2016 Election Thread

[nicksaviking]

 

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)

 

I think Clinton having a foe at this stage is keeping liberals tuned in actually. They might have already zoned out if Sanders had conceded and all we talked about were the Republicans. Just like with the Academy Awards, I think it's in Clinton's favor for her get nominated as late as possible. There's a reason no one releases good movies in February any more, they're old news and voters are bored with them 10 months later.

 

While I don't think Sanders would be a good President, I don't think he's a bad guy. I think he's going to come out in full support of Clinton when this stuff is over and the party unity is going to be a stark contrast to the mess on the other side.

 

Obama still tapped Clinton for his Secretary of State, and there was a lot more animosity during that election. This seems pretty cordial to me, at least as far as politics goes.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think Clinton having a foe at this stage is keeping liberals tuned in actually. They might have already zoned out if Sanders had conceded and all we talked about were the Republicans. Just like with the Academy Awards, I think it's in Clinton's favor for her get nominated as late as possible. There's a reason no one releases good movies in February any more, they're old news and voters are bored with them 10 months later.

 

Sanders can put on a happy face and celebrate all he wants, but if he continues to attack her how much do those attacks stick with his supporters when push comes to shove?  I agree, there could be some benefit to keeping people tuned in....but if they're tuned into a channel that is constantly saying "Hillary stinks" - is that really good for Hillary?

 

I think you could make a case either way, but apathy/disdain for the candidate within their own voting base is probably the Dems' biggest enemy right now.

[PseudoSABR]

 

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

I don't mean to speak for Smerf, but I think you're missing the point.  It's not that Sanders doesn't know how this work.  But given that the hit against Sanders early on was that he could never win the nomination, that may have affected early state contest and party registration.  For instance, one would have to register as a Democrat six months ago in order to vote for Bernie in New York yesterday.  Six months ago. 

 

And really mastering the party primary process should hardly be the basis of running or not.  Some of our willingness to just accept establishment-bias is pretty surprising to me. 

[Squirrel]

 

I don't mean to speak for Smerf, but I think you're missing the point.  It's not that Sanders doesn't know how this work.  But given that the hit against Sanders early on was that he could never win the nomination, that may have affected early state contest and party registration.  For instance, one would have to register as a Democrat six months ago in order to vote for Bernie in New York yesterday.  Six months ago. 

 

And really mastering the party primary process should hardly be the basis of running or not.  Some of our willingness to just accept establishment-bias is pretty surprising to me. 

Sorry ... but the election laws in every state are not new. You can sit on your butts and do nothing, or you can get involved. Those who wanted to support Sanders should have been out there working at it long ago, even if they were told there was no hope. And come on, do not put this entirely on the Democratic party ... pundits and pollers and whatnot from all areas didn't give Sanders a chance. If you or anyone else doesn't buy into the 'establishment stuff' then you should have been doing something about it before now. Crying foul at this point is just whining entitlement. Sorry, but no. Know how it works ... it's not that hard. If they gave up on it 6 months ago, that's on them, not on the state of New York. And why aren't they crying about the closed primary in Michigan? Or what about all the closed and disenfranchising caucuses? Please ... it's hypocritical to cry foul when you lose and not when you win.

[Squirrel]

 

 

 

And really mastering the party primary process should hardly be the basis of running or not.  Some of our willingness to just accept establishment-bias is pretty surprising to me. 

And please, seriously. If any candidate doesn't know how the government process of elections works, from primaries on down, no, they shouldn't be running. This is just Sanders being a sore loser. Let's pile it on and destroy the party system is what he is about, nothing else.

[nicksaviking]

 

And please, seriously. If any candidate doesn't know how the government process of elections works, from primaries on down, no, they shouldn't be running. This is just Sanders being a sore loser. Let's pile it on and destroy the party system is what he is about, nothing else.

 

To be fair, Sanders probably sees this exact strategy of "outsider naivety" working for Trump and is frustrated that it's backfiring on him.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

I don't think any one is crying foul (here at least, and on these points).  It's not a knowledge gap; it's an establishment-bias.  You can know the rules, and also know that they are prohibitive to candidates at the margins of the party (which seem to be actual liberals, unfortunately).   

 

And the party system needs to be destroyed, though that's hardly what Sanders is about.  (I think you can make your point without framing Sanders as some diabolical monster.)   If you can't acknowledge the real problems that primary poses to actual democracy, well, I'm just bewildered.

 

I'll say it again, if you think party-loyalty should be a factor in determining the actual candidates for president, it doesn't sound like you believe in democracy to me.

[Squirrel]

 

I don't think any one is crying foul (here at least, and on these points).  It's not a knowledge gap; it's an establishment-bias.  You can know the rules, and also know that they are prohibitive to candidates at the margins of the party (which seem to be actual liberals, unfortunately).   

 

And the party system needs to be destroyed, though that's hardly what Sanders is about.  (I think you can make your point without framing Sanders as some diabolical monster.)   If you can't acknowledge the real problems that primary poses to actual democracy, well, I'm just bewildered.

 

I'll say it again, if you think party-loyalty should be a factor in determining the actual candidates for president, it doesn't sound like you believe in democracy to me.

That's what Sanders is doing. I'm sorry, Pseudo, but it is. He has never liked the parties throughout his career and has eschewed them. It's why he never became a member of one, ever ... until a little over a year go when he joined the Democratic Party to run. He hates the party system and this is all part in parcel of what he stands for.

 

While I think there should be more than two parties at play, I think it's very naive to think that it will just change overnight or with one candidate. And crying for election laws to be changed on the spot (as his supporters were doing in NY yesterday) is ridiculous. Register for a party and vote. It's not that complicated. You can change it back to nothing later if you don't want to be associated with it. It's not that complicated. Either work from within to change it, or work from without to change it. In time. But to sit on your butts and then say 'Hey, I think I'll mosey on down and vote' and not know a thing about how that works is not any kind of establishment suppression. It's plain and simple ignorance and/or laziness and/or entitlement-I want it my way now.

[PseudoSABR]

 

That's what Sanders is doing. I'm sorry, Pseudo, but it is.

This is crazy to me.  The premise of Sanders campaign is to win the Democratic nomination, not destroy the Democratic party.  His outsider status can reflect frustration with the party without the implication that he wants burn it down; seriously that's crazy conjecture.  You don't have any evidence of this save for some speculation and a few uncontextualized quotes from Sanders.  (FTR, Sanders called and congratulated Clinton last night; and he also went home rather than continuing to campaign).  We'll see soon enough, whether your theory is true.   If Sanders drops out and campaigns for Clinton, will you be willing to scale this back?

 

And all the arguments you've made are the same arguments that have rationalized keeping the disenfranchised from voting for generations.   Really lazy, ignorant, entitled? What is this the Jim Crowe era?  Maybe we should only allow those who really prove their party loyalty to vote? Or those who have had to walk uphill both ways to the voting poll? Give me a break.  Again, if you think voting shouldn't be accommodating and accessible, you don't believe in democracy.  It's the same elites should rule argument the establishment has made for generations.  And I can't believe it's being made in this context.  Disappointing really. 

[nicksaviking]

Sanders' ideas for changing any kind of party system is hugely flawed though. An outsider is never going to be able to get the Senate, let alone the House, to do anything. Only an insider, who is viewed more moderately, would even be able to even approach this.

 

Unless his end goal is to subversively greatly influence Clinton, his whole schtick is going nowhere, and if that was his plan, he probably shouldn't say anything negative about her now, and he is.

 

Sanders has to know that A ) he can't win, and B ) if he were president, absolutely nothing would get accomplished and his presidency would only serve to throw the conservatives a life preserver when they are currently drowning. So I can't see how he isn't at least doing some damage to the party knowingly.

[Squirrel]

 

This is crazy to me.  The premise of Sanders campaign is to win the Democratic nomination, not destroy the Democratic party.  His outsider status can reflect frustration with the party without the implication that he wants burn it down; seriously that's crazy conjecture.  You don't have any evidence of this save for some speculation and a few uncontextualized quotes from Sanders.  (FTR, Sanders called and congratulated Clinton last night; and he also went home rather than continuing to campaign).  We'll see soon enough, whether your theory is true.   If Sanders drops out and campaigns for Clinton, will you be willing to scale this back?

 

And all the arguments you've made are the same arguments that have rationalized keeping the disenfranchised from voting for generations.   Really lazy, ignorant, entitled? What is this the Jim Crowe era?  Maybe we should only allow those who really prove their party loyalty to vote? Or those who have had to walk uphill both ways to the voting poll? Give me a break.  Again, if you think voting shouldn't be accommodating and accessible, you don't believe in democracy.  It's the same elites should rule argument the establishment has made for generations.  And I can't believe it's being made in this context.  Disappointing really. 

I find your attitude disappointing as well. Jim Crow? Seriously. Where were these arguments earlier in the process? They are coming out now after Sanders has lost decisively in NY. I have stated earlier that many of the primary processes are undemocratic ... most specifically, caucuses. The caucus system was formed during a time when only white men voted. Where were you during those discussion? The thing is, Sanders fairs better the more closed and inopportune the process, and worse when it's more open. Again, all this is being made into something after losing in NY.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I find your attitude disappointing as well. Jim Crow? Seriously. Where were these arguments earlier in the process? They are coming out now after Sanders has lost decisively in NY. I have stated earlier that many of the primary processes are undemocratic ... most specifically, caucuses. The caucus system was formed during a time when only white men voted. Where were you during those discussion? The thing is, Sanders fairs better the more closed and inopportune the process, and worse when it's more open. Again, all this is being made into something after losing in NY.

I'm not copping an attitude, at all. I'm suggesting that Sanders' sole reason for running is not to destroy the party.  You're being incendiary, not me.  We all get that you hate Sanders, but the conclusions you're drawing look like unfair conjecture to me. 

 

You're 'its not that complicated'/lazy, ignorant, entitled argument is exactly like the arguments made justifying literacy tests and other "easily overcame" barriers to voting.  It's an insulting argument to make.  And characterizes people who the NY process left out as somehow not worthy of voting.  

 

For my part, if open primaries or same-day registration works against Sanders, that's just fine, because I'm far more interested in a democratic process than my preferred horse winning the race undemocratically. 

[Squirrel]

 

I'm not copping an attitude, at all. I'm suggesting that Sanders' sole reason for running is not to destroy the party.  You're being incendiary, not me.  We all get that you hate Sanders, but the conclusions you're drawing look like unfair conjecture to me. 

 

You're 'its not that complicated'/lazy, ignorant, entitled argument is exactly like the arguments made justifying literacy tests and other "easily overcame" barriers to voting.  It's an insulting argument to make.  And characterizes people who the NY process left out as somehow not worthy of voting.  

 

For my part, if open primaries or same-day registration works against Sanders, that's just fine, because I'm far more interested in a democratic process than my preferred horse winning the race undemocratically. 

All I'm saying is that it is hypocritical of his supporters to claim suppression due to the process in this instance and not in all of the elections, particularly caucuses, and that is exactly what they are doing. And how was Sanders' campaign helping them along, to get them registered, and doing their part to educate in how the process works? The ones complaining are the ones who DID NOTHING up until the last minute and then wanted the process changed, on the spot, so it worked for them exactly at that moment and how they wanted it. Sorry, but that is not establishment suppression. One of the first things I did when I turned 18 was get a new driver's license and register to vote. And the latter was something that was encouraged in school as well as by my parents. Voting isn't just a right, it's a responsibility, some that these kids quickly crying 'foul' seem not to really understand. I'm glad they want to vote, but changing an entire election process at their whim, is an entitled and lazy attitude. Democracy takes work and responsibility. And maybe some of these people didn't feel like there was a reason before to be involved before this, or not even a reason to even understand how, but the election laws are not new. The fault doesn't lie with the parties for their disenfranchisement in this case, the fault lies with these voters crying foul.

 

As for Sanders, how do you explain a life-long politician, eschewing the parties throughout his career, suddenly becoming a member of one in order to run? How do you explain him now criticizing that process, one he full-well knew of, once he has a platform to stand on? I'm sorry, but this was part of his plan all along, and something that has become very clear to me during his campaign. When it doesn't work to his favor, point a finger at it and criticize. I used to like Bernie ... not so much lately. But I don't hate him. Don't characterize my dislike to an extreme.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Unless his end goal is to subversively greatly influence Clinton, his whole schtick is going nowhere, and if that was his plan, he probably shouldn't say anything negative about her now, and he is.

 

 

He has no valid reason for continuing this race unless he's trying to keep his supporters checked in.  But if that's his purpose - he needs to put the kiddie gloves on about Clinton.  As long as he keeps bashing her, he is hurting the Democratic Party the longer he stays in.  

 

And I tend to agree with any criticism of a voting process where you have to register so far in advance. All voting should be same day nation-wide.  

 

But c'mon Sanders bobos - your guy still got beat 3-1 in the black vote and 2-1 in the hispanic vote. The guy's voting block is as white as a Republican's.  That has been, and was always going to be, his undoing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think this nation is too big and populous to do a day-and-date nationwide nomination but it needs to be streamlined. Our current system is crap and more broken than not.

 

I'd like to see two or three nomination days, divided by region and population. Give the candidates 2-3 weeks to cover each region and then vote. Move on and repeat in the next region. Limit the entire process to no more than six weeks, preferably four.

 

And get rid of caucuses and closed primaries. Let everyone who wants to vote, vote.

[Squirrel]

 

I think this nation is too big and populous to do a day-and-date nationwide nomination but it needs to be streamlined. Our current system is crap and more broken than not.

 

I'd like to see two or three nomination days, divided by region and population. Give the candidates 2-3 weeks to cover each region and then vote. Move on and repeat in the next region. Limit the entire process to no more than six weeks, preferably four.

 

And get rid of caucuses and closed primaries. Let everyone who wants to vote, vote.

I'm still not in favor of open primaries. All that would do is encourage a 'rush to the middle' during the nominating process and I'd be concerned with who are you really getting. Someone who isn't really middle but is placating the middle? Or someone who is truly middle? Also, open primaries just invite spoiler voting and other shenanigans. That's the reason for closed primaries to begin with. While it doesn't cut down on all spoiler voting ... I don't know of a way to do that ... it eliminates the most egregious of that. But I'm all in favor of streamlining the process and not have it go on so long. It's ridiculous to say the least. And I'm more in favor of truly establishing more than two parties, but still keeping primaries closed. If you want to vote for so and so in the socialist primary, then register to vote socialist, and so on down the line, so whichever candidate wins that party's nomination truly represents that party and whatever platform that party stands for.

 

[Craig Arko]

I'm in favor of the Thunderdome method of determining a nominee. Not limited to men (possibly not even to humans), of course.

 

Two candidates enter, one candidate leaves. Repeat as needed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm still not in favor of open primaries. All that would do is encourage a 'rush to the middle' during the nominating process and I'd be concerned with who are you really getting. Someone who isn't really middle but is placating the middle? Or someone who is truly middle? Also, open primaries just invite spoiler voting and other shenanigans. That's the reason for closed primaries to begin with. While it doesn't cut down on all spoiler voting ... I don't know of a way to do that ... it eliminates the most egregious of that. But I'm all in favor of streamlining the process and not have it go on so long. It's ridiculous to say the least. And I'm more in favor of truly establishing more than two parties, but still keeping primaries closed. If you want to vote for so and so in the socialist primary, then register to vote socialist, and so on down the line, so whichever candidate wins that party's nomination truly represents that party and whatever platform that party stands for.

Closed primaries work much better if there are more than two options, I can agree with that.

 

But in the current system where I flat-out refuse to align myself with a party, I get no say in the process, even though I plan on voting for a specific party in this election.

[Squirrel]

Closed primaries work much better if there are more than two options, I can agree with that.

 

But in the current system where I flat-out refuse to align myself with a party, I get no say in the process, even though I plan on voting for a specific party in this election.

Then register for that particular party this election, and change it for the next if need be. While that's not the best solution, that still allows you to participate by voting. If you just can't stomach having that D or R by your name, there are other ways to participate. Get out and really work for the candidate of your choice, get involved. Volunteering for a specific campaign doesn't mean you are aligned with any particular party, but you are still participating in the process. There is never going to be one solution that pleases everyone, but I don't think open primaries are the best course. Why have primaries at all then and just have one big election, and then a run off between the top two vote getters, regardless of party. That's how the Chicago mayor is elected. If someone wins by certain margin, there isn't even a run off.

[Badsmerf]

Chitown, I'm honestly astounded by your stance on these issues. Sanders has ignited some issues that will not be ignored. Trump is also hitting on some of the same topics about the establishment. Perhaps the most troubling part of your posts has been labeling independent voters. America is changing. My generation is completely different than past status quo complacency. Watch the closed primary system dissolve by the next election. I guarantee it.

[ashbury]

My generation is completely different than past status quo complacency.

[Craig Arko]

 

Although to be fair, that was an anti-war protest and not an election campaign.

 

For that, you need to go back to 1968, and MLK, Bobby Kennedy, and the Democratic National Convention (in Chicago).

 

 

[Squirrel]

 

Chitown, I'm honestly astounded by your stance on these issues. Sanders has ignited some issues that will not be ignored. Trump is also hitting on some of the same topics about the establishment. Perhaps the most troubling part of your posts has been labeling independent voters. America is changing. My generation is completely different than past status quo complacency. Watch the closed primary system dissolve by the next election. I guarantee it.

When Sanders got into this race, I was fine with it and thought, 'Well, good for him. This will be interesting.' And I waited to see before making a decision who to go with. And I'm not opposed at all with the issues he's raising, although I do question some of his solutions. I don't think he really has a coherent plan that will work. But now you have his campaign manager who is saying they will stay in it all the way through the convention; and, further, that they will be trying to get the super delegates to vote for him so that he will be the nominee in November., despite Hillary having the most delegates and the popular vote. So, he's going to continue being divisive and undermine what voters want ... how is that democracy? How is that Sanders not wanting to take down the party? While I'm not one that thinks things need to stay the same, and they aren't. I grew up during Vietnam, I know what involvement is; I might have been younger, but I was still old enough and aware of what was going on; I have been going to meetings, marches, parades at various points my whole life, and know many others who have as well; I have worked for candidates I've liked; I've voted for others that I don't because the other is worse; I've volunteered and given my time and energies, and when I could afford it (more so now that I am older) to causes I've believed in ... do NOT lump me, or anyone else here who might be older, into a category of past status quo complacency. My 87 yr old mother could run circles around any one of you for all the work that she has done in her lifetime. Just because her energies went toward a particular party, one she believed in ... does not make her status quo establishment, either. You have no idea what she and others like her have done to better the lives of those around her. It's not the past who has been complacent. While I am all for change, I while I agree that things are broken and need fixing, I don't think the answer is to just tear it all down for the sake of tearing it all down, because it's not how some ... a minority of people, who think they know better ... like it. As for the voters in NY who are crying 'foul' over the election laws in that state, because they all of a sudden realized they either weren't registered correctly or at all, shame on them. Maybe next time they'll know better because they will have learned what they need to do. This nomination process has been going on a very long time ... well over a year at this time ... and NY is at the tail end of it. For them to not know dates and times of when and where and how ... that I'm sure were well publicized there as it is here ... that's on them. They are the ones who have been so complacent, so much so that they didn't even know what to do and failed to do it, ... maybe now they'll wake up and start working towards change. And maybe by next time, there will be a different system in place, don't know. 

[Craig Arko]

Vive la revolución.

[Squirrel]

 

Vive la revolución.

And a woman president would be revolutionary indeed! I remember in 1972, when I was 10 years old, going door to door ... yes, door to door as a 10 yr old ... handing out literature and asking for voters to consider supporting this candidate ... a woman ... and having middle-aged white men slam the door in my face, or worse, yelling at me, saying how they weren't going to vote for 'no God-damned woman,' ... having a woman president, finally, after 40+ years of that incident ... this will be revolutionary indeed.

[Craig Arko]

 

And a woman president would be revolutionary indeed! I remember in 1972, when I was 10 years old, going door to door ... yes, door to door as a 10 yr old ... handing out literature and asking for voters to consider supporting this candidate ... a woman ... and having middle-aged white men slam the door in my face, or worse, yelling at me, saying how they weren't going to vote for 'no God-damned woman,' ... having a woman president, finally, after 40+ years of that incident ... this will be revolutionary indeed.

Yes, The American Experiment (aka The Revolution) is ready to take that logical step. I hope it works out well.

 

My apologies for the rudeness of my fellow citizens. Kick them in the nuts.

[Squirrel]

 

Yes, The American Experiment (aka The Revolution) is ready to take that logical step. I hope it works out well.

 

My apologies for the rudeness of my fellow citizens. Kick them in the nuts.

Lol ... and what purpose would that serve, but to ensure their hatred toward my kind continues? No, I'll fight my fight without violence.

[Craig Arko]

 

Lol ... and what purpose would that serve, but to ensure their hatred toward my kind continues? No, I'll fight my fight without violence.

You have chosen... wisely.

[Squirrel]

 

You have chosen... wisely.

I choose wisely because I am wise.

[Craig Arko]

 

I choose wisely because I am wise.

One outta two ain't bad.