2016 Election Thread

[glunn]

Moderator note -- let's tone down the invective a little bit.  What allows us to debate these contentious issues without screaming at each other is the TD policy of mutual respect.

 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Bernies other huge draw is his attacks on banks and income inequality.

The issue is that none of it adds up and will be destroyed if actually analyzed by an opposition. Part of why those general election polls look good now.

Clinton could destroy him if came down to it, but that would be bad politics and really hurt the party. Her hope is mostly keep powder dry, not attack and keep the party together. 

Okay, let's see the destruction of Bernie's policy on banks and income equality. Have at it.  Because I think the notion that Clinton is playing nice for the 'good of the party' is laughable.  She got beat handedly in New Hampshire, she has little reason to hold back for appearance sake; moreover, she and the DNC haven't been acting for the good of the party all primary season (with the early debate schedule etc.).  

 

I think the real reason so many are being vague about the potential critique of Sander's view on income equality and banks is because those arguments don't have much traction with the American people anymore.  I hope the Republicans make the free enterprise, trickle-down economics argument.

 

  

 

 

 

[drjim]

 

Okay, let's see the destruction of Bernie's policy on banks and income equality. Have at it.  Because I think the notion that Clinton is playing nice for the 'good of the party' is laughable.  She got beat handedly in New Hampshire, she has little reason to hold back for appearance sake; moreover, she and the DNC haven't been acting for the good of the party all primary season (with the early debate schedule etc.).  

 

I think the real reason so many are being vague about the potential critique of Sander's view on income equality and banks is because those arguments don't have much traction with the American people anymore.  I hope the Republicans make the free enterprise, trickle-down economics argument.

 

Part of the problem is the majority of his "policy" is too general to critique.

 

Financial transaction tax would fall on the wrong people. Large enough institutions would take transactions offshore, and most effected would be retirement portfolios of middle to lower upper class individuals.

 

A tax on "Wall Street speculation" is way too vague. Hard to imagine regulation strict enough that would capture this transaction in a way that prevent banks from skirting it with new or different transactions.

 

Too big to fail, too big to exist is fine in theory, and I support, but the issue is more privatization of profits, socialism of risk, not size per se. What exactly would he do here?

 

I have no problem with capping bank bonuses for senior level jobs, but that just seems it would limit future talent more than stop corruption.

 

Credit card rate limits are fine if the goal is denying lower income people access to credit.

 

Yes, let's audit the Fed. I agree. Do it yesterday.

 

From his site: https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

 

I think Clinton basically agrees with his critiques of income inequality and banks, but I think she has a sense of what can actually politically can be accomplished. I fully support Bernie pushing these topics and making it tough for Clinton, and if there is an overall residual effect on Democrats that is a good thing, but it does have to be someone targeted. Merely skimming money off of banks and handing it over the health care and education complexes is not the answer. I'm certainly in favor of more education and better health care accessible to all, but more money is not the full answer.

 

And again, the funding of this leaves something to be desired.

[PseudoSABR]

I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of your points, but we're already in nuance as opposed to carpet-bombing his idealism.  

 

What's politically possible will be dictated by the election. As a starting point, I feel the Democrats have far too often start bargaining at the 50-yard line.  Let the election mandate a progressive agenda, and Congress will still shape that agenda.  (I also think Congress would look very different should Bernie get elected).

 

My point is that the kind of cynicism it takes to rebut Bernie is exactly what people are reacting that drives his (and perhaps Trump's) support. 

[drjim]

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of your points, but we're already in nuance as opposed to carpet-bombing his idealism.  

 

What's politically possible will be dictated by the election. As a starting point, I feel the Democrats have far too often start bargaining at the 50-yard line.  Let the election mandate a progressive agenda, and Congress will still shape that agenda.  (I also think Congress would look very different should Bernie get elected).

 

My point is that the kind of cynicism it takes to rebut Bernie is exactly what people are reacting that drives his (and perhaps Trump's) support. 

 

This I especially agree with. That is why I certainly welcome the presence of Bernie to drive the national conversation in the direction he is taking it. Pull the options far out and then find something that works between here and there.

[TheLeviathan]

 

My point is that the kind of cynicism it takes to rebut Bernie is exactly what people are reacting that drives his (and perhaps Trump's) support. 

 

I agree, but I wouldn't count on that as a driving force to win a national election.  It won't work for Trump either, IMO.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What's politically possible will be dictated by the election. As a starting point, I feel the Democrats have far too often start bargaining at the 50-yard line.

I agree but it's almost impossible to start anywhere else when the opposition is outside the stadium, locking the door. In some ways, the Dems' weak-kneed negotiating strategy has been a boon to the country, as it means we occasionally get something done. On the other hand, it has allowed the country to slowly drift right.

 

In a perfect world, both parties start in their respective end zones and work to the 50 yard line but we haven't seen that in a long time.

[Squirrel]

 

No need to patronize me.  And I think you're oversimplifying how marginalized groups vote, though I take your point.   In the general election, I think Black people will be plenty motivated to vote for the candidate who candidly talks about criminal justice reform (which will be both Hillary and Bernie).  

 

My point continues to be that those motivated to vote for Hillary in the primary, will likely vote for Bernie in the general, rather than just stay home because he's an old white guy. 

I wasn't trying to patronize you, but you obviously don't see this is as a very important distinction and it is for many in those groups. They are just as tired and frustrated as Bernie supporters are. My 86-yr old mother has spent a lifetime fighting for equality, especially for women, and even though Bernie has an excellent record on the issue, she's frustrated and angry and refers to him as 'just another white man.' She'll vote for him in November, and so will many but not all, but for the primaries this is high on the list of importance. I'm not saying this to invite a discussion about race and gender, but for many out there, the importance of Hillary being elected is as significant as electing Obama in 2008.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I wasn't trying to patronize you, but you obviously don't see this is as a very important distinction and it is for many in those groups. They are just as tired and frustrated as Bernie supporters are. My 86-yr old mother has spent a lifetime fighting for equality, especially for women, and even though Bernie has an excellent record on the issue, she's frustrated and angry and refers to him as 'just another white man.' She'll vote for him in November, and so will many but not all, but for the primaries this is high on the list of importance. I'm not saying this to invite a discussion about race and gender, but for many out there, the importance of Hillary being elected is as significant as electing Obama in 2008.

It is an important distinction, but one I don't see playing out in the national election in the way proposed here that Black people will turn out significantly more for Hillary than Bernie in the National Election; I just don't think that's true.  In no way do I mean to diminish the very real need for people to see someone like them holding the highest role in the office.  I want a first woman president; I know what it would mean to the women in my family, and to me personally.  As I've suggested before, I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren to the field.    And I wish it was Hillary that was espousing liberal ideals rather than selling her capacity to get something lesser done.  (And I do think Hillary will turn out women voters that Bernie would not.)

[Squirrel]

 

Okay, let's see the destruction of Bernie's policy on banks and income equality. Have at it.  Because I think the notion that Clinton is playing nice for the 'good of the party' is laughable.  She got beat handedly in New Hampshire, she has little reason to hold back for appearance sake; moreover, she and the DNC haven't been acting for the good of the party all primary season (with the early debate schedule etc.).  

 

I think the real reason so many are being vague about the potential critique of Sander's view on income equality and banks is because those arguments don't have much traction with the American people anymore.  I hope the Republicans make the free enterprise, trickle-down economics argument.

I don't think it's surprising she was beat in NH given Bernie is from Vermont; I think that was expected. At least it wasn't at all surprising to me. And NH really doesn't represent the diversity of the country.

 

As far as acting for the good of the party when has Sanders acted for the good of the party? There are many who have worked very hard for the good of the party ... and I'm not referring to leadership here ... but many who have worked hard to get Democrats elected all over the country for years. What has Sanders done for the party? Nothing. He wasn't a member of the party until a year ago when he wanted to run for President. He seeks the support from an entity he has never supported. Yes, they've worked together for years, and he caucuses with the Dems in the Senate, but it's still seen as a somewhat opportunistic move. But many of the voters he inspires won't vote in November if it's not him but they probably wouldn't have voted anyway. 

[Squirrel]

 

It is an important distinction, but one I don't see playing out in the national election in the way proposed here that Black people will turn out significantly more for Hillary than Bernie in the National Election; I just don't think that's true.  In no way do I mean to diminish the very real need for people to see someone like them holding the highest role in the office.  I want a first woman president; I know what it would mean to the women in my family, and to me personally.  As I've suggested before, I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren to the field.    And I wish it was Hillary that was espousing liberal ideals rather than selling her capacity to get something lesser done.  (And I do think Hillary will turn out women voters that Bernie would not.)

I think there will be some who stay home. The ones who will stay home who support Bernie wouldn't have voted anyway, but I think there are those from those groups who will not vote for Bernie based on what I said. She won't inspire a turnout like Obama did, but she will inspire more to vote for her than for Bernie.

[DaveW]

 

Trump is the most disgraceful creature on Earth. I'm longing for the days of mushy Mitt Romney.

Aren't you a Cruz fan though?
They are pretty close (for different reasons) on the "terrible politician scale"

[DaveW]

 

 

What precisely are you basing that Bernie has "no chance" other than a gut feeling? 

When it comes to the GE, Bernie is only going to win the "young" vote, I have a hard time seeing how anyone over the age of 35, and even more so anyone over the age of 50 would vote for him. If Rubio is the nom on the GOP side then you can probably kiss a decent chunk of the Latino vote away as well.

 

 

[DaveW]

 

If Bernie's running mate were Corey Booker, I think he would bring out the black vote. I've always viewed Hill as more electable than Bernie, although polls right now disagree. IMHO, most of the reason that Clinton polls so poorly against Republicans is that she is so well-known and that she's been the presumptive nominee since Obama was elected in 2012, and has been attacked on Benghazi and her e-mails relentlessly.

 

While I would prefer someone less comfortable with the status quo on Wall Street and surveillance/drone warfare, the difference between Clinton and any of the remaining Republicans is enough that I'll gladly vote for her. The Supreme Court issue alone would guarantee my vote for a Democrat.

 

Finally, and most importantly, of the five remaining serious candidates for the White House, the one I think that would be the best president, not the best campaigner, is Hillary Clinton.

Very well said, I also think part of the issue is that Hillary doesn't come off as charismatic as the last two Dem presidents, however I think part of that is a gender bias people have towards women in high positions (whether in politics or in business) When a male superior chews someone's ass int he business world he is a "leader" when a women does it people say "she is a bitch", things have been getting better in this regard, but this country and society still have quite a ways to go IMO.

Your last line is 100% spot on, Hilary would make a great POTUS and we would all be lucky to have her.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm 51, I'd vote for Bernie. A LOT of my friends would vote for Bernie, maybe more of them support him than Hilary, actually, even the ones that are more moderate (actual swing voters) like him more, because they don't like Hilary.

 

I think your analysis is just a bit over simplified.

 

That said, I don't think he energizes the black vote, and I think that's a crusher for him if he gets the nomination (which he won't).

[DaveW]

 

I'm 51, I'd vote for Bernie. A LOT of my friends would vote for Bernie, maybe more of them support him than Hilary, actually, even the ones that are more moderate (actual swing voters) like him more, because they don't like Hilary.

 

I think your analysis is just a bit over simplified.

 

That said, I don't think he energizes the black vote, and I think that's a crusher for him if he gets the nomination (which he won't).

Obviously he wouldn't get 100% of the 50+ vote.  but you have to look at the country (and more importantly the swing states as a whole) Pretty much everyone I know would prefer Hilary over Bernie, double that on every liberal person I know over the age of 50.

 

Could Bernie win the GE? Sure, I think he could beat Cruz or Trump, but I think it would be a lot closer than people would think, and Cruz or Trump would have a punchers chance. IMO we can't play with fire in that case.

[Craig Arko]

58, and Bernie would work for me. I have some trust issues with Clinton, but about an order of magnitude less than any of the GOP candidates. I would not trust any of them to have my back.

[Squirrel]

What I would like to see happen: Hillary win in November and the Dems take back the Senate and make Bernie the Senate Majority leader ... either him or Elizabeth Warren. I never want to see Harry Reid in that spot ever again. The latter won't happen, though, and that's the problem I have with the leadership in the party.

[PseudoSABR]

 

As far as acting for the good of the party when has Sanders acted for the good of the party? There are many who have worked very hard for the good of the party ... and I'm not referring to leadership here ... but many who have worked hard to get Democrats elected all over the country for years. What has Sanders done for the party? Nothing. He wasn't a member of the party until a year ago when he wanted to run for President. He seeks the support from an entity he has never supported. Yes, they've worked together for years, and he caucuses with the Dems in the Senate, but it's still seen as a somewhat opportunistic move. But many of the voters he inspires won't vote in November if it's not him but they probably wouldn't have voted anyway. 

I made no contention about whether Bernie was acting on the good of the party.  I don't even necessarily see acting for the good of the party as an attribute.   I was merely rebutting that Hillary was holding back attacking Sanders for the good the party.  As you suggest, Sanders is hardly an establishment democrat, and his values are properly divorced from the DNC.

[PseudoSABR]

 

she will inspire more to vote for her than for Bernie.

I don't think that's true.  I think you're underestimating Bernie's liberal appeal to working class and young people, regardless of identity.  

[Squirrel]

 

I made no contention about whether Bernie was acting on the good of the party.  I don't even necessarily see acting for the good of the party as an attribute.   I was merely rebutting that Hillary was holding back attacking Sanders for the good the party.  As you suggest, Sanders is hardly an establishment democrat, and his values are properly divorced from the DNC.

He's not really a Democrat at all ... never has been, never wanted to be; and that's what has some of the party leadership a bit ... ruffled. But those who work for the party and have been party supporters, will vote for him in November. If he doesn't win the nod, many of his supporters won't vote, because they won't support the party regardless and wouldn't have anyway. They couldn't possibly compromise their ideals any and find not voting more noble, which is their choice. But not voting, imo, is a vote for Rubio, Cruz or Trump, whoever wins the Rep nom.

 

And Hillary can't attack Sanders and doesn't, not just because it's not good for the party, but she can't. I think Dave explained it best above.

[Squirrel]

 

I don't think that's true.  I think you're underestimating Bernie's liberal appeal to working class and young people, regardless of identity.  

Well, then we agree that we think each is underestimating the other.

[PseudoSABR]

 

He's not really a Democrat at all ... never has been, never wanted to be; and that's what has some of the party leadership a bit ... ruffled. But those who work for the party and have been party supporters, will vote for him in November. If he doesn't win the nod, many of his supporters won't vote, because they won't support the party regardless and wouldn't have anyway. They couldn't possibly compromise their ideals any and find not voting more noble, which is their choice. But not voting, imo, is a vote for Rubio, Cruz or Trump, whoever wins the Rep nom.

 

And Hillary can't attack Sanders and doesn't, not just because it's not good for the party, but she can't. I think Dave explained it best above.

I agree with the premise of a no vote is a vote for the Republicans.   And I think this points to the fact that the Democratic Party and their platform have moved so far to the right that many do not identify with that platform.   If Hillary were to keep talking up income disparity and reigning in bad actors in Wall Street, she might be able to keep Bernie's supporters engaged.   

 

If Rubio ends up being the nominee, I think she'll fare better lurching further left than trying to play the moderate.

[TheLeviathan]

The other issue that the GE is going to hurt Bernie on is foreign policy.  Republicans will pound that point and Hillary has far better groudn to stand on there than Bernie does.  You can't just keep shouting "I voted against the Iraq war!" and think that is sufficient. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

The other issue that the GE is going to hurt Bernie on is foreign policy.  Republicans will pound that point and Hillary has far better groudn to stand on there than Bernie does.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about Benghazi, as I feel that subject has flown under the radar a bit.

[DaveW]

 

I'm looking forward to hearing more about Benghazi, as I feel that subject has flown under the radar a bit.

LOL

[Hrbowski]

 

The other issue that the GE is going to hurt Bernie on is foreign policy.  Republicans will pound that point and Hillary has far better groudn to stand on there than Bernie does.  You can't just keep shouting "I voted against the Iraq war!" and think that is sufficient. 

If you got someone like Cruz against Hillary you would have some stark contrast on foreign policy. It would almost be like George Bush as a Democrat.

[Hrbowski]

 

Aren't you a Cruz fan though?
They are pretty close (for different reasons) on the "terrible politician scale"

Cruz's views are something between evangelical, libertarian, TEA partier, and anti-establishment. Trump's are between birther, truther, neo-nazi, and medical quack.

[Mike Sixel]

Cruz is no libertarian, he wants to drive the deficit up so he can bomb the life out of the middle east. He's an expansionist, no doubt about it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Cruz's views are something between evangelical, libertarian, TEA partier, and anti-establishment. Trump's are between birther, truther, neo-nazi, and medical quack.

 

I believe Cruz's best description would be: lunatic.