Election 2016

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:27 pm

An article about the possibility of the GOP establishment running a third-party bid if Trump takes the nomination.

I would laugh like Monty Burns remembering a crippled Irishman.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:37 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nning.html

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:00 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:An article about the possibility of the GOP establishment running a third-party bid if Trump takes the nomination.

I want to see Trump get the nomination. Then, I want to see a bunch of angry non-Trump conservatives stay home in protest (because they're not voting for a democrat!) and then lose the GOP a few more house seats.

If Trump wins, I actually wonder if the GOP would run commercials reminding voters that they still need to vote for super-important congress seats.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:22 pm

Ugh, friend of mine keeps going on about Bernie Sanders>>Hillary Clinton (usually with stuff like this), and keeps saying that if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, they're not going to vote at all. Their response to people mentioning concerns about the future of the Supreme Court?

I guess people concerned about that should work hard to get Sanders elected.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:46 pm

What a wussy ultimatum. Clearly the proper answer to it is "if Clinton doesn't get the nomination then I'm voting for Trump or whomever the Republicans put up."

As long as they're being childish, they should just go flat out with petulant ultimatums I say.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:12 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lindsey- ... d=35886305

And then there were 13. 12. 13. I can't math.

Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiona, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, George Pataki

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:34 pm

Most of the Sanders>Clinton people are very liberal, highly engaged, likely voters. When the general election rolls around and they realize just what level of insanity the Republican nominee is proposing I suspect they'll shut their mouths, hold their noses, and vote for Clinton. The various candidacies of Ralph Nader have illustrated that the pool of people actually willing to pull the lever for 'plague on both your houses' is quite small.

Not that it makes people willing to think that way even briefly any less childish.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Yeah, if you are worried about Sanders people not voting in the general election if Clinton is picked... Don't be. For the most part they will, and anyone who says they won't is being stupid.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:25 pm

Mechalich wrote:Not that it makes people willing to think that way even briefly any less childish.

They try to phrase it as some kind of "choosing the lesser of two evils is complying with a corrupt system." Or, to be more succinct...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-spiel ... 48632.html

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:06 pm

If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, all the people running the system have to do to get you to accept something - anything - is to put up an alternative that's even worse.

There comes a point where you have to say "these are my core principles and if no candidate will support them I'll vote for no one".

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:27 pm

While I do believe it is necessary that a Rep not get voted in I am ( and I'd wager quite a few people) are less inclined to vote to get more of the same instead of what they want. Now I don't have the numbers right now and this being a quick post on my phone means I'm not going to get them right now but I'll go out on a limb because I remember hearing it before and say that Obama probably got less votes the second time he ran than the first. I remember Romney even being a worse seeming candidate than McCain. ( feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about either because I'm running on memory)Despite that I took over time for someone else the day of the election Because I didn't want to vote for more of the same. Voting for me already feels like a token exercise because the area I live in has a disturbing amount of peoplewho believe Obama is from Kenya/the anti Christ/a Muslim supporting terrorism/etc so I doubt my vote is going to turn the tide as it is. If I can't even cast myb already seemingly pointless vote for the candidate I want I am do not feel like it is worth doing at all. If Hillary is the only one on the ticket worth it then whether or not I put in a vote pretty much hinges on whether or not I stand to get extra money that day by doing anything else. I suspect that there is a very real chance tbat other would be voters feel similarly that haven't thought of the implications being brought up on boards like these the what if scenarios here do not appear in most places.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:45 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, all the people running the system have to do to get you to accept something - anything - is to put up an alternative that's even worse.

There comes a point where you have to say "these are my core principles and if no candidate will support them I'll vote for no one".

So you haven't ever vote in your lifetime because no candidate ran on bringing back slavery to make America More Free?

Post by **fbmf** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:44 am

Kaelik wrote:
Occluded Sun wrote:If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, all the people running the system have to do to get you to accept something - anything - is to put up an alternative that's even worse.

There comes a point where you have to say "these are my core principles and if no candidate will support them I'll vote for no one".
So you haven't ever vote in your lifetime because no candidate ran on bringing back slavery to make America More Free?

I just blew Turkey&7 all over my keyboard. Thanks a lot, asshole.

Game On,
fbmf

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:59 am

Indeed I give it a perfect 5/7.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:15 am

erik wrote:What a wussy ultimatum. Clearly the proper answer to it is "if Clinton doesn't get the nomination then I'm voting for Trump or whomever the Republicans put up."

As long as they're being childish, they should just go flat out with petulant ultimatums I say.

Might I suggest that "I'm gonna hold my breath until we get single-payer health care." is more issue-focused.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:42 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Might I suggest that "I'm gonna hold my breath until we get single-payer health care." is more issue-focused.

That being said... even if 100% of Americans suddenly decide they want Bernie right now, he won't be president until 2017, and the Senate won't meet to vote until tomorrow at the soonest.

Nobody can hold their breath for literally over a year, or even literally all night.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:14 am

If Healthcare was the only issue that mattered to Democrats, we'd have run Hillary in 2008. Remember that Hillarycare was considerably to the left of Obamacare and Hillary was less committed to compromising with the Republicans to try and fail to get Republican votes. Obamacare wouldn't work at all if it weren't for Obama going back on his own campaign promises and adopting some of Hillary's proposals to make a workable program. And it would have been better if he had started with Hillary's proposals full stop rather than what he went to congress with.

Yes, Single Payer is cheaper and better. Bernie is 100% right about that. But we don't have the votes to implement single payer. We probably wouldn't have the votes for Single Payer if the Republicans weren't allowed to vote. There are enough blue dogs and traitors in the Democratic party that I don't think you could get 3/5 of the Democrats in congress to override a fillibuster. And the Republicans would block vote against it and laugh while doing so. So, what's Sander's plan B for when we inevitably don't get Single Payer? Hillary has concrete proposals to modestly improve Obamacare, which will probably save thousands of lives and can probably actually be done.

Lofty rhetoric is nice. But saving human lives is better.

-Username17

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:56 pm

virgil wrote:Ugh, friend of mine keeps going on about Bernie Sanders>>Hillary Clinton (usually with stuff like this), and keeps saying that if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, they're not going to vote at all.

A few weeks ago, my wife was saying that there's a campaign online to do a protest write-in vote for Sanders, if he loses. I met another person happily talking about the same thing. I can't get either of them to explain to me either:

How they expect Sanders to win against two candidates if he didn't have the votes the first time (and note that this second attempt is going to be way less coordinated than the first, with many people chickening out in the booth).
Which of the GOP candidates they'd rather see in office instead of Clinton.

They get so worked up on principle that they can't see the actual effects of their actions.

Occluded Sun wrote:If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, all the people running the system have to do to get you to accept something - anything - is to put up an alternative that's even worse.

There comes a point where you have to say "these are my core principles and if no candidate will support them I'll vote for no one".

"I like sitting by and risking the greater of two evils to be elected, because I'm angry." seems like a really fucking stupid core principle. The Nirvana fallacy is considered a logical fallacy for a reason.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 3:14 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:If Healthcare was the only issue that mattered to Democrats, we'd have run Hillary in 2008. Remember that Hillarycare was considerably to the left of Obamacare and Hillary was less committed to compromising with the Republicans to try and fail to get Republican votes. Obamacare wouldn't work at all if it weren't for Obama going back on his own campaign promises and adopting some of Hillary's proposals to make a workable program. And it would have been better if he had started with Hillary's proposals full stop rather than what he went to congress with.

Yes, Single Payer is cheaper and better. Bernie is 100% right about that. But we don't have the votes to implement single payer. We probably wouldn't have the votes for Single Payer if the Republicans weren't allowed to vote. There are enough blue dogs and traitors in the Democratic party that I don't think you could get 3/5 of the Democrats in congress to override a fillibuster. And the Republicans would block vote against it and laugh while doing so. So, what's Sander's plan B for when we inevitably don't get Single Payer? Hillary has concrete proposals to modestly improve Obamacare, which will probably save thousands of lives and can probably actually be done.

See, if Hillary didn't attack Single Payer using the same know-nothing approach the Rs will use I wouldn't dislike her in a personal way. Instead she comes in from a position she KNOWS is wrong and batters the proposal as too expensive. It makes her look like a fucking idiot in the same way that Bush saying his tax cuts will double growth makes him look like a fucking idiot. Saying things that are provably false makes you look stupid as hell.

Hillary's proposal is better than nothing, but attacking the superior plan with anything other than "nobody will vote for this because our legislative branch is stupid and actively works to harm the country" makes her a dishonest asshole. She is smart enough to know Single Payer is the best plan, but she knows most people don't know that and so she will attack it with an attack she knows to be false.

Bernie is a rarity in that he's an honest politician. He's also got proposals I agree with, and so go Bernie go. I'll vote for Hill dawg if I have to in order to win the general, but I'm pulling for Bernie.

I've also gotten involved in local elections and am doing door knocking to help get a progressive into my city's state rep seat (my senate seat is Warren, so it's not like I need to do anything on a national level). Baby steps. Maybe when I'm 40 I'll have a fully progressive state legislature.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:38 pm

I don't know why you think anyone can get elected actually saying "We're not doing things that would be cheaper and better than my proposals because the system is corrupt and dysfunctional. Vote for me, because I support the best proposals that have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting through our tortuous and corrupt bureaucracy!" Yes, it's true, but it's discouraging as hell.

You have to tell people that the things you're doing are being done because they are good, not because they are third best options that our broken political machinery is capable of squeezing into the sausage casings. Your complaint with Hillary at this point is that she's a realist. She says the words that our political process requires and supports the propositions that our political process allows. That might be shitty, but it's by definition the best we can get.

By all means, pull the lever for Bernie Sanders. It sends a message to the party that we want social democratic policies on taxation and welfare. In 2008, I checked the box for John Edwards even though he had already withdrawn. But remember that when all is said and done, Bernie appears to have a demographic ceiling of about 30% nationally, so when Hillary inevitably is the party's standard bearer remember that you have to vote for her in the general as well.

-Username17

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:16 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: I don't know why you think anyone can get elected actually saying "We're not doing things that would be cheaper and better than my proposals because the system is corrupt and dysfunctional. Vote for me, because I support the best proposals that have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting through our tortuous and corrupt bureaucracy!" Yes, it's true, but it's discouraging as hell.

Also because the major paleo-media forms are stuck in perpetual 'both sides do it' mode, you can't actually tell the truth at all without being deliberately distorted.

The most important fact in US politics right now, and for the past 6-8 years and at least through 2020 is that the Republicans are batshit crazy. Everything follows from this, but most major media outlets continue to report on the republicans as if they were actually a functional conservative party like the one the UK has.

For the huge portion of the population - essentially everyone 50+ who hasn't been brainwahsed by FOX yet - that still gets their news from old media like NBC, CBS, and the New York Times, this is a huge problem. To these people Bernie automatically holds extreme positions simply by virtue of being the most liberal candidate in the race. Meanwhile, so long as Trump remains in the race, arch-conservatives like Cruz and Rubio get to pretend that they are 'moderates' and the media supports that massive distortion.

Hillary and Bernie know all these things. Bernie doesn't want to play the game - good for him - its nice to see someone with principles and it will matter going forward, and in another year, one where Trump wasn't absorbing all the media attention he'd have a real chance at an upset. Hillary, by contrast is a grandmaster of political chess, cynical as that is.

Assuming Bernie's still in the race by the time my state votes I'll probably vote for him. I strongly suspect he'll actually win the quintile of 'most engaged' primary voters by a sizable margin, but that isn't enough.

And in the general, it is absolutely essential that the line be held until 2020 - when a new census may alter the facts on the ground for the House at least somewhat.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:59 pm

RobbyPants wrote:"I like sitting by and risking the greater of two evils to be elected, because I'm angry." seems like a really fucking stupid core principle.

The problem here is the underlying assumption that the voter has real power and is responsible for the system's outcome. Spiderman got it backwards: responsibility implies power, not vice versa.

The purpose of elections is not to determine the will of the masses, it's to convince the masses that they should accept the options presented to them.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:04 pm

Mechalich wrote:The most important fact in US politics right now, and for the past 6-8 years and at least through 2020 is that the Republicans are batshit crazy.

Oh yes indeed, the most important 'fact' here is that the team you oppose is insane, that makes perfect sense and doesn't at all trigger our nonsense detectors.

The ACTUAL most important fact is that the two opposing teams, despite in reality agreeing on most principles and being more like the other's goals and aspirations than any other factions in the known world, will do anything to prevent the other side from winning, including sabotaging society with factions that share none of either side's hopes and aspirations.

It's a zero-sum game being played with MAD.

MisterDee · Post by **MisterDee** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:16 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:The ACTUAL most important fact is that the two opposing teams, despite in reality agreeing on most principles and being more like the other's goals and aspirations than any other factions in the known world, will do anything to prevent the other side from winning, including sabotaging society with factions that share none of either side's hopes and aspirations.

It's pretty easy to see how the Republicans have done that, but I'd be interested in knowing what you think is the Democrat equivalent.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:48 pm

Occluded Sun wrote: The problem here is the underlying assumption that the voter has real power and is responsible for the system's outcome. Spiderman got it backwards: responsibility implies power, not vice versa.

The purpose of elections is not to determine the will of the masses, it's to convince the masses that they should accept the options presented to them.

If you're talking in the sense that "the electoral college does weird things, and most states are already extremely likely to go one way, so only voters in battleground states count", I can agree. If you're saying that picking the lesser of two evils is pointless when you can still work to remove some evil, I'm going to disagree.