2016 Election Thread

[PseudoSABR]

I think much of what the country has currently seen of Hillary Clinton is through the prism of the media and the great majority haven't actually seen her debate or speak.  I think she'll surprise a lot of non-political junkies with her competency and poise, especially vis-a-vis some one like Rubio.

 

Hillary's drawbacks lack a there-there.  Whether its supposed corruption scandals or lack of transparency or political royalty or opportunism - criticism against her often ventures into speculation.   And as the general election marches on, without the there-there, such criticism will start to look like the typical ideological crap that most voters brush away.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

I share your problems with Clinton.  I'm a pretty reliable dem but I will not vote for her.  I'll throw my vote away and vote for the Crazy-ass Socialist Workers Party United or something before voting for her (or Rubio).

I guess I just don't get the Clinton-hate.  I think she's a political opportunist and is guilty of nepotism, but for me, that's just par for the course with very few exceptions in terms of candidates who've held political office.  Sure, I'd rather cast my vote for Bernie, but that's probably not a reality.  

 

What's essential for me is that no Republican hold the presidency - there's just too much at stake in terms of potential wars abroad, health care at home, and the supreme court nominations that are all but certain to be more than a couple.  I may not like Hillary, and I may pinch my nose a bit when I vote her, but when it comes down to it, it is far more important to defeat the Republicans than it is to boycott an election that doesn't present me with a my ideal (or preferable) candidate.  

[formerly33]

To Whom My Concern:

[gunnarthor]

 

I guess I just don't get the Clinton-hate.  I think she's a political opportunist and is guilty of nepotism, but for me, that's just par for the course with very few exceptions in terms of candidates who've held political office.  Sure, I'd rather cast my vote for Bernie, but that's probably not a reality.  

 

What's essential for me is that no Republican hold the presidency - there's just too much at stake in terms of potential wars abroad, health care at home, and the supreme court nominations that are all but certain to be more than a couple.  I may not like Hillary, and I may pinch my nose a bit when I vote her, but when it comes down to it, it is far more important to defeat the Republicans than it is to boycott an election that doesn't present me with a my ideal (or preferable) candidate.  

I'm voting on three issues this year - income inequality, immigration and civil liberties.  Clinton is as bad as the GOP on all, so I won't vote for her.  

 

She's strongly supported by Wall St (and blamed 9/11 for their support of her); she threw sanctuary cities under the bus and argued that the refugee children should be sent back to central america to teach their parents a lesson; and openly supports targeted killing and proudly defended her vote on the Patriot Act.  Screw that.

[TheLeviathan]

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of all jokes and scorn we level at politicians.

 

Just because she's not as openly groan-worthy as Ted Cruz or Donald Trump doesn't she doesn't have a litany of things to dislike. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm voting on three issues this year - income inequality, immigration and civil liberties.  Clinton is as bad as the GOP on all, so I won't vote for her.  

As bad the GOP?  Do you really need to overstate your case? Just make it.  I see inconsistency and opportunism, but on all of those issues, I think there's huge gap between her and the Republicans.  And can you imagine if the supreme court gained even one more conservative how our law on these issues could/will change?  There's no way Clinton would nominate justices as conservative as Cruz et al. would.  

 

She's strongly supported by Wall St (and blamed 9/11 for their support of her); she threw sanctuary cities under the bus and argued that the refugee children should be sent back to central america to teach their parents a lesson; and openly supports targeted killing and proudly defended her vote on the Patriot Act.  Screw that.

 

I dislike all this as well.  But I'm also a realist, any Democrat that has a chance in the general is likely to take many positions I won't like and have strong ties to corporate America.   Honestly, her hawkishness will serve her well in the general election given the current political climate.

 

I hope you'll give Clinton a chance to sway you on some these issues, as I believe you also don't want to see a Republican president.  If the election appears close, I hope you'll pinch your nose, and pick the lesser evil.

 

 

 

 

[Squirrel]

As bad the GOP? Do you really need to overstate your case? Just make it. I see inconsistency and opportunism, but on all of those issues, I think there's huge gap between her and the Republicans. And can you imagine if the supreme court gained even one more conservative how our law on these issues could/will change? There's no way Clinton would nominate justices as conservative as Cruz et al. would.

 

I dislike all this as well. But I'm also a realist, any Democrat that has a chance in the general is likely to take many positions I won't like and have strong ties to corporate America. Honestly, her hawkishness will serve her well in the general election given the current political climate.

 

I hope you'll give Clinton a chance to sway you on some these issues, as I believe you also don't want to see a Republican president. If the election appears close, I hope you'll pinch your nose, and pick the lesser evil.

You have that exactly right Pseudo.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of all jokes and scorn we level at politicians.

I think that's somewhat the point I was trying to make.  The criticism of her seems rather generic in terms of how she'd make a poor president. It seems that people viscerally don't like rather her than believing that she'd make a bad president because of this specific stance on policy or that specific stance on policy.

[TheLeviathan]

I think that's somewhat the point I was trying to make.  The criticism of her seems rather generic in terms of how she'd make a poor president. It seems that people viscerally don't like rather her than believing that she'd make a bad president because of this specific stance on policy or that specific stance on policy.

I don't know where I stand on her potential competency, but I really can't stand the idea of rewarding someone with my vote for basically being a political husk.

 

I want less people like that. It's part of what made for Obama twice so refreshing.

[gunnarthor]

 

As bad the GOP?  Do you really need to overstate your case? Just make it.  I see inconsistency and opportunism, but on all of those issues, I think there's huge gap between her and the Republicans.  And can you imagine if the supreme court gained even one more conservative how our law on these issues could/will change?  There's no way Clinton would nominate justices as conservative as Cruz et al. would.  

 

I dislike all this as well.  But I'm also a realist, any Democrat that has a chance in the general is likely to take many positions I won't like and have strong ties to corporate America.   Honestly, her hawkishness will serve her well in the general election given the current political climate.

 

I hope you'll give Clinton a chance to sway you on some these issues, as I believe you also don't want to see a Republican president.  If the election appears close, I hope you'll pinch your nose, and pick the lesser evil.

Why should I vote for her?  The fear mongering gets you nowhere.  I've heard for decades now that the GOP will get rid of social security or medicare.  Now they'll get rid of healthcare.  No they won't.  A President Rubio wouldn't be able to do that even if he wanted to.  

 

Supreme Court?  Again, more fear mongering.  No liberal justice will retire under Rubio and vice versa.  I also don't hold the USSC in quite as much disdain as others.  The court isn't nearly as important as other things.  And while we're at it, is Kagen that good of a judge?  Her views on qualified immunity are a joke.  In her mind, protesters shouldn't be within "hand grenade" throwing distance.  You think Clinton's going to nominate a justice that will actually limit things like targeted killing?  

 

What gap is there between Clinton and Rubio on the economy?  Income inequality grew a ton under Obama - by some measures, it was worse than under either Bush or Reagan.  Hilary and Rubio would argue about a few things around the edges but both will absolutely support Wall St and oppose banking regulations.  Absolutely no difference.

 

A republican is going to be President again, maybe this election cycle, maybe the next one.  It might be good for the Democrats to lose this one and figure out what the Democratic party should be about - but a hawkish, pro-Wall St, anti-immigrant, non-transparent, anti-civil libertarian is probably not the type of person we should be supporting.  

[stringer bell]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is what? 82? She's falling asleep at public events and she has cancer. I don't think she will last four more years as a Supreme Court justice and without being too morbid, may not draw breath for four more years.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is what? 82? She's falling asleep at public events and she has cancer. I don't think she will last four more years as a Supreme Court justice and without being too morbid, may not draw breath for four more years.

 

There is also something to be said that both Obama and Bush get criticized for picking people who aren't on the right "side" by their parties.

 

I think the Supreme Court angle is a bit overblown.  So long as a few people have good consciences (and they do, including a Bush nominee in Roberts), it's a fairly low level concern IMO.

[DaveW]

 

 

A republican is going to be President again, maybe this election cycle, maybe the next one.  It might be good for the Democrats to lose this one and figure out what the Democratic party should be about - but a hawkish, pro-Wall St, anti-immigrant, non-transparent, anti-civil libertarian is probably not the type of person we should be supporting.  

I disagree, the demographics and ethnic make up of this country are changing by the day. In fact, Texas will likely be voting "blue" by 2020, as will some other "red" strongholds, there aren't any current blue strongholds that are in danger of switching (i.e. New York, Cali, Washngton, etc)

 

The GOP are the ones who need to reassess what their party is all about.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I disagree, the demographics and ethnic make up of this country are changing by the day. In fact, Texas will likely be voting "blue" by 2020, as will some other "red" strongholds, there aren't any current blue strongholds that are in danger of switching (i.e. New York, Cali, Washngton, etc)

 

The GOP are the ones who need to reassess what their party is all about.

 

Maybe, but they continue to dominate the non-Presidential elections.  So they're not as dead in the water as many of us would hope.  The demographics don't matter much if they don't vote.

[Hrbowski]

 

I disagree, the demographics and ethnic make up of this country are changing by the day. In fact, Texas will likely be voting "blue" by 2020, as will some other "red" strongholds, there aren't any current blue strongholds that are in danger of switching (i.e. New York, Cali, Washngton, etc)

 

The GOP are the ones who need to reassess what their party is all about.

You think we will never have a conservative president again? I bet we will.

[DaveW]

 

You think we will never have a conservative president again? I bet we will.

Did I say anything to that effect?

[DaveW]

 

Maybe, but they continue to dominate the non-Presidential elections.  So they're not as dead in the water as many of us would hope.  The demographics don't matter much if they don't vote.

Oh I agree, they certainly hit their pockets (rural areas), but for them to actually get another president in the white house they have quite the uphill battle ahead of them.

 

Frankly, I think the way congress is put together as a whole is a joke, why NY gets as many senators as Wyoming is just so freaking stupid.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Oh I agree, they certainly hit their pockets (rural areas), but for them to actually get another president in the white house they have quite the uphill battle ahead of them.

 

Frankly, I think the way congress is put together as a whole is a joke, why NY gets as many senators as Wyoming is just so freaking stupid.

 

It's really not.  It's just a handful of swing states that really determine most elections and it's not out of the realm of possibility if Rubio can win Florida for the Republicans to win the election.

[Hrbowski]

 

Did I say anything to that effect?

I thought that is what you were saying with this:

 

 

I disagree, the demographics and ethnic make up of this country are changing by the day. In fact, Texas will likely be voting "blue" by 2020, as will some other "red" strongholds, there aren't any current blue strongholds that are in danger of switching (i.e. New York, Cali, Washngton, etc)

 

[Squirrel]

 

There is also something to be said that both Obama and Bush get criticized for picking people who aren't on the right "side" by their parties.

 

I think the Supreme Court angle is a bit overblown.  So long as a few people have good consciences (and they do, including a Bush nominee in Roberts), it's a fairly low level concern IMO.

Try being a woman. It's a concern. A big one.

[DaveW]

 

It's really not.  It's just a handful of swing states that really determine most elections and it's not out of the realm of possibility if Rubio can win Florida for the Republicans to win the election.

Something very major would have to happen for them to take enough swing states to win the election, Rubio isn't moderate enough to get the "middle ground" voters, especially any self respecting female voter.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Try being a woman. It's a concern. A big one.

 

Except that misses my point.  Neither side really seems to be abusing things nor does it appear with the current constitution of the court that one vote is going to swing anything.  Certainly not on anything that would likely be settled by a stare decisis basis coming on 50 years now.  

 

I'm just speaking practically.  There are more valid women's health reasons to vote democrat, the Supreme Court really isn't that much of a factor.  I'd worry much more about congressional legislation than that.

[DaveW]

 

I thought that is what you were saying with this:etc etc

 

 

Hence why I said the GOP are the ones who need to "change" in order to re hit their base and the folks in the middle.

 

If Trump runs independent the Dems could win by an unfathomable margin.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Something very major would have to happen for them to take enough swing states to win the election, Rubio isn't moderate enough to get the "middle ground" voters, especially any self respecting female voter.

 

Not really.  It would just require PA, OH, and FLA to flip.  If Rubio has FLA he would already be the biggest chunk of the way there.  

 

Obama beat Romney 50.7% to 47.% in 2012 in Ohio

Obama beat Romney 51.97% to 46.59% in 2012 in Pennsylvania

 

So no, it would not need to be "very major" at all.

[Squirrel]

 

Except that misses my point.  Neither side really seems to be abusing things nor does it appear with the current constitution of the court that one vote is going to swing anything.  Certainly not on anything that would likely be settled by a stare decisis basis coming on 50 years now.  

 

I'm just speaking practically.  There are more valid women's health reasons to vote democrat, the Supreme Court really isn't that much of a factor.  I'd worry much more about congressional legislation than that.

The way the court has been 'split down the middle' on many issues, it takes one to upset the balance. With a Republican president and a Republican Senate, given the ages and health of a few, no way ... NO WAY ... is this a low level concern. It's huge. Period. And I've said in these threads before ... I may not be completely sold on who the Democratic candidate for president is, no way am I not going to vote for a Democrat because of this.

[DaveW]

 

Not really.  It would just require PA, OH, and FLA to flip.  If Rubio has FLA he would already be the biggest chunk of the way there.  

 

Obama beat Romney 50.7% to 47.% in 2012 in Ohio

Obama beat Romney 51.97% to 46.59% in 2012 in Pennsylvania

 

So no, it would not need to be "very major" at all.

Getting Ohio and Pennsylvania to flip would be very major.

[gunnarthor]

 

I disagree, the demographics and ethnic make up of this country are changing by the day. In fact, Texas will likely be voting "blue" by 2020, as will some other "red" strongholds, there aren't any current blue strongholds that are in danger of switching (i.e. New York, Cali, Washngton, etc)

 

The GOP are the ones who need to reassess what their party is all about.

In 1990, there were articles wondering if a democrat would ever be President again. The only Democratic President in 25 years was elected solely because of the greatest political scandal in history.  The democratic nominees were punch lines.  Barring another watergate, the demographics made it nearly impossible for the Dems to be anything other than a regional party.  The GOP's southern strategy had worked to perfection and the Dems had no stronghold anywhere.  And we know how that turned out.

 

The GOP is not a doomed party - the tea party might be. 

[DaveW]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

 

Assuming the rest stay the exact same.

 

Basically you would need non educated whites to go from 59% turnout to 85% turnout in order to win the presidential election for the GOP.

[gunnarthor]

 

The way the court has been 'split down the middle' on many issues, it takes one to upset the balance. With a Republican president and a Republican Senate, given the ages and health of a few, no way ... NO WAY ... is this a low level concern. It's huge. Period. And I've said in these threads before ... I may not be completely sold on who the Democratic candidate for president is, no way am I not going to vote for a Democrat because of this.

What issue do you think will be gone?  The Court isn't going to overturn Roe, conservative courts have already upheld Miranda and Obamacare.  Liberal justices long ago gave up the fight on police reform.  Sure, we'll get some ****ty decisions but is that worry worth turning the democratic party into GOP-lite? 

[DaveW]

 

 

In 1990, there were articles wondering if a democrat would ever be President again. The only Democratic President in 25 years was elected solely because of the greatest political scandal in history.  The democratic nominees were punch lines.  Barring another watergate, the demographics made it nearly impossible for the Dems to be anything other than a regional party.  The GOP's southern strategy had worked to perfection and the Dems had no stronghold anywhere.  And we know how that turned out.

 

The GOP is not a doomed party - the tea party might be. 

The problem is though, the Tea Party/Trumps/Carsons of the world are attracting a decent sized chunk of the GOP.