2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

so, like every presidential candidate speaks, pretty much........

 

I don't listen to the debates, they literally have no influence on my life until there is a candidate. 

 

How's that incrementalism worked out under Obama? We didn't put a man on the moon thru incrementalism, or get true civil rights by it, or social security. I'm not sure that aiming for tiny improvements for everyone but the rich is the best way to get change......

 

True, it's fair to argue that many of them say lots of stupid stuff they'll never accomplish, but few of them have an entire campaign built around it.  Every time Clinton tries to say "look, you can just march in and say this is how it's going to be, there is compromise" (a rare political truth) Sanders jumps all over it.

 

There is a difference between what you set out as goals and what you can actually accomplish.  Just because I want to clean my entire house in one day doesn't mean I can do it.  Sometimes you have to start somewhere and get as far as you can.  Some days you may clean the whole thing, but sometimes you get bogged down before the dishes are done.  That's reality.

 

Is it better that countries are pumping out coal or fracking?  If fracking reduces emissions substantially and bridges the gap to solar - that's a good thing, maybe not perfect but good.  But if you insist on solar or bust and that gets you nowhere - which is the better choice?

 

To put it simply, walking around demanding all or nothing usually gets you nothing.  So on major issues, I'll take incremental over nothing.  We all wish we could wave a magic wand and get from point A to point B in one clean sweep, but that's just not how it works.  Especially not in politics.

[Mike Sixel]

What are Clinton's big goals, other than making the rich more rich?

 

It's hard to tell on any non-financial issues, since she blows in the wind.......

[Mike Sixel]

 

True, it's fair to argue that many of them say lots of stupid stuff they'll never accomplish, but few of them have an entire campaign built around it.  Every time Clinton tries to say "look, you can just march in and say this is how it's going to be, there is compromise" (a rare political truth) Sanders jumps all over it.

 

There is a difference between what you set out as goals and what you can actually accomplish.  Just because I want to clean my entire house in one day doesn't mean I can do it.  Sometimes you have to start somewhere and get as far as you can.  Some days you may clean the whole thing, but sometimes you get bogged down before the dishes are done.  That's reality.

 

Is it better that countries are pumping out coal or fracking?  If fracking reduces emissions substantially and bridges the gap to solar - that's a good thing, maybe not perfect but good.  But if you insist on solar or bust and that gets you nowhere - which is the better choice?

 

To put it simply, walking around demanding all or nothing usually gets you nothing.  So on major issues, I'll take incremental over nothing.  We all wish we could wave a magic wand and get from point A to point B in one clean sweep, but that's just not how it works.  Especially not in politics.

 

I agree, it is probably not realistic.......are we sure Sanders is "do this or bust"? I mean, he's trying to fire up millions of people to vote for him. He's not going to do that by sounding just like Clinton.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What are Clinton's big goals, other than making the rich more rich?

 

It's hard to tell on any non-financial issues, since she blows in the wind.......

 

I think she has a progressive platform, but she's also hawkish.  

 

I really think the only difference between her and Sanders is the ability to get things done.  In terms of mentality and goals I think they are pretty closely aligned.  Just my take though.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree, it is probably not realistic.......are we sure Sanders is "do this or bust"? I mean, he's trying to fire up millions of people to vote for him. He's not going to do that by sounding just like Clinton.

 

That's a good point, but he specifically attacked Clinton for promoting fracking overseas.  When she pointed out that fracking was presented as a cleaner fuel than coal as a means of reducing emissions in increments he attacked her for not understanding the severity of the problem and that incremental approaches were insufficient.

 

Of course, he then went on to agree his own plan was incremental without using those words.  (Can't do everything at once...I believe is what he said)

 

But Sanders' record as a legislator doesn't give much hope for a guy that can get things done.  He's Cruz-like in his capacity to get very little accomplished.

[Mike Sixel]

Oh, I'm no believer that Sanders is some kind of hero or would make a good President.......

 

Hilary bums me out. She once seemed to be an actual liberal, championing single payer. But, once she got power, she turned out to be like all of them.....hawkish, interested in helping the wealthy be more wealthy, blowing in the wind on social issues.......

 

She is 100% the most qualified candidate right now. 100%. But, she inspires nothing in terms of greatness at all. Not in me.

[TheLeviathan]

We are in total agreement there.  Still plenty of room on the bandwagon Mike....just sayin....

 

http://d2a2wjuuf1c30f.cloudfront.net/product_photos/35406534/Kodos_3in_ROUND_original.jpg

[Mike Sixel]

I prefer the mighty Cthulhu....

 

I would put in my favorite image, but can't recall how (and is probably blocked from work)......

 

"why choose the lesser evil".....

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

Oh, I'm no believer that Sanders is some kind of hero or would make a good President.......

 

Hilary bums me out. She once seemed to be an actual liberal, championing single payer. But, once she got power, she turned out to be like all of them.....hawkish, interested in helping the wealthy be more wealthy, blowing in the wind on social issues.......

 

She is 100% the most qualified candidate right now. 100%. But, she inspires nothing in terms of greatness at all. Not in me.

 

To me, the most inspiring thing about her is the faint possibility that she can help bring the Republican party back closer to center, partly due to the fact that many of her policies do interest the old guard Republicans, or at least don't completely turn them off, and partly because Sanders might make them all run even further the other way.

 

If that party can get back to where it was during Bush Sr and Dole's leadership, we might be able to push further next election.

[nicksaviking]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/politics/sarah-palin-bill-nye-scientist/index.html

 

Can people stop putting a microphone in front of her now? I mean she is such old news, she's not even a Governor any more.

[Craig Arko]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/politics/sarah-palin-bill-nye-scientist/index.html

 

Can people stop putting a microphone in front of her now? I mean she is such old news, she's not even a Governor any more.

Every time she speaks the average national IQ drops a point.

[TheLeviathan]

 

To me, the most inspiring thing about her is the faint possibility that she can help bring the Republican party back closer to center, partly due to the fact that many of her policies do interest the old guard Republicans, or at least don't completely turn them off, and partly because Sanders might make them all run even further the other way.

 

If that party can get back to where it was during Bush Sr and Dole's leadership, we might be able to push further next election.

 

One fear though, is that her name alone generates a lot of fear and loathing from right-wingers.  I'm not sure how much they'd cooperate with her.  But her chances are infinitely better than Sanders.

[nicksaviking]

 

One fear though, is that her name alone generates a lot of fear and loathing from right-wingers.  I'm not sure how much they'd cooperate with her.  But her chances are infinitely better than Sanders.

I also think that publicly trashing Clinton is fun sport for many but her long-held political ties and her policies would actually get more people to the table at the very least. Probably more so than Obama has and definitely more than Sanders.

 

I want wholesale American policy upgrades, but so does the other side but in the other direction. I can settle for small steps in the right direction if the alternative is staying put.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I also think that publicly trashing Clinton is fun sport for many but her long-held political ties and her policies would actually get more people to the table at the very least. Probably more so than Obama has and definitely more than Sanders.

 

I want wholesale American policy upgrades, but so does the other side but in the other direction. I can settle for small steps in the right direction if the alternative is staying put.

 

Or worse, going towards the right wing.

 

Changing things only matters if you, ya know, actually get it changed.  Clinton is right to keep hammering the point home that Bernie is good at proclaiming what is wrong, but he's got absolutely no plan for fixing it that would ever happen in this universe.

[stringer bell]

 

Oh, I'm no believer that Sanders is some kind of hero or would make a good President.......

 

Hilary bums me out. She once seemed to be an actual liberal, championing single payer. But, once she got power, she turned out to be like all of them.....hawkish, interested in helping the wealthy be more wealthy, blowing in the wind on social issues.......

 

She is 100% the most qualified candidate right now. 100%. But, she inspires nothing in terms of greatness at all. Not in me.

I'm pretty much with you, but I think she is more liberal than you are stating. Her path to the nomination was to stay in the middle and Republicans have accommodated the Democratic nominee by racing to the right and putting on a traji-comic show that should alienate at least a third of regular GOP voters.

[formerly33]

 

Every time she speaks the average national IQ drops a point.

http://sherlockholmesfans.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/0/8/27085045/3260418_orig.gif

[Craig Arko]

Portion of Spike Lee (famous young white guy) interview with Bernie Sanders.

 

[nicksaviking]

Portion of Spike Lee (famous young white guy) interview with Bernie Sanders.

Watching that, all I could think about was if Spike donned that Yankee soldier hat for fashion purposes or to help remind Sanders of his youth.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To the surprise of almost no one, Clinton is winning NY.

 

I'm mildly surprised she's taking 60% of the vote but given how I figured on a 55/45 split, I guess that's not terribly surprising.

 

Sanders' momentum screeches to a halt.

[TheLeviathan]

It's a state that has non-white people and not a caucus state, I'm not sure why anyone thought he'd have a chance.

[Badsmerf]

Meh, it's hard to say his momentum screeched to a halt after so many wins. I think it's fair to say had the election started with more favorable states he could be a lot closer. Clinton knows how to play the game. Unless something drastic happens, she is the President next year.

[Squirrel]

 

Meh, it's hard to say his momentum screeched to a halt after so many wins. I think it's fair to say had the election started with more favorable states he could be a lot closer. Clinton knows how to play the game. Unless something drastic happens, she is the President next year.

Sanders has been at this a lot longer. If doesn't know how it works by now, he shouldn't be running.

[Craig Arko]

It certainly does appear, barring some last minute ploy(s), that we have our candidates. I'll be voting for the one who doesn't give me the urge to flee the country.

[ashbury]

It certainly does appear, barring some last minute ploy(s), that we have our candidates.

I think it's still a knife-edge situation on the Republican side, with Trump having a narrow (though certainly well defined) path toward securing the necessary delegates in advance of the convention, but Cruz the odds-on favorite after the first ballot. And I should emphasize the word securing, because Cruz seems adept at prying away delegates earmarked for Trump (or anyone else), one by one by one. Trump is Earl Weaver and the recent Baltimore Orioles with pitching and three-run homers; Cruz is John McGraw and the old Baltimore Orioles with inside baseball. It's an interesting compare/contrast scenario that will be studied by historians, perhaps.

 

Sanders basically has no path. Any candidate can cook up a miracle scenario, and right now Sanders has only that to fall back upon. The Democrats don't have enough (or any?) winner-take-all states remaining, and he'd need an aggregate 70% or so of the remaining delegates to pull even, at which point he'd be hoping enough super-delegates would give him a second look. None of that is feasible for him anymore. I think he stays in the race after next week's primaries only if he sees it as giving him a little more say in the final shape of the platform.

[USAFChief]

It certainly does appear, barring some last minute ploy(s), that we have our candidates. I'll be voting for the one who doesn't give me the urge to flee the country.

I still doubt Trump is the R candidate.

[Craig Arko]

I still doubt Trump is the R candidate.

Since the main alternatives are equally puke-worthy, it changes nothing.

[twinsnorth49]

PC party wins Manitoba election with historic majority!.......................................wait.......wrong election thread. Oops.

[Squirrel]

I think it's still a knife-edge situation on the Republican side, with Trump having a narrow (though certainly well defined) path toward securing the necessary delegates in advance of the convention, but Cruz the odds-on favorite after the first ballot. And I should emphasize the word securing, because Cruz seems adept at prying away delegates earmarked for Trump (or anyone else), one by one by one. Trump is Earl Weaver and the recent Baltimore Orioles with pitching and three-run homers; Cruz is John McGraw and the old Baltimore Orioles with inside baseball. It's an interesting compare/contrast scenario that will be studied by historians, perhaps.

 

Sanders basically has no path. Any candidate can cook up a miracle scenario, and right now Sanders has only that to fall back upon. The Democrats don't have enough (or any?) winner-take-all states remaining, and he'd need an aggregate 70% or so of the remaining delegates to pull even, at which point he'd be hoping enough super-delegates would give him a second look. None of that is feasible for him anymore. I think he stays in the race after next week's primaries only if he sees it as giving him a little more say in the final shape of the platform.

The Dems don't have any winner-take-all throughout. Only the Republicans do.

[nicksaviking]

 

PC party wins Manitoba election with historic majority!.......................................wait.......wrong election thread. Oops.

 

PC, Poutine Connoisseurs?

 

I thought you guys kept the French Canadians confined to Quebec, are they spreading?

[TheLeviathan]

Sanders won't drop out and he'll continue to be divisive about Clinton.  I'd argue the worst enemy of Hillary is Bernie continuing to turn away liberal voters by continuing to campaign against her.

 

She should mop the floor with Trump or Cruz.  (Kasich probably not, but he's a non-factor)