~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[NineOneFour]

D.C. is an insider's game, always has been and likely always will be. Put in a Trump or a Bernie and exactly fuck all will get done. Cruz might whip the GOP into line, but I doubt it, from all reports he's roundly despised. I mean, who wouldn't despise that oily fuckwad? He's a revolting human being, if one is charitable enough to characterize him as human. Hillary knows how to game the system, and knows where a LOT of bodies are buried. In terms of effectiveness she's the obvious choice. I don't expect the Berniebros or Trumpists to understand that, because as 914 pointed out, most have NO idea how politics actually works. The idiocy of the voting public still amazes me at times, even at my advanced age, and I consider myself about as cynical a bastard as ever came down the pike.

Edited to add: the most effective Presidents we've had were insiders: FDR, TR, Lincoln, etc.

[NineOneFour]

America is currently too right wing and elects too many right wing asshats to implement Sanders's policies. Not only would he face determined Republican opposition, there are many portions of his proposals that quite a few Democrats would vote against.

This is exactly the point that die hard Sanders supporters fail to grasp. Sanders would get into office with effectively zero support anywhere in Washington DC. There would be veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress and a SCOTUS against him to boot. Wall Street would have a field day.

Then, if Sanders supporters do what Obama's did in 2010, The Revolution will be over.

Tom

This is precisely correct. In fact, a similar thing actually did happen to Carter. Carter had Democratic majorities, but they refused to support him.

A lot of Sanders's supporters do not understand how political reality works in this nation.

I think you are wrong. Sanders supporters know the system is rigged, and not representative of the people. This is exactly why they won't vote for the corrupt candidate. They do not accept the status quo, and want the whole system changed.

And, you know, that's terrific, really. The problem is: they are going about it the wrong way.

EDITED TO ADD: Or, I should say, they are going about it in an ineffective way.

[NineOneFour]

This is exactly the point that die hard Sanders supporters fail to grasp. Sanders would get into office with effectively zero support anywhere in Washington DC. There would be veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress and a SCOTUS against him to boot. Wall Street would have a field day.

Then, if Sanders supporters do what Obama's did in 2010, The Revolution will be over.

Tom

This is precisely correct. In fact, a similar thing actually did happen to Carter. Carter had Democratic majorities, but they refused to support him.

A lot of Sanders's supporters do not understand how political reality works in this nation.

I think you are wrong. Sanders supporters know the system is rigged, and not representative of the people. This is exactly why they won't vote for the corrupt candidate. They do not accept the status quo, and want the whole system changed.

The system is not rigged. The system is incredibly complex.

Let us say that I am the representative from virginia's 4th district. The 4th district of Virginia is a demographic of suburban families mixed with rural families. Overall it has a fairly right leaning slant in terms of average voter interest. As such as a representative who wishes to keep my seat, I toe the line and vote for policies my constituents support even though I may personally disagree with them and vote against policies my constituents are against even though I am for them.

But an aide from the white house comes to me on gun control. Knowing that I am not against reasonable gun control they ask me to support a bill they are writing up to expand background checks and limit how many guns/ammo a person can buy at once. Because gun control is not popular in my district I am apprehensive. But then said aide cuts a deal with the Congressional Budget Committee to apportion funds for me to build a new hospital/school/library/etc. in my district which would create jobs and thus make my constituents happy.

Welcome to the art of politics.

Trump and Sanders will not do that. They will bully through with their ideologies and preach to the choir. Cruz is in a very similar position. Clinton is not afraid of compromise and making concessions in order to get certain things done.

You may think its rigged and hide behind tin-foil hate assumptions, but in all honesty it only looks rigged because it is a web of deals, and back deals, and trades, and concessions, and communications, etc. Just because sweeping change does not affect it does not mean it is rigged. It means it takes more than ideology to get things done in Congress.

A smart and prudent President knows this and would know how to work the system.

Damn, Will. That was awesome. Really insightful and well written.

[Willie71]

A clearly biased blog entry citing one study (confirmation bias) is hardly "some reading."

Motivated reasoning. This is a seminal work, excellent methodology, and incredible sample size.

[Willie71]

This is exactly the point that die hard Sanders supporters fail to grasp. Sanders would get into office with effectively zero support anywhere in Washington DC. There would be veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress and a SCOTUS against him to boot. Wall Street would have a field day.

Then, if Sanders supporters do what Obama's did in 2010, The Revolution will be over.

Tom

This is precisely correct. In fact, a similar thing actually did happen to Carter. Carter had Democratic majorities, but they refused to support him.

A lot of Sanders's supporters do not understand how political reality works in this nation.

I think you are wrong. Sanders supporters know the system is rigged, and not representative of the people. This is exactly why they won't vote for the corrupt candidate. They do not accept the status quo, and want the whole system changed.

And, you know, that's terrific, really. The problem is: they are going about it the wrong way.

EDITED TO ADD: Or, I should say, they are going about it in an ineffective way.

Voting for Sanders is one piece of the puzzle. Democracy Spring has been happening all week. Wolf Pac is another piece. The wrong way really is voting for Clinton, thinking this is a good choice.

[NineOneFour]

This is precisely correct. In fact, a similar thing actually did happen to Carter. Carter had Democratic majorities, but they refused to support him.

A lot of Sanders's supporters do not understand how political reality works in this nation.

I think you are wrong. Sanders supporters know the system is rigged, and not representative of the people. This is exactly why they won't vote for the corrupt candidate. They do not accept the status quo, and want the whole system changed.

And, you know, that's terrific, really. The problem is: they are going about it the wrong way.

EDITED TO ADD: Or, I should say, they are going about it in an ineffective way.

Voting for Sanders is one piece of the puzzle. Democracy Spring has been happening all week. Wolf Pac is another piece. The wrong way really is voting for Clinton, thinking this is a good choice.

Democracy Spring is less of a thing than Occupy Wall Street was.

I actually had to look up Wolf Pac. I'm very much in favor of their goals, but they are a very small group, nationally speaking.

Voting for Sanders for many of his BernieOrBust followers, seems to be the ONLY piece of the puzzle. They don't understand at all about American politics. I've had more than one conversation with a Bernie supporter who didn't understand:

1. How many Senators there were
2. How Supreme Court Justices are appointed
3. How many Representatives there were
4. Who their Senators and Representative were
5. How to register to vote
6. The difference between PAC money, corporate donations, and individual contributions
7. Who Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or George McGovern were
8. What the origin of Third Way politics and the DNC was
9. What Third Way and DNC politics are in the first place
10. The difference between socialism and social democracy
11. What a VAT is
12. What nationalization means

Now, some of this surely is okay, a lot of folks are political neophytes. I was one myself once. But these people are shrill, demanding, and screaming that they know best, and they are woefully uninformed about the very basics of American politics.

[willhud9]

Anyways.

[NineOneFour]

Anyways.

Nice summary.

[proudfootz]

D.C. is an insider's game, always has been and likely always will be. Put in a Trump or a Bernie and exactly fuck all will get done. Cruz might whip the GOP into line, but I doubt it, from all reports he's roundly despised. I mean, who wouldn't despise that oily fuckwad? He's a revolting human being, if one is charitable enough to characterize him as human. Hillary knows how to game the system, and knows where a LOT of bodies are buried. In terms of effectiveness she's the obvious choice. I don't expect the Berniebros or Trumpists to understand that, because as 914 pointed out, most have NO idea how politics actually works. The idiocy of the voting public still amazes me at times, even at my advanced age, and I consider myself about as cynical a bastard as ever came down the pike.

Edited to add: the most effective Presidents we've had were insiders: FDR, TR, Lincoln, etc.

Just FYI, Lincoln would be more of an outsider.

He was a Congressman early in his career, retired from politics, lent a hand in the formation of the Republican party when the extension of slavery became an issue, but was defeated by Douglas when he ran for the Senate.

So Lincoln was a compromise candidate for the Republicans as he was considered a bit of an unknown who hadn't really done enough to have made a lot of enemies.

[Scot Dutchy]

Can you actually compare politics in Lincoln's time to today?

[proudfootz]

I agree, but I don't see it as importantly different from Teague's assertion. Both groups are dominated by low information, politically naïve idealogues. They're both convinced that if the system were "fair" their candidate would be well on his way to the White House where he will wave a magic wand and save the USA.
Tom

That's funny because it's Clinton's low information voters that are winning her the primary so far - old people who watch establishment propaganda on that thing called "News" on TV. Sander's supporters are more clued up on the issues and to hand wave Sanders camapign so easily shows you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. He's broken more records this election that any other candidate and started with over a -60 point deficit.

Let's not also forget that most of these elections favour Clinton. Take NY for example, you had to register to be a democrat 6 months ago to vote this year. Sanders wasn't know 6 months ago so now, it doesn't matter if he manages to excite 10 million people to vote for him, they can't because they can't register.

I don't understand how anyone can blandly assert Sanders or his supporters believe there is some sort of 'magic wand' involved.



Sanders is a seasoned politician, executive, and lawmaker. His programs appear to be modeled on successful programs in place in modern, fully functional states all over the globe.

Anyone who can't wrap their minds around that is hopelessly naive.

This is absolutely true.

Always glad to help!

Here's the part you're missing: there is no political revolution in the offing to make this happen. We would be seeing a groundswell much larger for Sanders than we are. He is currently being outpolled in total votes not only by Clinton, but also by Trump.

There's not much that can be done about Trump supporters. But you think Clinton will win them over? Trade deporting a few million Mexicans for expanding the Affordable Care Act? Invade Iran in exchange for closing a few tax loopholes? Or will they be overawed by her 'toughness' and just lie down?

It would appear to me that many people support Sanders due to his policies while many Clintonites mostly brag about her supposed 'winnability'. Some of that would appear to be due to her backers' ability to game the nomination process.

Therefore, the hopelessly naive are the folks who think somehow Sanders is going to be able to implement his plans in the stupidity that is America. America is currently too right wing and elects too many right wing asshats to implement Sanders's policies. Not only would he face determined Republican opposition, there are many portions of his proposals that quite a few Democrats would vote against.

So when Clinton goes ahead and tries to put through all those Sanders' proposals that's she's been coopting in the past few weeks, she'd face the same opposition, right?

Is America changing? Without doubt. The millennial generation is pro-socialism, or at the very least pro-social democracy, and thankfully so. I'm sick of living in a country that has five time zones (Pacific, Mountain, Central, Eastern, and 1952). But millennials are not voting in enough numbers yet to offset the conservadouches in the Silent and Boomer generations.

I agree there needs to be more grass roots support for progressive policies to drag the US from the 19th century into the 20th (not to mention the 21st).

Alienating millennials ain't the way to do it.

For all the talking about how Sanders supporters should back up Clinton if she's nominated, there's just the assumption that Clinton backers won't support Sanders if things were to go the other way. They'd be cutting off their noses to spite their face is they ally themselves to the Republican opposition.

[NineOneFour]

D.C. is an insider's game, always has been and likely always will be. Put in a Trump or a Bernie and exactly fuck all will get done. Cruz might whip the GOP into line, but I doubt it, from all reports he's roundly despised. I mean, who wouldn't despise that oily fuckwad? He's a revolting human being, if one is charitable enough to characterize him as human. Hillary knows how to game the system, and knows where a LOT of bodies are buried. In terms of effectiveness she's the obvious choice. I don't expect the Berniebros or Trumpists to understand that, because as 914 pointed out, most have NO idea how politics actually works. The idiocy of the voting public still amazes me at times, even at my advanced age, and I consider myself about as cynical a bastard as ever came down the pike.

Edited to add: the most effective Presidents we've had were insiders: FDR, TR, Lincoln, etc.

Just FYI, Lincoln would be more of an outsider.

He was a Congressman early in his career, retired from politics, lent a hand in the formation of the Republican party when the extension of slavery became an issue, but was defeated by Douglas when he ran for the Senate.

So Lincoln was a compromise candidate for the Republicans as he was considered a bit of an unknown who hadn't really done enough to have made a lot of enemies.

I suppose that's true.

But Jefferson, FDR, TR, and LBJ sure weren't. Every major shift leftward in America in the past 100 years has come from a consummate insider (TR's Fair Deal and Trust Busting, FDR's New Deal and Social Security, LBJ's Great Society and Medicare/Medicaid).

[NineOneFour]

Can you actually compare politics in Lincoln's time to today?

Difficult if not impossible.

[Columbus]

FFS!!! How many times has this been explained to you, yet you repeat this BS trope?

This has never been explained. Not even close.
Like all the rest of your post, all I have seen anywhere is a bunch of assertions and magical thinking about how things should be.
Not a word about practical methods for getting any of his agenda through Congress any time soon.

In fact, I think that his nomination would be the kind of gift to the GOP that a Trump nomination would be to the Dems. Because as much as the Berniebros don't get it, "The Commies are comin' " is a campaign war cry that will drown out Sanders message. It could reunite the fractured GOP like nothing else, and would resonate with a lot of the more conservative Democrats as well.
Tom

[NineOneFour]

That's funny because it's Clinton's low information voters that are winning her the primary so far - old people who watch establishment propaganda on that thing called "News" on TV. Sander's supporters are more clued up on the issues and to hand wave Sanders camapign so easily shows you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. He's broken more records this election that any other candidate and started with over a -60 point deficit.

Let's not also forget that most of these elections favour Clinton. Take NY for example, you had to register to be a democrat 6 months ago to vote this year. Sanders wasn't know 6 months ago so now, it doesn't matter if he manages to excite 10 million people to vote for him, they can't because they can't register.

I don't understand how anyone can blandly assert Sanders or his supporters believe there is some sort of 'magic wand' involved.



Sanders is a seasoned politician, executive, and lawmaker. His programs appear to be modeled on successful programs in place in modern, fully functional states all over the globe.

Anyone who can't wrap their minds around that is hopelessly naive.

This is absolutely true.

Always glad to help!

Here's the part you're missing: there is no political revolution in the offing to make this happen. We would be seeing a groundswell much larger for Sanders than we are. He is currently being outpolled in total votes not only by Clinton, but also by Trump.

There's not much that can be done about Trump supporters. But you think Clinton will win them over? Trade deporting a few million Mexicans for expanding the Affordable Care Act? Invade Iran in exchange for closing a few tax loopholes? Or will they be overawed by her 'toughness' and just lie down?

It would appear to me that many people support Sanders due to his policies while many Clintonites mostly brag about her supposed 'winnability'. Some of that would appear to be due to her backers' ability to game the nomination process.

Therefore, the hopelessly naive are the folks who think somehow Sanders is going to be able to implement his plans in the stupidity that is America. America is currently too right wing and elects too many right wing asshats to implement Sanders's policies. Not only would he face determined Republican opposition, there are many portions of his proposals that quite a few Democrats would vote against.

So when Clinton goes ahead and tries to put through all those Sanders' proposals that's she's been coopting in the past few weeks, she'd face the same opposition, right?

Is America changing? Without doubt. The millennial generation is pro-socialism, or at the very least pro-social democracy, and thankfully so. I'm sick of living in a country that has five time zones (Pacific, Mountain, Central, Eastern, and 1952). But millennials are not voting in enough numbers yet to offset the conservadouches in the Silent and Boomer generations.

I agree there needs to be more grass roots support for progressive policies to drag the US from the 19th century into the 20th (not to mention the 21st).

Alienating millennials ain't the way to do it.

For all the talking about how Sanders supporters should back up Clinton if she's nominated, there's just the assumption that Clinton backers won't support Sanders if things were to go the other way. They'd be cutting off their noses to spite their face is they ally themselves to the Republican opposition.

Well, for one, Hillary isn't proposing the sweeping changes that Bernie is. The likelihood is that she could get her incremental changes through Congress much easier than Sanders could get his "political revolution". Another possibility is that Hillary might just say "fuck it" and start issuing executive orders to bypass Congress as much as possible. She certainly won't face determined Democratic opposition as Sanders would.

Two, I've not heard one, literally not one, Hillary supporter who has said they would not vote for Sanders if he was nominated. Not a one. On the other hand, the BernieOrBust people are whiney, annoying, privileged douchecanoes.

[Columbus]

So when Clinton goes ahead and tries to put through all those Sanders' proposals that's she's been coopting in the past few weeks, she'd face the same opposition, right?

That depends a lot on what happens in November. Should the Democratic party get it together for the election and turn out the vote, we could blow the opposition so far into the weeds that they won't matter. This is easy to see for anyone who understands the political reality.

For example, due to the lack of Obama supporters voting in 2010, there is a batch of weak Tea Party candidates who are up for reelection in the Senate. The GOP is defending 24 seats. If half of those went to Democratic candidates the President would have a solid majority. S/he couldget a much more amenable SCOTUS judge through the Senate under those circumstances.
This is the sort of thing Sanders' supporters don't seem to understand.
Tom
ETA ~ For the benefit of those who don't know much about the USA political landscape: The Trump supporters largely overlap with the Tea Party. If the GOP steals the nomination from Trump a lot of those senators support will go away with him. That's a big part of the reason that the Trump Problem has the GOP shitting bricks~

[laklak]

I don't think you can say millennials are pro-socialist as a group. A large percentage of Bernie supporters are millennials, but there are plenty of them who are conservative, Christian (if in name only), pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc. There are a lot of libertarians among them too, look at how well Rand Paul played on university campuses. Hell, he got a standing ovation at Berkeley. It might be more accurate to say they are fed up with politics as usual.

It's hardly surprising that they make up a large contingent of Bernie supporters. A huge swath of my generation were socialists if not outright communists. I considered myself a Maoist at the time. Look at the social and political unrest in the 60s and early 70s, makes today look positively peaceful. We had the SDS, the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, Yippies, Kent State, Pigasus for President, bombings of government buildings. Flower Power was the benign face, a clenched fist holding an AK47 was the political side. Where do you think Che t-shirts came from? We had our Bernies, several of them. George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, and a bit later Carter and Mondale. This is the same generation now roundly condemned by the youngsters as selfish, GOP voting old farts.

We were going to change the world, man! That's not hyperbole, we truly believed it. When you're young and don't have much to lose the wholesale destruction of the status quo, through violent means if necessary, appears a valid option. Once mortgages and jobs and families enter the picture incremental, peaceful change is a much more desirable. The current crop of Berniebros will do the same thing in the future.

EDIT I remember telling my Dad, back in my long haired hippie days, "I don't need your filthy middle-class money, man". He just laughed at me, which only pissed me off more. Lol. Look at me now.

[Columbus]

EDIT I remember telling my Dad, back in my long haired hippie days, "I don't need your filthy middle-class money, man". He just laughed at me, which only pissed me off more. Lol. Look at me now.

Heh, boy does that take me back to the good old days! Only mine were in the 70s.

I simply could not convince my dad that socialist policies like Social security, the Federal highway system, and the GI bill were what Made America Great. And so we needed more of them.
Tom

[Willie71]

I don't think you can say millennials are pro-socialist as a group. A large percentage of Bernie supporters are millennials, but there are plenty of them who are conservative, Christian (if in name only), pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc. There are a lot of libertarians among them too, look at how well Rand Paul played on university campuses. Hell, he got a standing ovation at Berkeley. It might be more accurate to say they are fed up with politics as usual.

It's hardly surprising that they make up a large contingent of Bernie supporters. A huge swath of my generation were socialists if not outright communists. I considered myself a Maoist at the time. Look at the social and political unrest in the 60s and early 70s, makes today look positively peaceful. We had the SDS, the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, Yippies, Kent State, Pigasus for President, bombings of government buildings. Flower Power was the benign face, a clenched fist holding an AK47 was the political side. Where do you think Che t-shirts came from? We had our Bernies, several of them. George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, and a bit later Carter and Mondale. This is the same generation now roundly condemned by the youngsters as selfish, GOP voting old farts.

We were going to change the world, man! That's not hyperbole, we truly believed it. When you're young and don't have much to lose the wholesale destruction of the status quo, through violent means if necessary, appears a valid option. Once mortgages and jobs and families enter the picture incremental, peaceful change is a much more desirable. The current crop of Berniebros will do the same thing in the future.

EDIT I remember telling my Dad, back in my long haired hippie days, "I don't need your filthy middle-class money, man". He just laughed at me, which only pissed me off more. Lol. Look at me now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ram ... apitalism/

Just 34 percent of respondents age 65 and older said they would be willing to vote for a socialist, compared with about twice that level among respondents younger than 30.

The only Americans who do t like social democracy are the tea partiers.

[Willie71]

FFS!!! How many times has this been explained to you, yet you repeat this BS trope?

This has never been explained. Not even close.
Like all the rest of your post, all I have seen anywhere is a bunch of assertions and magical thinking about how things should be.
Not a word about practical methods for getting any of his agenda through Congress any time soon.

In fact, I think that his nomination would be the kind of gift to the GOP that a Trump nomination would be to the Dems. Because as much as the Berniebros don't get it, "The Commies are comin' " is a campaign war cry that will drown out Sanders message. It could reunite the fractured GOP like nothing else, and would resonate with a lot of the more conservative Democrats as well.
Tom

The need to keep the youth involved for the mid terms hasn't been explained? Hillary doesn't inspire people like Bernie. He has a much better shot at getting a progressive congress. In a general, there are no restrictions to Dems only, and Sanders brings in more independents and moderate republicans than Clinton. Facts be damned I guess.