2016 Election Thread

[Badsmerf]

I'm not labeling you by any means. Progress comes at different times, and in different areas. I'm not a huge Sanders fan, but i believe in the message that our systems are unfair right now. There has been separate issues to fight for that have taken priority. That is a better way to put it than complacency. Whether you want to admit it or not, Clinton represents the establishment.

 

I would just be patient to see what happens after next week when Sanders is all but mathematically eliminated. Voters aren't completely ignorant, and will know that any vitriol from him at that point is pointless. He should stay in the entire time. Why is it such a big deal he tries to sway super delegates? They came out in support of Clinton before he had any momentum.

 

This is almost all hypothetical from the Sanders campaign. As long as they start fighting more nicely, he isn't a problem to Clinton. He keeps her in the news and these issues fresh. Like everyone has said, the news focusing on trump would be terrible for Clinton.

[Squirrel]

I love Garrison Keillor:

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/04/no_dementia_for_president_plea.html

[Squirrel]

 

I'm not labeling you by any means. Progress comes at different times, and in different areas. I'm not a huge Sanders fan, but i believe in the message that our systems are unfair right now. There has been separate issues to fight for that have taken priority. That is a better way to put it than complacency. Whether you want to admit it or not, Clinton represents the establishment.

I would just be patient to see what happens after next week when Sanders is all but mathematically eliminated. Voters aren't completely ignorant, and will know that any vitriol from him at that point is pointless. He should stay in the entire time. Why is it such a big deal he tries to sway super delegates? They came out in support of Clinton before he had any momentum.

This is almost all hypothetical from the Sanders campaign. As long as they start fighting more nicely, he isn't a problem to Clinton. He keeps her in the news and these issues fresh. Like everyone has said, the news focusing on trump would be terrible for Clinton.

I'm curious ... what does 'establishment' mean to you? Having a party system at all?

 

As for Hillary being part of the 'establishment,' maybe. But I look at it a little differently. She is most definitely not part of the same establishment that Harry Reid and John Kerry are from, or even Obama, to an extent ... far from it.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm pretty sure "establishment" has taken over the title of "most used word that doesn't mean a damn thing"

[Squirrel]

I'm pretty sure "establishment" has taken over the title of "most used word that doesn't mean a damn thing"

I just think it means different things depending on who you talk to ... and I'm not dismissing anyone or anything, but it's become such a generic word to use whenever you don't like what currently is. There has always been this 'fight' against 'establishment' my entire life.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I just think it means different things depending on who you talk to ... and I'm not dismissing anyone or anything, but it's become such a generic word to use whenever you don't like what currently is. There has always been this 'fight' against 'establishment' my entire life.

 

Republicans and Democrats and pundits all drop the term incessantly in all sorts of contexts.  It's basically meaningless at this point.

 

That's not to say what you're arguing against may not have merit if you use the word, but you're choosing a term that means almost nothing.

[Willihammer]

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?

But the reason she has the popular vote (part of the reason anyway) is because of those voting laws and closed primaries.

In New York, voters had to register by October 9th. Before the first Dem debate even. Its pretty archaic.

[Willihammer]

Side note, Phyllis Kahn is on her way out after 44 years. She had some cooky ideas but one of her accomplishments was pushing through same day registration, I'll always give her credit for that.

 

We should want people with lives to be the ones deciding elections. Not the folks who have aligned themselves to a party months (more likely years) in advance.

[Squirrel]

 

But the reason she has the popular vote (part of the reason anyway) is because of those voting laws and closed primaries.
In New York, voters had to register by October 9th. Before the first Dem debate even. Its pretty archaic.

Not if you were a new voter; you had until 2-3 weeks before. You had to register by Oct. 15 to switch parties. Still ... how long has this been in play? A long time. These aren't new laws in NY, and this primary season has been going on well over a year. Do I think there should be changes? Absolutely. But there is no excuse for people not knowing the voting laws and have themselves to blame for not getting around to it in time. Their ambivalence to voting is part of the problem, but it's their ambivalence that is the problem and not some grander scheme to suppress votes. But each state has their own election laws. If there is blame to pass around here, it's not on either national party ... it's on those who represent NY on the state level. Should there be national laws here and everyone have the same? I think so. Still, there is no reason for people not to have known what was what for this election. If they can't stomach the D or R by their names for a short amount of time in order to vote, well, that's another whole can of worms and their choice.

 

And if all those caucus states were open, or even closed primaries, would Sanders have won? There's a big question mark there, too. Caucuses are far worse, imo. Closed primaries at least serve the purpose of trying to curtail spoiler voting, and still gives anyone who wants to, an opportunity to vote. The disenfranchisement of voters in caucus states is far more egregious. Primaries are a completely different thing from general elections. Frankly, and I've said this before, the only way to get people more involved is to have more than two major parties to choose from. Again ... where was the outcry in this prior to NY? It's only because Sanders lost that people are crying 'foul.'

[Squirrel]

 

 

Side note, Phyllis Kahn is on her way out after 44 years. She had some cooky ideas but one of her accomplishments was pushing through same day registration, I'll always give her credit for that.

We should want people with lives to be the ones deciding elections. Not the folks who have aligned themselves to a party months (more likely years) in advance.

Same day registration is great in theory. But have you ever served as an election judge? In a small community it wouldn't be as much a problem, but in a huge city like NY or Chicago, with densely populated precincts? People show up with the wrong kinds of ID's or no IDs at all, no neighbors to vouch for them, no bills, nothing to indicate they are a permanent resident where they say they are, students who have out of state IDs wanting to register locally. While I think registration laws should be made easier, and access to registration made easier, same-day registration can be a big mess. And, again, in NY, you can't just change the laws in place that same day to accommodate those who didn't act sooner.

[Badsmerf]

I think you have it wrong about it only being an issue because Sanders lost. It is an issue because a) a large number of independent voters were not able to vote Sanders does very well with independents and it hurt his numbers c) the system is set up to exclude people. With a 2 party system, if people aren't free to vote their candidate into the final pool it no longer sounds Democratic to me.

 

More people are paying attention to this primary cycle than in years past. It's hard to change something when people making the decisions are benefiting from it. I believe more people are becoming aware of these problems, and change will happen.

[TheLeviathan]

I love same day registration, I think anything less is really un-democratic to be frank.

[PseudoSABR]

Has Sanders even said anything negative about Clinton since New York? I read all the news sites and check multiple political blogs and there's no new stories about Bernie being derisive against Clinton.   And really, beyond the 'unqualified' remark (which I do understand is a low-blow, that misrepresents what is real criticism, why couldn't he just have used more precise phrasing that her vote on the Iraq war and speaking fees were 'disqualifying'; she's clearly qualified for the job, though the some aspects of her past might eliminate her for consideration for some), has Bernie been overtly derisive?  

 

Again, Bernie called Clinton to congratulate her on her NY victory, something neither had been doing over the past month or so; and he stopped campaigning that night.  That certainly doesn't look like he's trying to take down the party. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm pretty sure "establishment" has taken over the title of "most used word that doesn't mean a damn thing"

It does have meaning in the context of the conversation at hand.  How else should we refer to party-elites/insiders?  Perhaps as "people who really deserve to get elected because they abide by the rules they wrote themselves"? 

 

I get that railing against the 'establishment' on the campaign trail just creates a faceless boogie man, but when we talk about accessibility to choosing a nominee for president, there are certainly establishments that make such accessibility prohibitive. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Maybe next time they'll know better because they will have learned what they need to do.

Why make voting difficult at all? What should the voting process necessitate failing at it in order to learn how to do it correctly?   Again, these are barriers designed to leave people out.   There's no good reason for having party-affiliation switch 6 months ahead of the election. And its no justification for the policy to suggest that people should have known about the policy.  

 

The poor and the young (esp. college students) are often left on the margins by such rules as they have less stability in terms of residency and less familiarity with the process.   This isn't welfare, this is voting a right independent of how hard some has worked or what someone knows.   Voting isn't just for those who work hard and who know what they should, and it's anti-democratic to argue otherwise.

 

[PseudoSABR]

If I had my druthers, we'd hold open primaries over a four month period in several week intervals, where the order of states would rotate on a election-cycle basis.  Moreover, no party primaries, just one primary per state.  And at the end of the primary season the two top candidates would enter a run-off for the Presidency regardless of party affiliation.  No party conventions, no 'nomination' process.   I'd love to see the five remaining candidates debate on one stage.  And if the top two candidates are from one party, so be it.  Allow more people to get involved in that choice, rather than just the party itself.   (Given that the Democrats are the odds on favorite to win the presidency no matter the candidate, I'm sure the rest of America would like to weigh in on that choice.

[Squirrel]

 

Why make voting difficult at all? What should the voting process necessitate failing at it in order to learn how to do it correctly?   Again, these are barriers designed to leave people out.   There's no good reason for having party-affiliation switch 6 months ahead of the election. And its no justification for the policy to suggest that people should have known about the policy.  

 

The poor and the young (esp. college students) are often left on the margins by such rules as they have less stability in terms of residency and less familiarity with the process.   This isn't welfare, this is voting a right independent of how hard some has worked or what someone knows.   Voting isn't just for those who work hard and who know what they should, and it's anti-democratic to argue otherwise.

No, they aren't, Pseudo. These laws have been in place for a long time ... it's NOT difficult. Turn 18, go register to vote. An election is coming up ... and this primary season has been going on for OVER A YEAR ... go register. I get cards in the mail well before deadlines reminding me to register if I haven't, or telling me how I am currently registered so I can change my party designation if I want to, and, again, giving me the deadlines. And telling me when and where I can do these things, and what the hours are, and what I need to register or change registration. These things are designed to get people up to date and in the know so they can be ready. I can't imagine that New York handles things that differently than Illinois, but these processes are well outlined and well publicized here. Too many people just take voting for granted. It's not just a right but is also a responsibility. While, yes, perhaps there are things that New York, and other states, can do and should do to make it easier, but this was not a case of voter suppression. This was a case of many people not knowing what to do when or where and not taking the steps to do so timely. Same day voter registration is a mess in a densely populated area, and if you've ever been an election judge you'd know this. But to ask for an immediate change to laws, on the day, doesn't point to suppression but points to persons not taking the responsibilities to get it done and wanting, once again, to have things immediate and handed to them because they can't be bothered otherwise.

 

Things HAVE changed here to allow for greater voting ... early voting, open polling places during early voting, more notification, publicizing how, when, where ... but you have to take the steps to register and vote. Again, NOT suppression.

[PseudoSABR]

So the people that get left out by the process, just too bad for them, huh? You keep saying that people aren't left out, but they are, and you assume that it's their own fault.  There's a whole swath of our population (usually supporters of the Democratic party) who don't have stable residences, have informational barriers, and lack resources to enable them to abide by the registration requirements.  Why do you think Democrats typically rail against Voting ID laws, etc.? 

 

It's just crazy to me that you're using the conservative/Republican argument to justify the imposition of voting barriers.  This is exact kind arguments they make: it's not too hard to get a Voting ID, if they really care they can do it, ignorance of the rule is no excuse, they had enough time, they should have been paying attention sooner, blah, blah, bleh.  (Next you'll bring up voter-fraud!)

 

If same-day registration is a logistical mess; you fix it, you don't get rid of it.  Democracy is more important than saving the party costs.  I wish we'd nationalize the damn process, so these wouldn't be excuses. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Things HAVE changed here to allow for greater voting ... early voting, open polling places during early voting, more notification, publicizing how, when, where ... but you have to take the steps to register and vote. Again, NOT suppression.

 

I agree, it's not suppression, but when I first moved to Chicago I didn't have residency at a place long enough (bouncing around as a graduate student) to get registered.  It cost me voting in one election.  

 

I was so pleasantly surprised when I came back to Minnesota how easy we make it here.  It should be that easy everywhere.  We should WANT people to vote, not see how many hurdles we can throw in their path.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It does have meaning in the context of the conversation at hand.  How else should we refer to party-elites/insiders?  Perhaps as "people who really deserve to get elected because they abide by the rules they wrote themselves"? 

 

I get that railing against the 'establishment' on the campaign trail just creates a faceless boogie man, but when we talk about accessibility to choosing a nominee for president, there are certainly establishments that make such accessibility prohibitive. 

 

I don't disagree with your point, I will never register for a party simply because of how much I hate how they rig the system to keep out third parties and prop themselves up.  The two parties have a chokehold on things to a degree that I'll never support.

 

My comment was more about that faceless boggie man.  That's what it sounds like every time Sanders or Cruz or anyone else makes that comment.  Hell, I heard my ultra-conservative grandfather use that remark and all I could think is "you ARE the establishment of the Republican party"  It's a really meaningless term right now.

 

I think what you're railing against - the two parties rigging the system against outside influence/ideas - is valid.  The message is just getting lost in the terms I'm afraid.

[Squirrel]

 

I agree, it's not suppression, but when I first moved to Chicago I didn't have residency at a place long enough (bouncing around as a graduate student) to get registered.  It cost me voting in one election.  

 

I was so pleasantly surprised when I came back to Minnesota how easy we make it here.  It should be that easy everywhere.  We should WANT people to vote, not see how many hurdles we can throw in their path.

Chicago has changed a lot, too, in recent years. And, frankly, more could be done, everywhere. But it's not a case of voter suppression. I also have lost a vote here and there because of moving (in and out of country), but that was a while ago now. Now, what happened in Arizona ... they should redo that election ... that was definitely a case of new laws designed intentionally to make it more difficult. The thing is, you can't pick and choose based on how your candidate did. If NY is a case for this, then I'd want to redo Michigan, too ... and every single caucus state. What I find hypocritical is the 'outrage' of this from supporters in one state, and not in others ... in the state Sanders lost but not in the states he won.

[Squirrel]

 

So the people that get left out by the process, just too bad for them, huh? You keep saying that people aren't left out, but they are, and you assume that it's their own fault.  There's a whole swath of our population (usually supporters of the Democratic party) who don't have stable residences, have informational barriers, and lack resources to enable them to abide by the registration requirements.  Why do you think Democrats typically rail against Voting ID laws, etc.? 

 

It's just crazy to me that you're using the conservative/Republican argument to justify the imposition of voting barriers.  This is exact kind arguments they make: it's not too hard to get a Voting ID, if they really care they can do it, ignorance of the rule is no excuse, they had enough time, they should have been paying attention sooner, blah, blah, bleh.  (Next you'll bring up voter-fraud!)

 

If same-day registration is a logistical mess; you fix it, you don't get rid of it.  Democracy is more important than saving the party costs.  I wish we'd nationalize the damn process, so these wouldn't be excuses. 

Pseudo, I'm sorry, but get a grip. You are taking an extreme point of view and making mine extreme in another direction. I'm speaking specifically of New York and various supporters railing against the system because they weren't prepared. I'm sorry, but that's what it was and was not an example of voter suppression. If what happened there is so egregious to warrant another election, then there should be redos in every. single. state. Especially the states that hold caucuses, which is even worse, by far. Why are you not railing against those states, huh? Maybe you are the one who should look in the mirror when you start lecturing me about Democracy. And you are trying to paint what happened in New York as an intentional fault of a party. It's the laws of New York and they are not nationally mandated. And maybe they should be.

 

And election costs are NOT paid by the party, they are paid by the states. And you obviously have never served as an election judge. Same-day registration is simple not viable in densely populated areas ... and it's not a cost matter, it would be a mess. But should that stop any state from making things easier? No, absolutely not. There are ways to get people registered ahead of time and everything should be done to do so. But come on ... some of this is the responsibility of the voter.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

If the topic-at-hand was caucuses and the anti-democratic abuses that happened within them, you're damn right I'd rail against them.   The thing is you're not giving an inch.  You're denigrating the people left out and you are the one making extreme arguments about Bernie trying to destroy the Democratic party. Get a grip? Seriously, don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.  This discussion has allowed you to take some ugly positions and say some ugly things - I'll stop participating as it's going no where.

[Shane Wahl]

The "divisiveness" of Sanders is pretty overblown. The "unqualified" remark was really about her unethical policies regarding war and catering to the wealthy.

She is not being harmed, at all, by his continuing to run. He isn't going to take this through the convention. Come on.

 

If anything, having to campaign merely helps Clinton. As it helped Obama when *Clinton* continued to run in 2008.

[Mike Sixel]

Kasich was staying at the same hotel as me in CT last night. I almost talked to some of his staffers late nite in the bar, to compare stories from now vs way back when I worked on Dole's campaign. But, I was REALLY tired....I know that's not a very interesting story. But, I'm a bit fatigued with the campaign right now.

[Squirrel]

 

Kasich was staying at the same hotel as me in CT last night. I almost talked to some of his staffers late nite in the bar, to compare stories from now vs way back when I worked on Dole's campaign. But, I was REALLY tired....I know that's not a very interesting story. But, I'm a bit fatigued with the campaign right now.

I think we all are. I know I am and have been for months now. They need to change this cycle. It's too much and I think it turns more people off from voting and/or participating in other ways.

[Badsmerf]

Bush stayed at the same as me in December. Funny to think he was considered a top candidate back then. He also had a huge staff with him.

[nicksaviking]

Bush stayed at the same as me in December. Funny to think he was considered a top candidate back then. He also had a huge staff with him.

It's not the size of your staff that matters, so I'm told.

 

And so Bush found out it seems.

[Craig Arko]

"There are some bad people in the world, and we shouldn’t be facilitating putting little girls alone in a bathroom with grown adult men. That is just a bad, bad, bad idea."

—Ted Cruz, explaining why he favors putting little boys alone in a bathroom with grown adult men.

[nicksaviking]

At this point we may have no choice but to make bathrooms labeled "Sex Offender" and "Non-Sex Offender".

 

Though to hear guys like Cruz talk, the lines for the "Sex Offender" room might be too long.