absolutely nothing", Schwarzenegger said, "the land of opportunity" that's afforded him great success, needs Kasich to "take charge and be at the White House."

John Kasich: If I win Ohio, GOP will get a "brokered convention"
Kasich often mentions his fellow Republican governor on the trail while recounting the times he's complained to him about negative ads. Schwarzenegger, Kasich is fond of saying, advises him to "love the beatings."

Schwarzenegger, who was in town for his annual Arnold Sports Festival, had previously expressed his support for Kasich but stopped short of a formal endorsement during a tele-town hall days before the New Hampshire primary when he lauded his "refreshing campaign" and characterized him as a "great leader" who is a "uniter and not a divider".

The two-term former Californian governor will host the next season of NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice" replacing Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Kasich spent the day campaigning in his home state ahead of the March 15 winner-take-all primary which he deems to be critical in his survival in the 2016 race. Kasich hopes to garner enough delegates to move forward to the GOP convention hosted this year in Cleveland but mentioned that a loss in his home state would seal his fate ultimately forcing him to drop out.

The Ohio governor continues to lean on his pledge to run a positive campaign and during today's rally, encouraged voters today work together to form a "beautiful mosaic", fix the issues that plague the country and move America forward.

[Iroscato]

Did a bit of reading on Kasich on Wikipedia - from what I can gather he seems almost refreshingly sane in comparison to the other three 'candidates'. Maybe Ahnuld's endorsement will get this lesser evil a little more attention.

[The Romulan Republic]

From the article and accompanying video, it appears Kasich's strategy is to win big in the midwest (he seems to basically be betting everything on Ohio), deny any of the other candidates a majority of delegates, then go the brokered convention route.

Don't know how realistic that is though.

[Vendetta]

Kasich doesn't have a chance. He can, at most, make Rubio do badly.

The race so far ably demonstrates that sanity is not in high demand among Republican primary voters, who appear to prefer the circus.

[The Romulan Republic]

He's probably hoping that if he can get to a brokered convention, the establishment will pick him over Rubio as the sane alternative to Trump or Cruz.

[TimothyC]

Kasich doesn't have a chance. He can, at most, make Rubio do badly.

Kasich's plan involves doing well in Michigan (where an ARG poll has him at +2 over Trump, which with ARG's +6 Kasich bias puts Trump at +8, which is a LOT smaller of a Trump lead than other polls have), winning Ohio, and then pivoting to Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, & California (in that order). From there he goes to the convention and either gets to play as the reasonable, adult choice for President, or gets tapped by someone as VP to secure the nomination.

[The Romulan Republic]

So we're potentially looking at a brokered convention with Trump and Cruz splitting the crazies and the moderates/establishment (whatever's left of them) possibly backing a Kasich/Rubio or Rubio/Kasich ticket?

[TimothyC]

So we're potentially looking at a brokered convention with Trump and Cruz splitting the crazies and the moderates/establishment (whatever's left of them) possibly backing a Kasich/Rubio or Rubio/Kasich ticket?

I don't see a Kasich/Rubio or Rubio/Kasich happening. The MarcoBot just isn't doing well enough.

Edit: As a republican in Ohio with a land-line, my opinion has been taken at least 3 times in the last week and a half by reputable pollsters.

My opinion matters!

[The Romulan Republic]

Eh, he took Puerto Rico in a landslide yesterday apparently, and he is currently strongest after Trump and Cruz in terms of wins/delegates.

Incidentally, I heard an interesting anecdote recently that might give the Sanders supporters hope, and I'm wondering if anyone knows weather its true or not.

Namely, that for the last century, Kansas has a 100% accuracy rate of picking the ultimate nominee.

[Lord MJ]

I think for starters, to stop characterizing blacks as poor.

I don't recall Sanders ever saying "all black are poor." or anything like that.

What I do think is that he has talked about how poverty disproportionately affects black people, which is, you know, true. And something he'd probably be accused of being racist over if he didn't say it.

He explicitly mentioned "When you're white you don't understand what it is to be poor or live in ghettos"

Which people would take as characterizing blacks as living in ghettos, that his perspective on black people is that they are poor and in ghettos. It's not an issue of "All blacks are poor." It's an issue of what's in his head when he thinks about black people.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think people may be overanalyzing/nitpicking a bit, but I also do see why should a wording could be concerning, on a number of levels.

Honestly, part of it, I think, is that Sanders just isn't very good in debates compared to Clinton. He's... clumsy at times. He's a great speech maker, a relatively poor debater. Much like Obama in that respect, I think.

Which makes it funny that he pushed so hard for more debates.

[Lord MJ]

Bernie comes from the standpoint of a rich white liberal who "knows what's best for you poor people. If you would just follow me and help me lead the revolution - we can have free college and healthcare for all. Don't pay attention that everyone would have to pay massive tax increases. Don't pay attention that I could never get it through Congress. I've got this. I know what's best for you." Nah.

[The Romulan Republic]

In other words, he's pretty much bad because he's a white candidate who presumes that his ideas can help people. Or, since it is the job of a candidate to try to have policies that would improve the lot of the nation's citizens, a simpler way to put it is he's bad because he's white.

Well, if that's what it boils down to-naked racism, us vs. them-I suppose their's probably not much that can be done about that. But it would be nice if people were at least honest about it.

Also, he has about as good a chance of getting shit through Congress as Clinton. In other words, very little unless the balance of power in Congress radically shifts.

And his tax hikes would primarily be on the rich.

But while we're on the subject of racism, here's something worth mentioning which no one seems to want to talk about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... nd-latinos

According this article, ADL surveys show that “approximately 12 percent of Americans hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views.” However, over 30% of African Americans and Latinos hold such views. Given that they are almost 30% of the population, this suggests that of the 12% of Americans who hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, 9% or so are African Americans or Latinos. This means, in turn, of the 70% or so of the population that is not African American or Latino, only 3% hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views. Put another way, less than 5% of whites, Asians, and “others” (including Native Americans) combined hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, compared to over 30% of African Americans and Latinos–or at least that’s the difference in percentages of those willing to express anti-Semitic attitudes to pollsters. Regardless, it seems odd given these numbers that Jews seem especially concerned about mostly phantom anti-Semitism emanating from white evangelical Christians, while being less concerned about anti-Semitism in core Democratic constituencies. But, as Ilya pointed out a few years back, “many studies show that people tend to devalue or ignore any information that makes their political adversaries look good, while overvaluing anything that looks bad.”

The article adds: “[Retiring ADL President Abe] Foxman attributes the persistence of anti-Semitism among African-Americans to denial of the problem and a dearth of black leaders speaking out against anti-Semitism. Among Latinos, the attitudes are seen as a holdover from Latin America, where traditional Catholic anti-Semitism persists and anti-Semitic attitudes are higher than in America. Once they acculturate to the United States, Latino anti-Semitism declines: Among first-generation immigrants, about 40 percent hold anti-Semitic attitudes; among those born here, the number falls to 20 percent. ”

UPDATE: A reader points me to the most recent ADL survey, from 2013, which shows a lower rate of black (22%) and Latino (36% foreign-born, 14% native-born) anti-Semitism than the article states. The 2011 data comes closer to matching the author’s assertion, but the overall figure there was not 12% but 15% overall, and 29% (not over 30%) for African Americans and 42 and 20% for foreign and native-born Latinos, respectively. The rates for whites were 8% and 9% in 2013 and 2011. So I’m not sure if the author is looking at different data, or just got his facts wrong. Nevertheless, the basic point, that “entrenched anti-Semitic views” are far more common among African Americans and Latinos than among others, still holds.

Now, I have some doubts about this article, and I would not presume for an instant that all of the issues Sanders has with black (and to a lesser extent, latino) voters come down to anti-semitism. But I would be very surprised if this isn't a factor.