2016 Election Thread

[Badsmerf]

Well i plan to vote for Gary Johnson ( i didn't get to vote in that primary, so I can only cross my fingers). Whatever happens with the election doesn't really matter. We still have crooked congress to rely on.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 Whatever happens with the election doesn't really matter. 

I think the act of voting can be considered rhetorical, rather than intended to affect the way our government gets stuff done in the short term.   The results of the election might not change policy over the next cycle, but it could signal quite a bit about the trajectory of our politics.   For better or worse.  I think people will be motivated to vote.

[Squirrel]

 

Well i plan to vote for Gary Johnson ( i didn't get to vote in that primary, so I can only cross my fingers). Whatever happens with the election doesn't really matter. We still have crooked congress to rely on.

Well, SCOTUS. I think that matters, especially given some of the decisions prior to Scalia's death. While some here don't think of that as any kind of voting priority, I do; always have. Well, I have in the recent decades. I'll vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, and work to support Democratic Senate candidates and hopefully overturn the Senate. The house ... not sure what can be done. They've gerrymandered it enough that I think it stays pretty much where it is ... and vowing to block everything it can.

[Craig Arko]

The O.S.A. - Obstructionist States of America.

[ashbury]

The O.S.A. - Obstructionist States of America.

As the Framers intended it. They were as fearful of the tyranny of the majority as they were of His Majesty.  Legislation in their view should be easy only if some sort of super-majority is on board regarding the issue.

[stringer bell]

If Clinton is elected, there will be obstruction, even if there is a narrow majority in both houses of Congress, there will be enough to block just about any legislation. If Trump were somehow able to win, it would mean the trifecta for Republicans. I don't want to see that again in my lifetime.

[Squirrel]

 

If Clinton is elected, there will be obstruction, even if there is a narrow majority in both houses of Congress, there will be enough to block just about any legislation. If Trump were somehow able to win, it would mean the trifecta for Republicans. I don't want to see that again in my lifetime.

I'm not sure either is true. As for the trifecta, I think the Dems will take back the Senate this election. (Well, probably will lose it in midterms as that is their calling card.) As for obstruction from the House, with Bernie as president, yes, there will be. How he wants to institute his programs will meet with a LOT of push back and Bernie is like Trump in one aspect ... he's a 'my way or the highway' candidate. And while some might think it's staying his ground, and not giving a 'moral' inch, the result is nothing accomplished. It's kind of how his entire career in Congress has gone. I have no faith that with him as president, it will be any different. Clinton on the other hand, is a warrior. She'll push back, too, and she'll work to get things done. She knows how to compromise, and in true fashion will be characterized as giving in, but while it won't get her as far as some people want, it will at least be incremental progress vs none at all.

[PseudoSABR]

Why would the Republicans in Congress be more willing to work with Clinton than Obama on anything resembling a progressive bill?  I don't think it particularly matters if it would be Sanders or Clinton, the GOP in Congress will hold the line.  The GOP is hardly eager to compromise, Clinton would have to concede more than half way to get them board, likely neutering any progress that could be made. 

 

Our best hope is that GOPs margin in the house is very thin, and Clinton wins with a mandate; in that scenario she may be able to push things through Congress in the first six months.  But after that, it will be the same ole GOP ballgame.

[PseudoSABR]

 

As the Framers intended it. They were as fearful of the tyranny of the majority as they were of His Majesty.  Legislation in their view should be easy only if some sort of super-majority is on board regarding the issue.

I think you're conflating the Framer's fear of the populace with the rigors of legislation.  

 

The Framers (and let's remember they are diverse and disparate group) didn't intend for obstructionism; although they were cynical of the voting majority.  The framers certainly created a rigorous process for bill-passage: bicameralism (needing both houses) and presentment (President's signature), but framers enabled a mere majority of votes in each house for a bill to survive.   There are specialized cases where super-majority is necessary to proceed with legislation, but the framers certainly didn't use a super-majority as their baseline.   The Framers fear of the populace shows up not in the rigors legislation but in things like the Electoral college and how the Senate was once selected (by state legislators).  

[TheLeviathan]

 

If Clinton is elected, there will be obstruction, even if there is a narrow majority in both houses of Congress, there will be enough to block just about any legislation. If Trump were somehow able to win, it would mean the trifecta for Republicans. I don't want to see that again in my lifetime.

 

I don't think the house obstruction ends with the election of any of the candidates still in the race. Trump included.

[Mike Sixel]

Predictably, Republicans can't wait to fall all over themselves to endorse Trump now, even though they don't really believe he is qualified. If only someone in this country would put the good of the country first.......

[Craig Arko]

 

Predictably, Republicans can't wait to fall all over themselves to endorse Trump now, even though they don't really believe he is qualified. If only someone in this country would put the good of the country first.......

Including, unfortunately, most of the citizenry.

 

What was that phrase the Romans used? "Bread and Circuses."

[Squirrel]

 

Why would the Republicans in Congress be more willing to work with Clinton than Obama on anything resembling a progressive bill?  I don't think it particularly matters if it would be Sanders or Clinton, the GOP in Congress will hold the line.  The GOP is hardly eager to compromise, Clinton would have to concede more than half way to get them board, likely neutering any progress that could be made. 

 

Our best hope is that GOPs margin in the house is very thin, and Clinton wins with a mandate; in that scenario she may be able to push things through Congress in the first six months.  But after that, it will be the same ole GOP ballgame.

Maybe you're right, but I still think Clinton is better suited to navigate her way through and make some progress even if small and incremental. I just think Sanders' solutions would also 'scare' the GOP into being less likely to budge at all towards any progress whatsoever, even if small.

 

But I agree that if Clinton wins large in November, and the Dems can take the Senate and narrow the margin in the House, that larger progress can be made if acted upon in the 1st 6 months.

 

 

[stringer bell]

With the high negatives both Hill and the Donald have, I can't see a mandate unless the Republicans or Bernie do something stupid and run as a third party. The obvious answer to Pseudo's question about working with Clinton over Obama is because she is white. I don't necessarily believe that myself.

 

If Trump wins the election, the GOP would likely increase their already lopsided margins in both houses. I then would have more worries than Sano's defense in right field and if Buxton will even learn to hit a breaking ball.

[nicksaviking]

 

Maybe you're right, but I still think Clinton is better suited to navigate her way through and make some progress even if small and incremental. I just think Sanders' solutions would also 'scare' the GOP into being less likely to budge at all towards any progress whatsoever, even if small.

 

But I agree that if Clinton wins large in November, and the Dems can take the Senate and narrow the margin in the House, that larger progress can be made if acted upon in the 1st 6 months.

 

I also think that despite the gender stereotypes, Clinton has always been seen as more of a back-room, cigar and whiskey, handshake kind of a politician. Perhaps she won't be able to get anything done, but in 2008, this was one of the talking points as to why she was a better fit than Obama.

 

 

[formerly33]

 

Predictably, Republicans can't wait to fall all over themselves to endorse Trump now, even though they don't really believe he is qualified. If only someone in this country would put the good of the country first.......

Obviously, the well being of our country depends on having a Republican in the White House.

[Badsmerf]

I thought you were going with "a good bourbon" in the white house. Disappointed.

[ashbury]

Maybe you're right, but I still think Clinton is better suited to navigate her way through and make some progress even if small and incremental.

The time for compromise is over. Now we need to get the country on the right track, once and for all.

 

 

 

Trouble is, the various factions disagree over what the right track is. I count about five main factions, each with somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of the voting public, having the following as their core principle above all others: 1) those who would put the country on an explicitly Christian footing, 2) those who would put the country on an unfettered free-enterprise model, 3) those who would put the country on a fully socialist path, 4) those who would put the country on a nativist mode favoring European lineage, 5) those who would continue a mushy status quo with little tweaks here and there to improve perceived justice. On particular issues there is room for these factions to work together, sometimes. In the main, though, the majority feels the country is headed in the wrong direction.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It is surprising to me we have a republican nominee before the democratic nominee. 

 

This will be the first presidential ticket I don't vote Republican. I have to hope for a 3rd party run or I'll just write in a candidate so I can still be a part of the process. Very disappointing for me.

 

There have been good 3rd party candidates for years.  You have to actually go out and vote for them, not wait for someone to tell you they are viable.  The system rigged.  No one will ever tell you they are viable unless an insider like Romney or someone with billions to self finance an election forces it...

 

Your one vote won't change an election.  Vote for the person that you think will do the best job, regardless of whether they have an R or D after their name.  I've been doing it since 2004.  It isn't hard. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Where that is an option, I agree. When instead one of the evils is virtually certain to be chosen, distinctions must be made.

 

No it doesn't.  That's group think.  You're just part of the problem at that point and not part of the solution.  Your one vote won't fix it.  Dare to be different.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Predictably, Republicans can't wait to fall all over themselves to endorse Trump now, even though they don't really believe he is qualified. If only someone in this country would put the good of the country first.......

 

That starts with us.  We keep voting for these clowns.  Do you really expect anything different when the people keep sending them to DC?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

With the high negatives both Hill and the Donald have, I can't see a mandate unless the Republicans or Bernie do something stupid and run as a third party. The obvious answer to Pseudo's question about working with Clinton over Obama is because she is white. I don't necessarily believe that myself.

 

If Trump wins the election, the GOP would likely increase their already lopsided margins in both houses. I then would have more worries than Sano's defense in right field and if Buxton will even learn to hit a breaking ball.

 

Not a fan of Trump, but he probably is the lesser of two evils.  But if you want to see a mandate, watch what happens when one of the parties loses a closely contested election and a 3rd party takes 5% of the vote.  You want to see change, that will change things. 

 

But it really doesn't matter who wins at this point, we all have some pretty big worries with regards to our country's future.  We made this mess by being sheeple or just flat out staying home.  We need to take back DC, and we need to do it soon.

[ashbury]

No it doesn't.  That's group think.  You're just part of the problem at that point and not part of the solution.  Your one vote won't fix it.  Dare to be different.

That one vote won't fix it if I do it the third party way either.

 

I don't have to be engaging in group think, to opt for one group over the other, imperfect as either one may be. It's just thinking.

[ashbury]

We need to take back DC

This is exactly what Ted Cruz supporters are saying. It is what Bernie Sanders supporters are saying. It is what Rand Paul people are saying, but at the same time what the nativist portion of Donald Trump supporters are saying. Hillary Clinton supporters are thinking it too. Don't you see the futility in this form of rhetoric, "take back our country"? From whom, and who gets to be the "we"? Because apparently you aren't too keen on the "we" that has gotten us to this point in time.

[Craig Arko]

Take back D.C.? And then give it back to the Piscataway. Seems like a fair plan.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That one vote won't fix it if I do it the third party way either.

 

I don't have to be engaging in group think, to opt for one group over the other, imperfect as either one may be. It's just thinking.

 

Got it... so vote for a candidate you know is a piece of crap because they have a better shot at winning?  That makes a ton of sense. 

 

Look, if you're a firm believer that Hillary or Donald are what's best for America, then by all means, vote for them.  If you're voting for one b/c they aren't the other, then you're doing something wrong. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

This is exactly what Ted Cruz supporters are saying. It is what Bernie Sanders supporters are saying. It is what Rand Paul people are saying, but at the same time what the nativist portion of Donald Trump supporters are saying. Hillary Clinton supporters are thinking it too. Don't you see the futility in this form of rhetoric, "take back our country"? From whom, and who gets to be the "we"? Because apparently you aren't too keen on the "we" that has gotten us to this point in time.

 

When I say take back DC, that means dumping the career politicians.  It means canning just about everyone with an R or D after their name.  This country's problems aren't going to be solved until the people wake up and do this. 

[nicksaviking]

 

Got it... so vote for a candidate you know is a piece of crap because they have a better shot at winning?  That makes a ton of sense. 

 

Look, if you're a firm believer that Hillary or Donald are what's best for America, then by all means, vote for them.  If you're voting for one b/c they aren't the other, then you're doing something wrong. 

 

Voting for someone who isn't running and isn't willing to take office doesn't make any sense either.

[twinsnorth49]

 

When I say take back DC, that means dumping the career politicians.  It means canning just about everyone with an R or D after their name.  This country's problems aren't going to be solved until the people wake up and do this. 

And doing what with it? Who's responsible for it being in the state it is today, the politicians? 

 

"Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone". - Pope Benedict 

 

I don't see that as a pervasive attitude in America and it's not entirely the fault of the politicians. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gunnarthor]

Obviously, I have not kept up with this thread but this was floating around my facebook all weekend and seems appropriate enough to share.