Election 2016

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:19 pm

Shatner wrote:
angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Maxus wrote:I suppose this being the Den, we'd bet game ideas or book/video game recommendations...
Words worth of material or reviews, I think.
Wow, you two are certainly taking the high road. I was expecting something along the lines of "the loser of this bet must suck X barrels of cocks".

I don't know about you, but I like game stuff, ideas, and material, more than I do dicks. Or, at least, more than I like dicks that aren't actually mine.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:20 pm

Maxus wrote:
erik wrote:
Maxus wrote:
Three to one he gets back in after a while.
I'd take that bet. We need a den currency to gamble and pay with other than cashy monies though since I don't wanna take your money.
I suppose this being the Den, we'd bet game ideas or book/video game recommendations...

Look, if the Den is going to have a currency, it needs to be cocks. Now, maybe there's a cock>words of review conversion, but the currency itself needs to be the Cock.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:14 pm

So, 100 cocks makes a barrel?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:48 pm

The pattern I'm noticing in the Democratic primary is that Sanders always does just a little bit better than he's expected to. He was supposed to lose Iowa and got a photo-finish, he was supposed to win New Hampshire and won even more, he was supposed to decisively lose Nevada and instead only a little bit lost Nevada. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton "only" won by about 8% in South Carolina. So good for Sanders that he's defying expectations, but Clinton isn't expected to win by a little bit, she's expected to win by rather a lot, which means that by defying those expectations the result Sanders is on trajectory for is that it turns out Clinton does only win by a little bit.

But getting back on the important issues:

Three to one he gets back in after a while.

So you're saying that if I bet you one barrel of cocks that Jeb! stays out, and I win, then you'll give me three barrels of cocks? I'll take that bet.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:01 pm

Chamomile wrote:
So you're saying that if I bet you one barrel of cocks that Jeb! stays out, and I win, then you'll give me three barrels of cocks? I'll take that bet.

I think if anyone was going to claim it it's erik.

Besides, you don't want to bet me cocks. I live in the boonies where I really COULD get hold of a barrelfull of cocks without going super-far out of my way.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:14 pm

Chamomile wrote:The pattern I'm noticing in the Democratic primary is that Sanders always does just a little bit better than he's expected to. He was supposed to lose Iowa and got a photo-finish, he was supposed to win New Hampshire and won even more, he was supposed to decisively lose Nevada and instead only a little bit lost Nevada. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton "only" won by about 8% in South Carolina. So good for Sanders that he's defying expectations, but Clinton isn't expected to win by a little bit, she's expected to win by rather a lot, which means that by defying those expectations the result Sanders is on trajectory for is that it turns out Clinton does only win by a little bit.AND THIS IS PROOF THAT BERNIE NEVER HAD A CHANCE AND COULD NEVER WIN AND THAT IS WHY PEOPLE SHOULD DEFINITELY STOP VOTING FOR HIM RIGHT NOW AND START VOTING FOR CLINTON INSTEAD

I fixed that for you so that Frank doesn't have to jump in to correct your terrible mistake.

Post by **fbmf** » Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:59 pm

I have to ask, Kaelik, why you hav such a (subtle) hate boner for Frank being a Clinton supporter? What did I miss?

Game On,
fbmf

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:17 am

fbmf wrote:I have to ask, Kaelik, why you hav such a (subtle) hate boner for Frank being a Clinton supporter? What did I miss?

Game On,
fbmf

I don't hate him for being a Clinton Supporter, I hate him for being such a manipulative fuck about it. If my vote was actually the deciding vote, I'd vote for Clinton. But everything Frank says about the current democratic primaries and candidates varies from barely technically true but still misleading to just false, and all in support of basically "I really like the status quo, and don't want Clinton to feel obligated to be more left than the hardline Center-Right she prefers" which I find incredibly strange on a number of levels.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:32 am

Personally I feel that Frank's support of Clinton has all the backbone of Pascal's Wager, but since I'm only slightly more politically savvy than your standard republican voter, I try to stay out of it.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:34 am

I don't think having a woman for president is the status quo and likewise I think replacing conservative justices with progressive justices is not status quo.

I'm happy Sanders is in the race dragging Hillary left but don't believe for a second he'd do as good a job for us as Clinton.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:38 am

It's pretty straight forward. The left has been dominated by centrist cowardice since the days of McCarthyism. They are more afraid of being called socialists than they are of actually BEING lite brand conservatives.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:39 am

I'm totally a shill for Hillary, but I don't actually want people to stop voting for Sanders. The Democratic Party benefits as a whole from this primary going on in a way that the Republican Party really doesn't. So long as there's still a race of some sort, Hillary and Bernie get free air time for town halls and debates and shit where they can just talk about Democratic proposals. And remember, Democratic proposals are broadly popular, so talking about them to a broad audience is a net winner. This contrasts significantly with things like how Rubio wants to force women and even girls who have been raped to spend forty weeks using their own blood to nurture their rapist's fetus. That plays very nicely with the creepy patriarchy set, but most people think that it's incredibly disgusting to do that to someone. Which is why Rubio likes to avoid talking about that plank in his platform when he isn't sure that he is surrounded by the right kind of people.

Over and above the fact that the Republican clown car is full of vicious infighting as four remaining egomaniacs fight for three different "lanes" in the road to the nomination, talking about policy and proposals is just something they do not want to do. Their proposals are unpopular even among their own voters, which is why Fox News does its level best to misinform their viewers what those proposals even are.

And let's be honest here: Bernie Sanders is short on workable policy proposals, but he does make a forceful and compelling argument for tackling issues relating to the tax code, health insurance, higher education, and campaign finance. These are important issues, and having Sanders talk about them makes the Democrats more popular and also makes the Democrats a better party by compelling them to deal with these issues. Sanders talking pulls the party in the right direction on several very important issues, and that's good for America.

As long as we can keep Bernie Sanders supporters from flipping the table over and pulling a Nader to give us President Trump or something equally horrible when Hillary gets the nomination, things are going reasonably well. And if Hillary Clinton does have a stroke or some kind of actual scandal (not a made-up one like her having copies of emails on her server that some later DOD douchebro decided should be classified) and Sanders needs to come in as an understudy, it would be nice for him to be as good and vetted a candidate as possible.

-Username17

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:57 am

How would you feel about Sanders as VP, Frank?

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:07 am

The VP pick is there to attract people to the ticket that are otherwise unsure about your ticket. Obama picked Biden to appeal to white voters unsure about electing a black president and who wanted reassurance that he wasn't a radical; McCain picked Palin to tap into the GOP crazy and to offset his appearance as being the old white male face of a party dominated by old white men; Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as a bone to the GOP crazy and to tap offset his appearance of being the old face of a party dominated by old men.

Bernie Sanders might be too close to Hillary policy-wise to be an effective VP; I wouldn't actually be surprised if she found a (relatively) young male Latino Democrat to act as veep.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:09 am

It is just factually true that Hillary is currently the projected winner, and so far Sanders has managed to prove that there is a possibility the projections are wrong but still needs to make further progress in order to actually win. Since it's a two-person race, there's no need to rally behind a likely winner and everyone can just vote for whichever of the two they'd like to win regardless of who has better odds. It appears reasonably unlikely either of them will humiliate themselves on national TV, so keeping the primary season going probably won't hurt the party for the general.

Personally, I'm basically unconvinced that Sanders is going to manage to actually implement policies further to the left of the ones Hillary will. If the president ruled by decree I'd support Sanders, but in terms of managing to get things done without a strong legislative majority I basically see no reason to think he'll be able to match Hillary. Though Sanders with Hillary as VP/strategic adviser sounds like a plan to me. But really, either is fine as long as the party is able to lock ranks for the general.

I have little opinion on Sanders as VP vs. random experienced Democrat. I don't think having him attending meetings brings much to the table, but I see no reason to object to slotting him in as backup president. Bit of a tough call for electoral strategy. I don't see him bringing much in terms of drawing centrist voters. Mobilizing the base is a bit mixed because I'm not sure if it'd bring in all the Democrats who like him and are threatening not to vote if he loses or if accepting the VP slot would wreck his appeal with them.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:13 am

Democratic candidates need 2,383 delegates to lock the nomination. Right now, Hillary Clinton has 502, and Bernie Sanders has 70. That's because Clinton has locked a shitload of "superdelegates." So she's almost a quarter of the way to where she needs to be. But there's a fairly substantial primary season ahead.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:25 am

Honestly I don't think the superdelegates lead is going to be as meaningful as the numbers seem, though it does give Hillary an edge. If Hillary loses in the popular vote too badly, I suspect she'll drop out rather than win by telling everyone who thinks the political establishment is screwing them over that they are entirely correct. They'll maybe matter if Sanders is leading slightly.

On the Republican side, I'm now reasonably confident Trump wins. The establishment doesn't like him, but I think it's now too late for that to matter. Sure, there's a lot of delegates left, but none of the potential establishment candidates is in that strong of a position and I don't think they can change that within the week, at which point Super Tuesday will happen. And their best option is apparently Rubio, and he straight fucked up on national television and is likely to do so again.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:30 am

Prak wrote:How would you feel about Sanders as VP, Frank?

Historically, very few presidents have exploited their veeps for anything other than pulling voters that they themselves could not. They are valued for contrast.

Can VP Bernie deliver voters who wouldn't show up for Hillary? Most assuredly. But I think the ideal VP candidate would have not only Bernie's firebrand dedication to the left, but also youth, wit, and racial minority. You know, like the other guy who so effectively challenged Hillary's presidential bid.

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:33 am

I don't see Sanders as the VP pick, among others things he's too old to serve as a Presidential nominee 8 years from now (in fact, there's a fairly reasonable chance he won't be alive 8 years from now). It makes more sense for Hillary to pick a somewhat younger democrat who could help deliver an important swing state - a Latino democrat from Florida would be ideal.

I do suspect that, should Hillary lock up the nomination, she will immediately offer Bernie pretty much any other administration position he might want in the hope of bringing his supporters along in the general election. Heck, if the Republicans keep up the delay on the Scalia seat she could even offer to nominate him to the Supreme Court (not really feasible, but that would be hilarious).

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:46 am

This is an actual comic book.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:36 am

I'm going to throw these two things out there.

1) Sanders is not pulling the democratic party to the left unless he wins. He is only drawing Clinton's campaign for nomination to the left. If she gets the nomination she will simply quietly never deliver on anything to the left of the usual center right.

2) There can be a Sanders for president with Hillary for VP (unlikely but possible), but there will NOT be a Hillary for president with Sanders for VP. It will not happen, it is the nature of centrist right factions in what formerly were left wing parties that they regard their own left factions, even moderate left, as far greater enemies than anyone in the other party. She will not give Sanders the VP post because it would be considered a sign of weakness in the center right faction (something they HATE) and a tiny concession of power to anything left of them (something they NEVER permit). The VP position will very likely go to someone young and minority... but in the end more importantly someone NOT meaningfully to the left of Clinton. And if that means an old white man they will make it older and whiter than Sanders even if that means a 200 year old albino.

While I'm at it I predict Clinton WILL get the nomination, but she will get desperate and burn bridges hard while doing so. She will only barely come out with the win and will anger and alienate much of her own base in the process.

These are Phonelobster's wild baseless predictions for the week about something he only barely follows.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:10 am

I think you've wandered into Lago-level or even Tussock-level wrongness there PL.

1) Sanders has gotten Clinton to say she is for various leftist things which draws her to the left whether she delivers or not. Hell, Sanders cannot deliver on all the things he wants either.

2) Sanders and Clinton aren't a match for either's VP slot for reasons other folks already said (too old, too similar). And Hillary regarding Sanders as a greater enemy than the Republican party... is a weird flavor of crazy. They mostly agree with each other, Hillary just doesn't think that Bernie's approach is likely to better succeed.

3) I don't think Clinton will come to desperation. She won Nevada solidly and is going to win South Carolina more solidly heading into super Tuesday, and already started with a substantial lead before the race even began. And what bridges would she even have to burn? Like you think she's going to go ultra negative or something? I don't even understand that line of speculation. If she was going to make desperate self-destructive plays she would have done so in 2008.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:15 am

erik wrote:And Hillary regarding Sanders as a greater enemy than the Republican party... is a weird flavor of crazy. They mostly agree with each other, Hillary just doesn't think that Bernie's approach is likely to better succeed.

Agreement is not the measure of enemy. If I was in a thread, and I disagreed with Frank Trollman 5% and I disagreed with Tussock 100%, I still wouldn't consider Tussock the greater "enemy."

PLs point is kind of, super correct. The Right Center Democrat party has been doing more to fuck actual leftists in the ass than hardcore crazy right wingers ever since... well specifically Bill Clinton. It is a real problem and it isn't going away, and when Hillary Clinton is elected and does nothing to the left of Eisenhower, that will continue to be true.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:26 am

No, they're the greater enemy because their goals lead to death, despair and disenfranchisement of fellow Americans.

If it comes down to it, Hillary would support Bernie and vice versa. Because they are not each other's greater enemy.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:27 am

erik wrote:I think you've wandered into Lago-level or even Tussock-level wrongness there PL.

Aaaand... then you pretty much concede point 1, and call point 2 crazy for no reason.

I know that the US isn't used to the idea that their left wing party even HAS a left wing faction for the dominate right faction to fight with anymore. But other western nations ARE and calling that one crazy requires you to be utterly ignorant of everything happening in places like Australia and the UK for the last 40 years. Hell you would have to be ignorant of what is the biggest thing in UK political news right now to not know how this works. And if Sanders DOES get the nomination I guarantee you will see this effect in play very dramatically, and indeed my last (extra) point about Clinton is basically me suggesting that Sanders just getting close will see Clinton, and a hell of a lot of "serious people" go foaming at the mouth rabid in their desperation to tear his fucking throat out on national tv. Because that's what happens everywhere else in the western world when a left wing challenger in the left wing party comes close to taking control back.

And however much you want to pretend Clinton is doing well... no she isn't. She has ONE opponent, he is quiet frankly pretty fucking mediocre and she is already struggling and indeed while still ahead, for now, is in real danger of a previously unthinkable loss against an opponent that for all he seems pretty nice political talent wise may as well be a fucking empty chair with a left pointing arrow painted on the back.

That is NOT the narrative she wants, nor is it the narrative she expected, it is not the narrative she needs and while I'm pretty sure she will win she has already failed to demonstrate the strength she and her supporters claimed to have.

Even if she turns it around and wins hands down from now on the political narrative for the next election WILL be "she nearly lost against A TOTAL NOBODY, now can she beat TRUMP?". That's not an unbeatable narrative, but it's NOT the "Hillary the predestined Queen vs republican nobody" narrative she wanted and is certainly harder for her to work with.