Election 2016

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:37 am

Eikre wrote:What are people supposed to look for in a Veep? Security of the successon? lol, the last time we had to switch out the president for his spare was 41 years ago and we didn't even elect that dude to begin with. And if any modern president was gonna get himself killed outta office, it was obviously gonna be the black dude, but it looks like we're pretty much out of the woods on that one. Why would people hold a vice presidential candidate seriously when they don't even take the office seriously?

That's the perspective, I suspect. And from that point of view, Castro seems to fulfil all the qualities necessary to contrast Clinton. Young guy, clean record, probably won't bother many people when he's made the mouthpiece for invective that Hillary's image is too conservative for. The notion that a minority candidate will fetch back "his people" is patronizing, but the left bleeds from the Hispanic block more to social conservationism than anything else and genuine Latin Catholicism arms him with presumptive approval that won't ablate, even if he is down with the gays, unless his opponents put in effort well above the average to paint him as a degenerate. Threading the needle isn't even hard; dude could hang hella tite with the Pope Fran ouvre, and that shit is hot right now.

With Trump pushing the anti-hispanic/muslim angle 'CAN' Dems lose their backing at this point?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:22 am

So, the fact that Hillary was invited to Mandela's house is more influential than the fact that Bernie has, on pretty much every occasion, had better and more substantive interactions with the Black Lives Matter people?

I'm not saying you're wrong, Frank, I'm honestly curious as to whether that's the case. It's not like I don't already know that people are dumb and superficial...

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:19 am

Hillary has had a prolonged, long-term engagement with US minority groups through their politicians, organizations, activists, and all the other relevant power blocks. She has traction there, she understands how to speak to the issues that specifically matter to them in the language they usually use. Bernie's been learning to do that on the fly and while he's done a good job, it's hard to make up almost 30 years in a few months, especially given the national media's overall focus on the Republican race and Trump specifically.

Hillary's message to Democratic minority voting blocks is well-known among those groups. Bernie's is not, and his overall name recognition is much lower. At this point whether he has the better message is largely irrelevant, since it's difficult for him to get it out there. If Bernie wins in Iowa or New Hampshire he will have a brief, critical window to make his pitch to the voters who know Clinton way better. It would actually probably help Bernie is Trump got crushed at the same time since that would cause media attention to pivot back to the democratic primary.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:23 am

The thing I hear most people, who I know that are paying any attention to the race, is that they want Hillary in because she's a woman. I haven't heard anyone talk about her history with minorities and a lot of talk about how she used to be anti-gay. Internet (social media) wise I only see stories/memes about Trump and Bernie. I have hardly seen or heard anything covering Hillary and just a bunch of ho hum articles about the other Republican candidates(pretty much just from here).

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:25 am

FrankTrollman wrote: But seriously, why him? As far as I can tell, he's the youngest, sexiest Latino who happens to hold a federal office. But is that really enough to get people taking him seriously for Vice President? He's currently PredictIted at 30%, which seems awfully high for a guy whose credentials have "is Latino" and "has great hair" as two of his top three.

-Username17

Do not underestimate the power of being young and sexy. It worked for JFK.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:41 am

I'm just thinking about how when Hillary met with the BLM crew she basically said that it was the responsibility of the black community to fix racism, but when Bernie got interrupted in a speech, let the protester have their say and then got behind the overall statement when he got the podium back.

I'm just surprised that "30 years of engagement" er, trumps actually listening to the largest(?) grass roots civil rights movement of this year.

hyzmarca wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: But seriously, why him? As far as I can tell, he's the youngest, sexiest Latino who happens to hold a federal office. But is that really enough to get people taking him seriously for Vice President? He's currently PredictIted at 30%, which seems awfully high for a guy whose credentials have "is Latino" and "has great hair" as two of his top three.

-Username17
Do not underestimate the power of being young and sexy. It worked for JFK.

Well, that and realizing that the civil rights movement was going to win eventually, so if he could take even a small piece of credit, it would be worth huge points.

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:37 am

MGuy wrote:Internet (social media) wise I only see stories/memes about Trump and Bernie.

It is important not to overestimate the power and reach of social media, especially in the context of primary elections - which skew older. Only around 60% of Americans are even active on Facebook (and that counts everyone who even checks in once a month, a much smaller percentage actually have a feed that connects them to regular news). Only perhaps 20% of Americans use Twitter (and again, many of those users check irregularly at best). Also social media users skew younger, and are overrepresented among teenagers who can't vote.

Prak wrote:I'm just thinking about how when Hillary met with the BLM crew she basically said that it was the responsibility of the black community to fix racism, but when Bernie got interrupted in a speech, let the protester have their say and then got behind the overall statement when he got the podium back.

I'm just surprised that "30 years of engagement" er, trumps actually listening to the largest(?) grass roots civil rights movement of this year.

I recall Sanders being roundly criticized during that particular incident - both for being too accommodating to the protestors and for failing to have a message ready for racial issues at that point in his campaign. He's changed his emphasis since in an effort to appeal to minority voters more, but he's fighting uphill for media attention to make it known that he's done so.

The same social media caveats apply. Black Lives Matter is a movement that skews young, is prominent on college campuses and on social media, and may not have all that much traction with minority groups at large, especially among older Americans. So even if Black Lives Matters were to outright endorse Bernie over Hillary (I'm fairly certain this hasn't happened and isn't considered likely), it would move the needle only for a portion of an ultimately fairly small (albeit highly motivated and visible) voter base.

There's also a demographic issue. Blacks are currently ~13-14% of the US population based on Census projections. The total minority population is ~38% of the total population. So only slightly more than one third of all minorities are black.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:46 am

Mechalich wrote:I recall Sanders being roundly criticized during that particular incident - both for being too accommodating to the protestors and for failing to have a message ready for racial issues at that point in his campaign.

I remember that 3 days later he had a person he hired at least 2 weeks prior announce his plan for racial issues, almost like he was 2 years away from an election and he was a Senator from Vermont.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:06 am

Prak wrote:I'm just thinking about how when Hillary met with the BLM crew she basically said that it was the responsibility of the black community to fix racism, but when Bernie got interrupted in a speech, let the protester have their say and then got behind the overall statement when he got the podium back.

That's not really how anyone else remembers it. Bernie's speech interruption event had him flailing and looking for a message in public. Took Hillary a while to come up with a message the BLM people wanted to hear as well, but she had the luxury of not actually being caught on camera with her mouth open looking for a thing to say while protesters chanted.

The thing is that the BLM movement ranges from very reasonable protesters to Trotskyist cranks. A whole lot of BLM protests are just going to keep chanting no matter what you say or do, because there is literally nothing you could say or do that would appease them. That's vanguard politics for you: if you meet all their demands they'll think up more demands on the spot. What matters is what all the other black people in the room think of your performance.

So when BLM interrupted a Clinton speech in Atlanta, that was not a loss for Clinton. She got a room full of black people to shout "let her talk" and got thunderous applause at the end. Even though the actual BLM protest itself never warmed to her or listened to anything she had to say.

On the flip side, when Sanders got his speech hijacked by BLM Trotskyites in Seattle, he ended up ceding the stage and shuffling off in befuddlement.

In either case, the actual people who came to disrupt the speech were going to go on interrupting the speech no matter what the candidate said or did. That was simply a thing they were going to do. There was no way for the candidate to win the protesters. The question is whether the things they said and did around that protest won over the majority of black people. Part of it's simple crowd management - Hillary is a damn pro and got civil rights legend and actual comic book hero John Lewis to help get the protesters out, while Sanders ended up just canceling his event and moving on. And some of it is just cultural familiarity, where Clinton was able to put the policy suggestions into language that appeals to southern black voters and Sanders wasn't.

The results speak for themselves.

And this is why Sanders is popular with liberal white people and has little penetration outside that demographic. He doesn't have the long history of coalition building experience that Hillary does. And so when it comes time to reach out to other demographics in Team Blue, he doesn't get his message through even though he is mostly supporting positions that those groups are in favor of.

-Username17

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:48 pm

MGuy wrote:The thing I hear most people, who I know that are paying any attention to the race, is that they want Hillary in because she's a woman. I haven't heard anyone talk about her history with minorities and a lot of talk about how she used to be anti-gay. Internet (social media) wise I only see stories/memes about Trump and Bernie. I have hardly seen or heard anything covering Hillary and just a bunch of ho hum articles about the other Republican candidates(pretty much just from here).

This is my wife's and my experience, as well. Everything we see online is Trump and Sanders, and all of her friends that are her mom's age want to see Clinton win so they can see a woman in the white house. They don't mention anything about her positive accomplishments.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:15 pm

What Clinton has going for her is pretty much exactly that Sanders is a Senator from Vermont who has just started running for President. I am pro-Clinton not because I think what she's proposing is better than what Sanders is proposing, but because I think she has more organizational skills and experience and I think she'll deliver results that are better than the ones Sanders would. Particularly if the Democrats don't secure Congress; she's better-equipped at both inter-party negotiation and legal fu.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:11 pm

fucked up this message when I opened it to edit accidentally, oh well

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:40 pm

name here wrote:Particularly if the Democrats don't secure Congress; she's better-equipped at both inter-party negotiation and legal fu.

The thing is, there is essentially zero chance that the democrats will secure the House of Representatives. The Republican gerrymandering advantage is far too strong for that to happen even in a scenario where Trump is the nominee and he gets crushed nationally like 65 to 35 after calling Hillary a c--- on national TV in the debates.

And the House Republicans are so insane that they will not agree on anything a democratic president proposes no matter its merits. It will be more executive action and marginal tinkering as in these past few Obama years whether Clinton or Sanders is in office. Likewise any democratic president will be forced to offer fairly moderate center-left judicial appointees to get around filibusters.

The real difference between a Clinton and Sanders administration would be in foreign policy. Clinton is much, much more hawkish than Sanders (though vastly less so than even the most moderate of Republican candidates) and is probably likely to engage in some military adventurism on a small scale - continuing bombing in Syria and Yemen for example, more drone strikes, moving ships and planes around in the South China Sea, etc. Clinton is also likely to continue the march of globalization through trade pacts - in fact Sander's biggest impact so far was getting her to forswear support of TPP. Sanders is liable to be much more protectionist though I doubt he'd be able to repeal any existing trade deals.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:50 am

name_here wrote:What Clinton has going for her is pretty much exactly that Sanders is a Senator from Vermont who has just started running for President. I am pro-Clinton not because I think what she's proposing is better than what Sanders is proposing, but because I think she has more organizational skills and experience and I think she'll deliver results that are better than the ones Sanders would. Particularly if the Democrats don't secure Congress; she's better-equipped at both inter-party negotiation and legal fu.

Why does it matter if she's more of a shill than Sanders? I can't see the benefits of meeting the Reps in the middle of anything really. They've shown that they will doggedly be anti-dem-anything and after a successful election any Rep that supports anything Hillary does will be sentencing themselves to being a target by their own party right? Isn't that why the Reps are having a hard time among themselves as it is?

Beyond that what is Hillary even trying to do? When Obama was running I knew that he was coming in on a platform of change. There are things he wanted to do (and some of them he even did). Hillary, I don't know. She says all the liberal buzzwords but I don't know that she even wants to 'do' anything. There are things I 'know' Bernie wants to do. Hypothetically, if he got in office, how would having him at least pushing various important things into the spotlight be bad? What could he even do worse that Republicans wouldn't already stand staunchly against?

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:04 am

MGuy wrote:Beyond that what is Hillary even trying to do? When Obama was running I knew that he was coming in on a platform of change. There are things he wanted to do (and some of them he even did). Hillary, I don't know. She says all the liberal buzzwords but I don't know that she even wants to 'do' anything.

If only there were such a thing as a 'website,' where a candidate for public office could publish their positions and goals, and anyone with a connection could educate themselves, at any time of day or night, in roughly the amount of time it takes to complain that the information was obscure.

You are what's wrong with democracy.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:12 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
MGuy wrote:Beyond that what is Hillary even trying to do? When Obama was running I knew that he was coming in on a platform of change. There are things he wanted to do (and some of them he even did). Hillary, I don't know. She says all the liberal buzzwords but I don't know that she even wants to 'do' anything.
If only there were such a thing as a 'website,' where a candidate for public office could publish their positions and goals, and anyone with a connection could educate themselves, at any time of day or night, in roughly the amount of time it takes to complain that the information was obscure.

You are what's wrong with democracy.

Did you read 'all' of what I said or did you just kind of skim it and assume the rest? In that part you quoted I said that she says all the liberal things but I'm not sure that she wants to do anything. Yea, I could probably go to every candidate's site and see them collectively wanting to make America stronger with liberal candidates wanting liberal things and conservative candidates wanting conservative things but I do not know whether or not Hillary, based on what she actually does, wants to actually do anything. I don't really trust her current branding and I don't know that she's worked in the past to actually do much of anything that the Dems didn't already consider safe to go for en masse. Sanders has always pushed for things that I want and when Obama first started running there was a lot of hoopla about how he wanted to do shiny new things. As I said before I haven't heard much of anything from Hillary's corner to make me believe that she has any actual intent of 'pushing' for anything more than sticking to the liberal buzzwords until she's elected. Compare to Sanders who's all over my media actually pushing for things that he's apparently been pushing for before they became major issues.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:18 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
MGuy wrote:Beyond that what is Hillary even trying to do? When Obama was running I knew that he was coming in on a platform of change. There are things he wanted to do (and some of them he even did). Hillary, I don't know. She says all the liberal buzzwords but I don't know that she even wants to 'do' anything.
If only there were such a thing as a 'website,' where a candidate for public office could publish their positions and goals, and anyone with a connection could educate themselves, at any time of day or night, in roughly the amount of time it takes to complain that the information was obscure.

You are what's wrong with democracy.

Alternatively, he might not believe she is sincere. Since she is regularly criticized for saying whatever needs to be said to get her where she wants to be.

I mean, she's almost certainly sincere about other things, and then there are bunch of things she says she wants to do, and she would probably rather do then not have ever done, but all the same are not something she would ever spend actual political capital for, and there are other things she might not even believe.

Not believing the official position on a candidates site isn't the weirdest thing in the world. We live in a world where Obama has been president for 7 years and Guantanamo Bay still exists as a US special no constitutional protections prison.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:36 am

Hrm, according to her own website, Hillary wants to boost wages by increasing the supply of laborers and opening more foreign markets. Odd that it's self interested capitalist greed convincing me I should vote for Bernie........

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:16 am

MGuy wrote:Did you read 'all' of what I said or did you just kind of skim it and assume the rest? In that part you quoted I said that she says all the liberal things but I'm not sure that she wants to do anything.

In that case, your communication was extremely poor, especially since you referenced Obama's platform. So, what you were really complaining about was that you can't read Hillary's mind and know what she believes in her secret heart?

Clinton has been in public life for a long time. She's voted on the record in the senate, she's publicly spent political capital on various issues in the many governmental roles she's taken on. I assume you're basing your 'knowledge' of Bernie's reel beleefs based on his public record? Maybe you could look up a second person's record?

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:54 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
MGuy wrote:Did you read 'all' of what I said or did you just kind of skim it and assume the rest? In that part you quoted I said that she says all the liberal things but I'm not sure that she wants to do anything.
In that case, your communication was extremely poor, especially since you referenced Obama's platform. So, what you were really complaining about was that you can't read Hillary's mind and know what she believes in her secret heart?

Clinton has been in public life for a long time. She's voted on the record in the senate, she's publicly spent political capital on various issues in the many governmental roles she's taken on. I assume you're basing your 'knowledge' of Bernie's reel beleefs based on his public record? Maybe you could look up a second person's record?

I referenced his platform in a sentence you didn't even quote. So you're going to blame me for not understanding the very part of my speech that you decided to throw a fit about? Perhaps you should read the words you quote before responding to them next time?

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:10 am

Dude, your actual complaint is madness; a person's 'true convictions' are classic unavailable information. So yes, I assumed that you were lazy and not insane. Won't happen again.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:25 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Dude, your actual complaint is madness; a person's 'true convictions' are classic unavailable information. So yes, I assumed that you were lazy and not insane. Won't happen again.

It is madness to not believe the campaign platform of a person who has, in the past, shown that they are willing to say whatever they can to pander versus someone who has pushed for things even when they were not popular? That's the sound of madness to you?

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:55 am

It is madness to pretend you know one candidate's intentions but not the other despite having the same information available.

Not that I even think you're looking for Hillary's true intentions. You just got caught with your for in your mouth and you're trying to recover.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:09 am

...You Lost Me wrote:It is madness to pretend you know one candidate's intentions but not the other despite having the same information available.

Not that I even think you're looking for Hillary's true intentions. You just got caught with your for in your mouth and you're trying to recover.

Given that the information you have is different for each person, and for one person it might convey more than the other, I think you are too caught up in declaring MGuy wrong. Like, it is super clear that from all her past experience that Hillary Clinton is a person who says she wants a lot of things, and very clearly has an order sort of how important those things are in her head, and some of those things she gives the same verbal support for, she doesn't care basically at all.

That's all. Now, I don't know Bernie's record to know for sure what it shows, but it is reasonable that it shows everything he says he cares about he cares about a great deal, because he obviously didn't even have positions on a lot of things at the beginning of his campaign, because he didn't know he needed to and didn't know what position to take.

There are plenty of good reasons to believe you know what Bernie Sanders cares about and not (everything) Hillary Clinton cares about. Now that doesn't mean everyone who says that has those good reasons, and if you want to accuse MGuy of lying carry on, but it could be possible to look at their public records and their previous decisions and come to the conclusion that Hillary is a politically savvy national politician who has been for decades, and she therefore has an opinion on every possible issue that exists, but she cares a lot more about some than others, and without super duper in depth understanding of politics and her record, you won't know which is which. Where Bernie Sanders is a small market local politician who only really develops opinions on issues after they come to his attention, and he cares a lot about all of them and would pursue of all them as president.

It may even be true.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:09 am

You.. realize that Hillary's record/message is different than Sander's record/message right?