Election 2016

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:18 pm

Trump and Carson demand 2 hour CNBC debate

It seems they got it. Why do they want it? To limit the ability of others to speak?

angelfromanotherpin · Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:34 pm

They want to turn the debate into a campaign stop. With 10 candidates on stage, only 90 minutes of actual airtime, and both opening and closing statements from everyone, the amount of time for actual questions is close to nil. Everyone's going to show up, do a cut-down version of their stump speech, and bugger off.

I'd say that Trump and Carson want to limit their exposure to policy questions that might expose their ignorance and embarrass them, but as far as the primary goes, embarrassing ignorance only seems to help those two.

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:21 pm

violence in the media wrote:
Hiram McDaniels wrote: Clinton had a strong showing, even if some of her answers were unsatisfactory. I'm prepared to vote for her if I have to.
I think I get what you're saying here, but I'm puzzled by the unspoken alternatives.

Like, is it possible that Clinton could have said things that would cause you to abstain from voting, if she were the Democratic nominee? Is there anything that anyone on the Democratic stage could say or do that would cause you to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate?

I guess I'm wondering if there are truly any "independent" voters out there and, if there are, what are their decision conflicts? How many issues are there where one party's platform is not largely antithetical to the opposing viewpoint? Both parties might have stances on a dear-to-you issue that you personally disagree with; but why wouldn't you then evaluate things holistically and align with whoever is closest?

You're right. If the democratic candidate in 2016 was three small children stacked under a raincoat, running on a platform of "more recess", I would STILL vote for them over any candidate the republicans could field.

What I should have said was that in an ideal world it would be a Sanders/Warren ticket for 2016; but I can still feel good about casting my vote or Hilary in the general election next November, as opposed to voting for Lincoln Chaffee in which case I would be all: "Uhhhh...I guueeess?"

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:37 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Sanders is looking better for VP though.

-Username17

I like Sanders as Secretary of the Treasury.

It's a longshot, but I like Gavin Newsom for vice president. Or Cory Booker.

Almaz wrote: But never has it been more true that any Democrat is more acceptable than any Republican. Even the right wing candidates who seemed sane are being sucked in by the sheer gravity of Trump's awfulness. Right now I can't imagine even a Senator or House Republican being acceptable, given that they'd inevitably march in lockstep with whatever horribleness the Right is doing, like all those fucking "government shutdowns."

I find it funny that Ted Cruz thought HE would be the outrageous right wing troll this election, but then Trump came along and beat him handily at that game.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:40 pm

The way I look at it is that a Sanders/Warren ticket would be awesome, and might be either a sign of the apocalypse, or my wettest dream made real. But Hillary running is... not great, but while she's a crony to big money, she's at least token-ly pro-middle class, not anti-poor, and not actually racist (just so steeped in white privilege you could use her to make white tea). If Chaffee got the nomination, I would email him asking what demon he got to buy his soul and if they're still handing out pipedreams. Hell, that goes for any of "those lesser democratic candidates."

But pretty much the only way I would vote for any of the republican candidates is if [The Great Fence Builder Speaks] Condition removed as being too close to wishing death on someone for my liking[/TGFBS]

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:08 pm

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:24 pm

Surely that is a fake?

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:25 pm

Oh yes. But a lie will be favorited five thousand times before the truth has got its boots on.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:26 pm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/donal ... tweet-fake

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:21 pm

It's fake, but it's fake in the way that the Onion is fake.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:27 pm

At this time, I'm planning on voting for Sanders because he can, or is at least trying to put demographics into play/drive up margins that Hillary Clinton can't. Specifically, Millenials and non-Southern white working class. That's really the only way that the Democratic Party can get the House in 2016 (short of catastrophic Republican implosion, which just might happen anyway) and the only way to keep the Senate in 2018.

And for all of the angst about how the Democratic Party should give up on the white working class vote, I think that this view is misguided. A lot of people look at Romney's 60% of the white vote number and despair, but it misses a lot of subtleties and demographic changes.

The white vote in the United States is becoming extremely age and region-polarized. In 2008, Obama won a majority of whites under 45 everywhere outside of the South and an absolute majority of whites age 18-29 in the country. Obama wasn't able to repeat that for 2012, but nonetheless getting 45% of the white 18-29 vote in 2012 is a big improvement over Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore.

This is extremely bad news for the Republican Party. They're already badly slipping with whites in the Midwest and Chesapeake; Obama did better in 2012 and 2008 with whites in this region than Gore and Kerry. As far as the Rockies go, while the Republican Party shouldn't be in panic mode yet, Obama did much better in a number of these states (Montana, the Dakotas) than Clinton. That's meaningful for the Senate going forward, which is probably the Democratic Party's biggest Achilles' heel.

For all of the talk about the Republican Party becoming the white party, it's more accurate to state that they're becoming the Confederate party. Or, even more accurately, the party of rural Confederates since if demographics trends continue as-is and the Democratic and Republican Parties remain largely the same the GOP can kiss the Carolinas, Georgia, Texas, and Florida goodbye.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the Democratic Party is currently prepared to exploit this chink in the Republican Party's armor. Listening to a lot of party leaders, they cast the terms of their battles in terms of Multicultural America vs. Revanchist Whites instead of Revanchist Rural Southern Whites vs. Everyone Else.

Almaz · Post by **Almaz** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:06 am

FrankTrollman wrote:That is, if you ask a random democrat who won, 62% say Hillary; while if you put up a sign asking democrats to come to you to tell you who they think won then three quarters of the people who put in the effort say Bernie.

I think this is an excellent example of why Sanders is a stronger candidate than he might seem at first glance, however. Enthusiasm is what drives people to the polls, and it's a large part of what drove people to vote for B-Rock "the Islamic Shock" Hussein Superallah Obama. People were tired and wanted a change. That was his entire campaign!

I'm not going to be upset if Hillary wins the nomination, of course. You're probably right on all the other things, and I will accept 8 more years of careful maneuvering... I just am feeling lucky (punk).

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:58 am

Sanders does really well with white liberals, which is roughly a third of the white vote. That's not nothing, but remember that Clinton does better with self described white moderates and white conservatives. And white liberals are the third of the white people who are most likely to vote democratic even if they don't especially like the candidate.

Bernie Sanders has a very high approval in the demographic most over represented in the Iowa democratic caucus and the New Hampshire democratic primary relative to all other elections this cycle. The first two states make it look way closer than it is between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and also vastly overestimate how well he can do in the general.

I've yet to see any numbers that make it look like Sanders can put together a better coalition for the 2016 general election. His target demographic is just a third of the white people and it's the third of the white people who are least likely to break republican in the first place. The only thing he brings to the race is saying things that I like to hear.

If you want to win the white vote, or even just not lose two thirds of it, you gotta split the so-called "white moderates." You know, the people who are more concerned with order than justice and all that. Incrementalist rhetoric is how you do that. Fucking 20% of the voters in the country are white people who want to find middle ground between the extremes of left and right even though that is stupid. You are not going to win those people with talks of political revolution.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:32 am

I think describing it in terms of moderate and conservatives kind of buries the lede. This is due to a confluence of factors.

1.) Social issues matter more than economic ones. Sorry, liberals, but it's true. Economic issues are not nothing, but social issues are why the New Deal Democrats/New Left got smashed into a million pieces.

2.) That said, economic liberalism has always been popular with all voters. The big economic liberalism ticket items (minimum wage increases, corporate regulation, tax increases on the rich, college assistance, Social Security, universal health care, etc.) have always polled very popularly. The agenda got spanked after the success of the Southern Strategy thanks to premise #1, but see premise #3. As long as you don't go too far out there (i.e. nationalizing businesses) and don't mind alienating the upper class, economic liberalism = some positive # of votes.

3.) American whites across the political spectrum have become more liberal socially over the past 45 years. The only real culture war battle where liberals haven't made much progress with in winning peoples' hearts and mind is with abortion and arguably climate change. Everything else (military intervention, immigration, gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, secularism, crime, war on drugs, even gun control) liberals have made some real progress if not outright won. Yes, seriously, immigration.

4.) The composition of the Obama Coalition has been pretty stable for a few elections. The Obama Coalition can be more accurately called the Dukakis Coalition since in terms of Presidential Election exit polling % across the demographics the numbers are fairly similar except for age -- Dukakis did better with seniors but worse with youth. But note that the Dukakis Coalition took its shape when the Democratic Party was on the wrong side of social issues as far as winning elections were concerned. Brute demographic shifts, and not so much ideological change on social issues, is what transformed a pathetic defeat to a solid majority. Because of this, as long as HRC or Sanders or whoever largely intends to keep their current stances on social issues they should be getting the same margins short of campaign fuckups, black swans, and/or radical shifts in the parties' platforms.

Because of 1, 2, 3, and 4 I think that adding a credible platform of economic liberalism would allow the Democratic Party to further expand its margins even though that would push the party to the left. Because the Democratic Party is already a majority party in Presidential elections thanks to its stance on social issues. And driving up Millenial turnout by 10% and/or just poaching 5-10% of the white working class would be huge. As in, winning the House in 2016 despite Gerrymandering huge. And I think that it's quite possible -- Obama lost 10% of the white 18-29 year old vote and 14% of the black male 18-29 year old vote going from 2008-2012. I believe that the Democratic Party should find either a way to increase its base turnout or reach out to other demographics without alienating its core supporters. And I think that full-on economic liberalism would be the way to do this.

Frankly, I feel that Hillary Clinton's strategy of 'don't do anything different from what Obama did, because fuck those crazy-ass non-Democrats' is way too risky. Without having the House and being all-but-guaranteed to lose the Senate in 2018, she'll be at the complete mercy of any black swans that rock her Presidency. Just in time for 2020 redistricting, too.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:46 am

Lago wrote:American whites across the political spectrum have become more liberal socially over the past 45 years.

Yes they have.

How do you think appealing to people who identify as liberal is a winning electoral strategy? I mean seriously, how could you even begin to think that?

Every single liberal issue is a winner for the democrats. But a super majority of people in the country do not think of themselves as liberal and do not want the liberal label attached to them. Everyone born before 1970 is still at some level fighting the cold war and thinks socialism is the enemy. Even though they probably support every socialist policy you could propose.

If you want to get the American people to swallow liberalism, you still have to call it something else. That's changing. But it's not changing fast enough to win in 2016. We can probably win with a democratic socialist in 2024.

-Username17

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:00 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo- ... e3470156eb

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:11 am

Ancient History wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo- ... e3470156eb

I am taken aback by their confidence in Hillary.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:30 pm

They're still scared shitless of her, aren't they.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:05 pm

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... ry-n447736

So, the Democratic Primary is...uh...still primarily between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, minor contenders notwithstanding. No more GOP drop-outs, at least not yet, although the media seems to be literally pouncing on Jeb Bush's failure to perform.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:30 pm

Almaz wrote:I think this is an excellent example of why Sanders is a stronger candidate than he might seem at first glance, however. Enthusiasm is what drives people to the polls, and it's a large part of what drove people to vote for B-Rock "the Islamic Shock" Hussein Superallah Obama. People were tired and wanted a change. That was his entire campaign!

And it amply demonstrates why democracy doesn't work. People just don't learn.

Ultimately you'll get the candidates the Powers That Be want you to be offered, and you'll vote for one of them, and things will continue as before.

Count Arioch the 28th · Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:45 pm

Yeah, because unelected dictators always turn out so much better...

I used to think the same thing. Then I stopped being a fucking edgelord.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:30 pm

Wow, OS. In all my political theory stupidity, I have never (quite) been that stupid.

Well done.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:26 am

Wait, does it really surprise anyone that Occluded "we were more free when slavery was legal and women couldn't vote" Sun hates democracy?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:32 am

Darth Rabbitt wrote:Wait, does it really surprise anyone that Occluded "we were more free when slavery was legal and women couldn't vote" Sun hates democracy?

Nope.

Shady314 · Post by **Shady314** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:56 am

Quote time! "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Winston Churchill