Election 2016

[violence in the media]

Related to the point of republicans who would rather vote Bernie than Hillary, I've also seen an opposite trend among some Bernie supporters I know, who would consider voting for several republican candidates (Trump among them) over Hillary.

Hopefully that's just the people I know. But it reminds me that people care about personality much more than policy in elections.

I've talked to one guy at our board game meetup that has expressed that Bernie-->Trump vote plan. Basically, it came across as, "if you won't let us have Bernie; then fuck you, you get Trump."

[PhoneLobster]

Maybe I listen to CNN too much, but he seems so far left that nobody will work with him to accomplish any part of his agenda. Kaelik, DSM, and PL insist that this isn't so, and I'm willing to hear them out.

1) Sanders isn't "far to the left". He is just a bit to the left of Center Right.
2) Yes, no one will work with him, including many so called "democrats" because even one inch to the left of Center Right is UNACCEPTABLE.
3) But no one will work with Clinton anyway (or at least no Republican), including a smaller number of Democrats (because some are even further than Center Right traitors).
4) The "go to the table with a compromise to start with" as a way of dealing with Republican intransigence has just been attempted for two full terms to SPECTACULARLY TERRIBLE RESULTS. It simply lets them run to the media demanding something far further to the right of compromise and calling the person who brought compromise to the table "unreasonable" for being... unable to compromise between their initial compromise and... actually they just want total surrender to Republican Insanity and then they will call THAT acceptable bipartisan compromise they will call that total defeat of the evil Democratic plan for evil and victory of 100% Republican awesome policy.

I've never said Sanders won't face massive opposition. I'm saying he will, and already does, including and especially from the parasitic Center Right faction of his own party that MUST stamp out anything even resembling him in order to survive.

But in the end the factors that create the improbable opposition to ANY left wing policy or politician ever can ONLY be weakened and overcome in the long term by HAVING some left wing politicians and policies, not pretend Centrist shit, actual left wing. Clinton moves the Overton Window not one jot. Sanders doesn't create a communist utopia tomorrow, but IF he miraculously won he shifts things incrementally to the left and lays the ground work for a left wing politician, party faction and party that one day MIGHT get things done. And in the mean time would not be significantly less effective than an equally powerless and ineffectual Clinton would be.

A shift to the left STARTS by proving that the endlessly repeated claim by the center right that no shift to the left is EVER possible is a bunch of bullshit. But that won't be the end of it, that's just when you start trying.

[erik]

10-15 years ago I would have agreed that the centrist pussy ass chickenshit democrat dicks would rather roll over and support their corporate overlords. I even wrote a poli sci paper to that effect. But a side effect of the gerrymandering and unwillingness of Reps to even feign anything bipartisan has caused the democrats to move left a great deal. That is why Hillary has followed the trend ever leftward.

I don't think the dem centrists or even blue dogs are the obstacle they used to be.

[Mechalich]

There are a whole bunch of leftists, more than 50% of the democratic party

What is the source for this statement? The proportion of Democrats who identify as 'liberal' is rising, but remains under fifty percent, and only a portion of that group would qualify as 'leftist.' In all seriousness, I'd be very interesting in seeing evidence to support this conviction.

[MGuy]

There are a whole bunch of leftists, more than 50% of the democratic party

What is the source for this statement? The proportion of Democrats who identify as 'liberal' is rising, but remains under fifty percent, and only a portion of that group would qualify as 'leftist.' In all seriousness, I'd be very interesting in seeing evidence to support this conviction.

I would assume that there are probably more people who are "actually" pretty leftist and just don't call themselves liberal for whatever reason. A lot more people are for socialist programs than there are people who actually call themselves socialists.

[Kaelik]

There are a whole bunch of leftists, more than 50% of the democratic party

What is the source for this statement? The proportion of Democrats who identify as 'liberal' is rising, but remains under fifty percent, and only a portion of that group would qualify as 'leftist.' In all seriousness, I'd be very interesting in seeing evidence to support this conviction.

I'm basing it on policies, now random surveys of self identifying labels. Sort of like how Maj is an atheist and Doom is an idiot. If you say "I'm not a liberal or anything, but I do think college education should be free, the minimum wage should be drastically increased, there should be a lot more welfare/basic income" then you are still pretty much a leftist. The percentage certainly fluctuates based on issue, but right now today like 40% of registered democrats are voting for sanders instead of Clinton even though Clinton has way more money and the entire media and democratic party has been telling us for months that Clinton is the only possibility and that voting for Sanders is a waste of time.

And they aren't doing that because Sanders is a charismatic wonderful man. They are doing that entirely and 100% because they just want some actual leftist policies.

[Ancient History]

Well, that and the GOP has been actively trying to smear Hillary Clinton for about 12 years now.

Lots of people like socialist policies - food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and Social Security are all very popular programs, across the voter spectrum, regardless of party allegiance. But people that identify as Republican tend to vote Republican regardless of whether Republican policies match their personal preferences. People that identify as Republican will support candidates whose personal lives do not reflect the ideals or image they try to project during the campaign. And that ability to overlook aspects of the Republican position or candidate that doesn't jive with their personal views or interests is critical to the Republican party's identity.

Because not all Republicans are rabid pro-lifers. Not all of them are strict constitutionalists, or fiscal conservatives. Not all of them want the gold standard, or think we should maintain our military at WW2 levels forever and for all time. But all of these assholes will vote for a candidate that supports one or more of the policies they want, or claim to want, just because they're the right party.

[OgreBattle]

Which Presidential Candidate would have the most positive impact on Southeast Asia's economy... or fuck with it the least.

[Ancient History]

Probably Clinton; I mean, I assume the TPP will be a done deal by then.

[Username17]

Hillary Clinton was more liberal than 70 percent of the Democrats in the senate. She was the 15th most liberal senator overall. And last presidential cycle, the 18th most liberal senator beat her in the Democratic primary by running to her right and promising to cross the aisle and work with Republicans and give us less socialized medicine.

Hillary Clinton IS the left wing. Not just of the country, but of the Democratic Party. She is always and forever as far left as you can be and still get the party to follow you. And even then, the party and the American people sometimes break to the right away from her. Like they did in 2008.

Socialism simply isn't popular enough, even among Democrats, to get the country to follow someone to the left of Clinton. That's changing, but it's entirely likely that by the time Socialist labels are popular enough to be a thing you could lead the country with that Hillary would embrace it anyway.

The idea that most or even half of Democrats are to the left of Hillary is wishful thinking. She is, measurably, to the left of more than two thirds of the party.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

I support whichever candidate would get the most salt out of /pol/. Hillary Clinton has a long history of agitating them, but Bernie Sanders is a Jew, so it's a pretty tough call.

[RobbyPants]

(Also weird story, I joined a TS on saturday night to play league with some mostly strangers, and they were all conservative idiots, but they hated trump and clinton but where somehow more okay with Bernie. This isn't really related exactly, but I'm filing that under "Fox News has so poisoned the well with Clinton that republicans really hate her beyond any level of sense at all.")

That probably has a lot to do with why Sanders seems to do better than Clinton in hypothetical heads-up polls against most GOP candidates. While a lot of Democrats still don't know who he is, a lot of Republicans don't hate him on sight.

[Prak]

Ok, so lets say that in November we go into the polls and the choices are Trump, Sanders, or any of a number of basically meaningless third parties.

Let's assume for this hypothetical that Sanders has managed to express that while he's in favor of some basic shit like background checks, he's not coming to take anyone's guns, because hunting is practically all there is to do in Vermont.

What's likely to happen?

[Mistborn]

Ok, so lets say that in November we go into the polls and the choices are Trump, Sanders, or any of a number of basically meaningless third parties.

Let's assume for this hypothetical that Sanders has managed to express that while he's in favor of some basic shit like background checks, he's not coming to take anyone's guns, because hunting is practically all there is to do in Vermont.

What's likely to happen?

Sanders probably wins but none nice of stuff he's promised actually happens because the democrats don't control congress and won't control congress in the foreseeable future. His supporters get disillusioned because complaining on the internet about how "the system is like rigged man" and voting in one election didn't instantly transform the U.S. into a socialist paradise. Essentially this means that the Democrats continue to do badly in down ballot races and this divided government clusterfuck continues on, only now the democratic leadership is less competent

It's not the end of the world unless Sanders does something really stupid like start a trade war that crashes the global economy leading to fascist takeovers at home and abroad, then it my be the end of the world.

[Kaelik]

His supporters get disillusioned because complaining on the internet about how "the system is like rigged man" and voting in one election didn't instantly transform the U.S. into a socialist paradise.

Idiots shouldn't throw glass houses. You are an idiot.

There are almost certainly some idiots out there who will feel bad, but to pretend that the 50% of the Democrats who have voted for him so far are all delusional nutcases who only support him because they believe he can usher in a utopia is stupid, especially when you've been given like 10 other reasons to vote from him in this fucking thread.

[RobbyPants]

Ok, so lets say that in November we go into the polls and the choices are Trump, Sanders, or any of a number of basically meaningless third parties.

Let's assume for this hypothetical that Sanders has managed to express that while he's in favor of some basic shit like background checks, he's not coming to take anyone's guns, because hunting is practically all there is to do in Vermont.

What's likely to happen?

My optimistic view is that if Sanders does well enough to win the primary, that indicates that he had one hell of a grassroots movement to help him do that. If that's the case, I'm hoping that would spur other candidates to run on platforms of campaign finance reform and/or anti-Wall Street sentiments.

As others have said repeatedly, Sanders won't get to enact most of what he wants, but it would hopefully be the beginning of people talking about these types of things and being taken seriously.

[Schleiermacher]

Is it just me, or is Kasich's ostensible strategy (not campaigning in Nevada, aiming for victories in later states like Michigan) as futile and idiotic as it looks?

I'd think he has no chance to win that way, and should drop out as soon as possible so the party can close ranks behind Rubio and start countering Trump's momentum.

[Niles]

Well, that and the GOP has been actively trying to smear Hillary Clinton for about 12 years now.

A lot longer than than that. They've been smearing her since at least 1992.

[MGuy]

Ok, so lets say that in November we go into the polls and the choices are Trump, Sanders, or any of a number of basically meaningless third parties.

Let's assume for this hypothetical that Sanders has managed to express that while he's in favor of some basic shit like background checks, he's not coming to take anyone's guns, because hunting is practically all there is to do in Vermont.

What's likely to happen?

Sanders probably wins but none nice of stuff he's promised actually happens because the democrats don't control congress and won't control congress in the foreseeable future. His supporters get disillusioned because complaining on the internet about how "the system is like rigged man" and voting in one election didn't instantly transform the U.S. into a socialist paradise.

Sanders is not Obama. Sanders has a track record of being very vocal about what and who is being obstructionist. While Obama spent most of his time in office not talking about how frustrating it really is working with republicans I'd imagine that Bernie would be significantly more willing to explain how and why things are not going anywhere. He's not running his campaign based on compromise and most of the people who want him in don't expect a miracle. People like myself want him in because he'll actually walk the walk regardless of how obstructionist Republicans and other democrats decide to be. He is running against the establishment so he doesn't have any particular reason to protect them especially if he can get in despite all the grumbling. He's been talking about this stuff for years but if he was pres he'd have a much larger audience.

[Josh_Kablack]

Let's assume for this hypothetical that Sanders has managed to express that while he's in favor of some basic shit like background checks, he's not coming to take anyone's guns, because hunting is practically all there is to do in Vermont.

What's likely to happen?

Another run on semiautomatic rifles and continued difficulty actually finding .22 ammunition as the NRA again convinces the electorate that any President with a (D) by their name is about to change things to make it impossible to buy all the guns you want so stockpile now now, NOW!.

[Covent]

Hillary Clinton was more liberal than 70 percent of the Democrats in the senate. She was the 15th most liberal senator overall. And last presidential cycle, the 18th most liberal senator beat her in the Democratic primary by running to her right and promising to cross the aisle and work with Republicans and give us less socialized medicine.

Hillary Clinton IS the left wing. Not just of the country, but of the Democratic Party. She is always and forever as far left as you can be and still get the party to follow you. And even then, the party and the American people sometimes break to the right away from her. Like they did in 2008.

Socialism simply isn't popular enough, even among Democrats, to get the country to follow someone to the left of Clinton. That's changing, but it's entirely likely that by the time Socialist labels are popular enough to be a thing you could lead the country with that Hillary would embrace it anyway.

The idea that most or even half of Democrats are to the left of Hillary is wishful thinking. She is, measurably, to the left of more than two thirds of the party.

-Username17

OK, This is not an attack as I admit my own general political ignorance and lack of savvy.

But this post seems to say to me that

"Hilary Clinton is as left as is possible to get elected."

or

"Bernie Sanders cannot be elected due to being too left."

So thus

"Don't risk having the republicans win by throwing away votes/effort/time on Sanders."

Please correct me if this is not what you mean, but that is the inference I read, especially from the bolded section.

[GreatGreyShrike]

^Covent:

Frank previously wrote the following, about his position on people voting for Bernie right now:

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

Bolding mine.

The Clinton vs Sanders race is good for both candidates - they both get free PR and big chances to expose their own views, and it forces Clinton to express leftist stuff out loud.

I don't get to vote in American elections, not being a citizen, but I think you all would be better off by vastly huge amounts with either of Bernie or Hillary over pretty much any of the Republicans by such a vastly huge amount that defeating them must come first. If either of Clinton or Bernie looked to be losing the primary and tried to run for President independently, I'd hope everyone would rally around the Democrat nominee as the one most likely to actually garner enough votes to beat the Republican nominee, because splitting the votes would be really bad.

However, as long as their competition is confined to the primary it seems to be doing mostly good things for each of them.

I personally think something more closely Bernie's policies than Hillary's would be best for Americans, but I don't have enough knowledge of your political landscape to judge how practical it is to actually pass them into law.

[Mechalich]

I personally think something more closely Bernie's policies than Hillary's would be best for Americans, but I don't have enough knowledge of your political landscape to judge how practical it is to actually pass them into law.

It depends on the specific policy issue, the hypothetical composition of the congress, and how much Bernie would be willing to compromise with the relatively conservative components of the democratic party.

A good comparative issue is infrastructure spending. Bernie wants to spend 1 trillion dollars on infrastructure. Hillary wants to spend 275 billion, so they basically want to do the same thing - borrow money to repair and upgrade the country's physical plant in a way that would also serve to stimulate the economy - but Bernie wants to do four times as much of it.

Now, critically, Obama also wants to do this, and has tried to do this pretty much every year since the initial Recovery Act stimulus phased out. The thing is the Republicans - even though infrastructure spending is something that they claim to support and that their white working class constituents would absolutely love them to pass - have consistently blocked all attempts to do so. The 275 billion Hillary is proposing is 275 billion more than Obama's ever gotten. So for any sort of infrastructure bill to actually happen for either Bernie or Hillary you need a democratic congress.

Now in a hypothetical scenario where either Bernie or Hillary take office with a democratic congress in the beginning of 2017 (this is rather unlikely, but maybe Trump punches a moderator during one of the debates or something), then its a matter of who manages to get more infrastructure spending (because under current borrowing conditions even 1 trillion is potentially less than we might want). President Hillary Clinton probably gets exactly what she asks for, but she still probably asks only for the 275 billion (if it works out well and the economy benefits she probably asks for more later on). President Bernie Sanders asks for the whole 1 trillion. He doesn't get it. Conservative democrats balk and republicans stack the bill with dozens of poison pill amendments to insure it fails. From there it becomes a matter of negotiation - how much grassroots support can Sanders mobilize and how well can he work the system to get democrats to sign up. Does he get more than 275 billion? Perhaps, if he's willing to play the game and give out the right sort of kickbacks to senators and representatives in vulnerable states I could see him getting 500 billion or a bit more. If he's not though, then he might not get any substantial bill passed at all. I think President Sanders makes plenty of compromises and accomplishes quite a bit - again, if he has a democratic congress, which I don't see happening (then again, Trump won big in Nevada and may achieve an insurmountable lead in a week, so who knows).

[Username17]

The question of whether Sanders can end up with more or less by ataking out a position of asking for more to begin with is rather missing the point. Having a debate about how much infrastructure spending to have among leftwing Democrats in the primary is good. It helps normalize the idea that we should have some. But things get way more frightening when we open up the debates to non-Democrats. Which will necessarily happen once we're talking about legislation next year.

The Republican party doesn't solely sit around thinking up creative ways to say No to the President's proposals. They also float ideas of their own. And while the President can and will veto all of the stupid that comes out of the nihilist caucus, those vetoes can be overruled by congress. So long as the Democrats remain relatively united and only have a couple blue dog defectors, vetoes won't be overcome, but if the President can't exercise control over the conservative wing of the Democrats, we risk the Republicans being able to enact their legislative agenda right through a presidential veto.

Sanders isn't really a Democrat. He has spent decades pissing in the Cheerios of the party establishment. And many times, that has been the right thing to do. But it makes him uniquely unqualified to demand the kind of party loyalty required to keep Republicans from passing laws limiting the rights of women and homosexuals or defunding critical social safety net programs.

The horifying fact is that one of the parties is a terrifying nihilistic party for whom letting sick people die in the street is an applause line. They can be expected to provide lockstep approval for the worst proposals you can imagine and many others that you can't imagine because they are too horrible. Almost three in four Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they approved of a laughably unconstitutional and hideously immoral religious test for entrance to the country. How is that even a question that got asked? But the second shoe is that there's an entire conservative wing of the Democrats who kinda want to do all kinds of 'moderately' horrible things like raising the medicare age, cutting food aid to children, restricting abortion, or whatever. And it is only through strong party discipline that those dumb assholes can be kept from breaking ranks and helping the Republicans do those things.

The fact that Hillary Clinton is strongly respected and feared by the Democratic party establishment despite being solidly part of the party's left wing is a really big deal and a really good thing. Whether you could get more infrastructure spending by starting with a bigger demand doesn't matter. The important question is whether you can herd the different factions of Democrats well enough to keep the Republicans from getting enough stragglers to repeal Ovamacare and defund Planned Parenthood.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Is there a hypothetical limit to the Lies for JesusClinton you will tell, or does this rabbit hole come out in the ocean somewhere?

After the Center-Right Democrats are done literally blowing up bridges, cutting taxes, abolishing social security, and amending the constitution to ban gay marriage out of spite because they are mad that an actual leftist was elected president are they also going to declare war with China and override the veto with 67 Senators for that too?