2016 Election Thread

[Squirrel]

 

So if Bernie beats the Republicans by 10 to 20 points, you really are maintaining that won't have an effect down-ticket.  (And can we get some support/links for some of these assertions; both you and Dave are generalizing and making broad statements of fact without making the effort to support it.  The things you are assuming are true, I'm not sure actually are.

 

You're discounting the value of having a mandate from the voting public; this notion that Democratic Congress would impede Bernie's agenda is absurd, and if it were the case, well, we need new democrats.  And the notion that Clinton would have an easy time dealing with a Republican Congress is also absurd.  The Republicans will equally impede who ever the nominee is.  Sure Clinton might be more willing to appease them (but that's not necessarily a good thing).

 

Honestly, this line of thinking is the same one that gets liberals negotiating at the 50 yard-line.  I'm sick of it. 

Congress is not a Democratic Congress. That was my point. It's not and it won't be. He will not alter in that change. If the Dems take over the Senate and we seat a justice, we might be able to undo the gerrymandering. But Sanders is not going to usher in a Democratic Congress through voting. Sanders supporters are NOT voting down the ballot.

 

As for not having an effect on down-ballot voting, I'm referring to what happened in Wisconsin with the State Supreme Court Justice who was elected. A wider margin of Sanders voters actually voted FOR Bradley than Clinton voters; and a huge number did not vote at all. They cast their vote for Sanders and no one and nothing else.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

This reads more like a post about prejudice than ethnic diversity! Plenty of white people live in north Minneapolis though I can't speak for whatever street you live on.

My neighborhood is pretty solidly mixed. Latino family on one side of my house, Somali on the other. Lots of white people mixed in with PoC.

 

But gauging the reactions of many suburbanites I've met, I live in Syria.

[Craig Arko]

I take great solace in the fact that in the end, no matter what the outcome, the U.S. will end up with the Chief Executive it deserves.

 

Just not the one it needs right now.

[Willihammer]

Cool story. My neighborhood is still quiet.

It sounded like you were speaking for the entire north side. The perception is not 100% racist. There are facts driving the perception too.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It sounded like you were speaking for the entire north side. The perception is not 100% racist. There are facts driving the perception too.

North is generally a poor-ish area. Some parts are worse than others.

 

But you'd never know that talking to many MSP area residents. They think the entire place is a war zone when in fact, most of it is just lower middle-class housing, not an inner-city ghetto. It's mostly working-class families who go about their business just like everybody else.

 

And even the "worst" parts of north are pretty tame in comparison to other major metro areas. I've lived in worse areas and I've been in much worse areas.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No.  Perhaps a higher percentage of educated people, which isn't the same thing.

 

Fair point, though I'd argue the overlap is rather significant.

[TheLeviathan]

 

As for not having an effect on down-ballot voting, I'm referring to what happened in Wisconsin with the State Supreme Court Justice who was elected. A wider margin of Sanders voters actually voted FOR Bradley than Clinton voters; and a huge number did not vote at all. They cast their vote for Sanders and no one and nothing else.

 

A site I try to avoid, but should have substantial liberal chops, had an article about this.  

 

The problem with the Sanders' argument that getting out more votes means something for the down ticket, requires those extra voters to know what is at stake in those lower races.  I don't think it's crazy to suggest that Trump and Sanders voters are going to be more likely to be ignorant of those stakes than their counterparts.

 

This is a very Bernie-centric push, I doubt it does much good at all for Democrats in general.  Which, sadly, they desperately need at state, local, and congressional levels.  Hell, we all need that to balance out a bit more.

[PseudoSABR]

 

What happens to the polls if he's going to head-to-head against Trump who continually calls him a Communist? That word is going to turn off a lot of people who aren't smart enough to know the difference or too afraid to care. And there is absolutely no doubt that Trump and the republicans would drum up a BS Red Scare if Bernie won.

I think those who would be won-over by the red-scare tactic are already in Trump's corner.  I think the rest of the population will be able to distinguish between Norway's economic policy and China's.   I don't think capitalism is as impervious to criticism as it has been in the past.   It's not as if people don't understand that Sanders is socialist now -- yet the pollsters find that people overwhelmingly prefer Sanders to Trump or Cruz.   (I think Sanders real weakness is the level of detail of his plans; he's looking for a mandate (after which his policies would necessarily be filled out), but many voters want the policy details). 

[Willihammer]

North is generally a poor-ish area. Some parts are worse than others.

 

But you'd never know that talking to many MSP area residents. They think the entire place is a war zone when in fact, most of it is just lower middle-class housing, not an inner-city ghetto. It's mostly working-class families who go about their business just like everybody else.

 

And even the "worst" parts of north are pretty tame in comparison to other major metro areas. I've lived in worse areas and I've been in much worse areas.

That may be but you compared it (your neighborhood) to Uptown. Uptown has less crime, and it is whiter, more educted, etc. Again, there are actual facts and experiences that drive the perception, in addition to some ignorance.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That may be but you compared it (your neighborhood) to Uptown. Uptown has less crime, and it is whiter, more educted, etc. Again, there are actual facts and experiences that drive the perception, in addition to some ignorance.

I compared my neighborhood's noise level to that of Uptown. My neighborhood is quieter than my friends' various Uptown neighborhoods.

 

Also, my neighborhood's crime rate is basically the same as the Whittier and Loring Park neighborhoods.

 

If I moved three houses north (putting me in the Victory neighborhood), it'd be considerably lower than those two areas.

 

https://www.minnpost.com/crime?gclid=Cj0KEQjwrZ24BRC098fr-OqnuMkBEiQAKQ9lgHsoKYtZaKG3H8zXhwwyJGuy6zkWhBLt2hmNB1AdQLAaAtZQ8P8HAQ#city/minneapolis/total

[DaveW]

 

Actually they do.  I haven't seen one poll that has Clinton doing better than Sanders in the general.  (And seriously, why wouldn't you check something like that before (incorrectly) correcting my post? If you're going to tell someone how it really is, might want to make sure you're right.)

Dude, literally the very first one has Clinton doing better than Sanders in the general (and seriously, why wouldn't you check something like that before (incorrectly) talking down to me?

 

 

Here ya go:

 

Friday, April 8
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)  Poll  Results  Spread
New York: Trump vs. Clinton  Emerson  Clinton 54, Trump 36  Clinton +18
New York: Cruz vs. Clinton  Emerson  Clinton 58, Cruz 30  Clinton +28
New York: Kasich vs. Clinton  Emerson  Clinton 48, Kasich 41  Clinton +7
New York: Trump vs. Sanders  Emerson  Sanders 51, Trump 38  Sanders +13
New York: Cruz vs. Sanders  Emerson  Sanders 56, Cruz 29  Sanders +27

 

2 out of 2!

 

 

 

[DaveW]

Also, polls this early re: GE are so misleading and pointless anyways. The right has been taking jabs at Hilary this whole time (because she is clearly going to win the nom) they haven't said one word about Sanders, the minute Trump or someone else "rips" into Sanders then his GE numbers plummet.

"True" independents and middle of the road voters would run for the hills from Bernie, I certainly wouldn't vote for him, I don't need my taxes going up in order for some pipe dream of "let's break up the banks! Let's make college free!" non sense.

[DaveW]

Keep in mind, if it came down to Trump vs Bernie, almost certainly you would  see Trump gravitate much more to the "middle" during the general election, the "Wall", "Muslims are the problem" rhetoric would go away and he would hammer away on Bernie.

 

Trump could actually beat Bernie, Trump can't beat Hilary.

Thank God Bernie doesn't have a chance though, so this will all remain a hypothetical.

[stringer bell]

I have no doubt that many polls now say that Sanders would do better in the general election than Clinton. I have real doubts that Sanders would do better in the general than Clinton. Everything about Clinton is known including the hard-right memes about Benghazi and her e-mail account and the Bernie campaign's effort to make her a full-on corporatist. Probably what is least well known are her pretty solid progressive credentials. She certainly been damaged by the long e-mail disclosure story and the longer Benghazi "investigation". How much she has been damaged by "friendly fire" from Sanders' campaign is tough to quantify, but I believe there is some damage there, too.

 

Sanders is running as a Democrat and he's not Hillary. He's clearly running left of her. That is enough to make him as popular as a backup quarterback on a struggling NFL team. Nearly 100% of Republican attacks on Democrats have been for Clinton. The Republican equivalent of this phenomena is Kasich.

 

Actual quotes from Bernie would be toxic to a large share of the electorate. Republican attacks would lower his poll numbers much quicker than they would for Clinton, I think either beats Cruz or Trump or Cruz and Trump, but both would be weak against a credible candidate (Romney and Ryan have been floated occasionally in the past couple months).

[PseudoSABR]

 

Dude, literally the very first one has Clinton doing better than Sanders in the general (and seriously, why wouldn't you check something like that before (incorrectly) talking down to me?

 

 

Here ya go:

 

Friday, April 8
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)  Poll  Results  Spread
New York: Trump vs. Clinton  Emerson  Clinton 54, Trump 36  Clinton +18
New York: Cruz vs. Clinton  Emerson  Clinton 58, Cruz 30  Clinton +28
New York: Kasich vs. Clinton  Emerson  Clinton 48, Kasich 41  Clinton +7
New York: Trump vs. Sanders  Emerson  Sanders 51, Trump 38  Sanders +13
New York: Cruz vs. Sanders  Emerson  Sanders 56, Cruz 29  Sanders +27

 

2 out of 2!

You realize that's just for New York state, right? Every single one for the General has Sanders doing significantly better.  I'll make it easy for you (since research or providing support isn't your strong suit):

 

Thursday, April 7

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Trump 41 Clinton +9
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 47, Cruz 47 Tie
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Kasich 51, Clinton 42 Kasich +9
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 57, Trump 37 Sanders +20
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 53, Cruz 41 Sanders +12
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 52, Kasich 41 Sanders +11

 

April 4

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Clinton 47, Trump 35 Clinton +12
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Clinton 44, Cruz 39 Clinton +5
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Kasich 45, Clinton 38 Kasich +7
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP Sanders 53, Trump 36 Sanders +17
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP Sanders 50, Cruz 38 Sanders +12
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP Sanders 45, Kasich 42 Sanders +3

 

March 31

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Trump 41 Clinton +7
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 45, Cruz 42 Clinton +3
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton PPP (D) Kasich 45, Clinton 41 Kasich +4
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 48, Trump 40 Sanders +8
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 48, Cruz 41 Sanders +7
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 41, Kasich 44 Kasich +3

 

The PPP poll from more than a week ago shows Sanders marginally better than Clinton, but the other (more recent) polls show much more dominance. And this is in line with previously polls before then (See March 23rd Fox News, Quinpac, and Blomberg, all show more dominance by Sanders).

[stringer bell]

On the future of the Democratic party, I think Sanders candidacy has highlighted the division in the party between the corporatists and the "us vs. the 1%" more liberal crowd. I would love to see the wealthiest of the wealthy have their wings clipped and not be running a rigged game where they win and everybody else is fighting for the scraps. However, I think the chances of a take-no-prisoners hard left national candidate are much slimmer, with a much smaller window than a more moderate person that can get some support from Wall Street and the very wealthy, Liberals are getting impatient and Obama's term hasn't given them satisfaction, with the one major piece of legislation (ACA) being really a compromise from a single payer system. It seems that whoever can help the party downballot would be a wise choice. I'm eligible for SS in a short time and I've never seen more elected Republicans in my lifetime.

 

One more thought:   Trump running as a third party candidate might work out well for Republicans, His supporters would tend to vote Republican downballot along with the Republican nominee and they might cut their losses to minimal in Congress and state elections despite a Democratic victory for the White House,

[PseudoSABR]

 

I have no doubt that many polls now say that Sanders would do better in the general election than Clinton. I have real doubts that Sanders would do better in the general than Clinton. Everything about Clinton is known including the hard-right memes about Benghazi and her e-mail account and the Bernie campaign's effort to make her a full-on corporatist. Probably what is least well known are her pretty solid progressive credentials. She certainly been damaged by the long e-mail disclosure story and the longer Benghazi "investigation". How much she has been damaged by "friendly fire" from Sanders' campaign is tough to quantify, but I believe there is some damage there, too.

 

Sanders is running as a Democrat and he's not Hillary. He's clearly running left of her. That is enough to make him as popular as a backup quarterback on a struggling NFL team. Nearly 100% of Republican attacks on Democrats have been for Clinton. The Republican equivalent of this phenomena is Kasich.

 

Actual quotes from Bernie would be toxic to a large share of the electorate. Republican attacks would lower his poll numbers much quicker than they would for Clinton, I think either beats Cruz or Trump or Cruz and Trump, but both would be weak against a credible candidate (Romney and Ryan have been floated occasionally in the past couple months).

I don't necessarily dispute what you're saying here.  But this notion that Americans are going to be surprised to learn that Bernie is a socialist and what he's saying espouses that view I think just doesn't jive.   I think a lot of people not necessarily Democrats really like what he says about wealth-disparity and corruption, and don't have the skin-curdling reaction to socialism that so many steadfastly seem to believe.  I've heard from plenty of self-identified Republicans that if Cruz or Trump is the nominee, they'd go for Bernie, but not Hillary.  And there's tangible reasons that they would do so, that aren't about Bernie's background or would change because of Republican attack ads.

[Craig Arko]

Never a dull moment. James "Mad Dog" Mattis.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/08/the-secret-movement-to-draft-general-james-mattis-for-president.html

 

Because there just aren't enough mad dog leaders out there in this world, I guess.

[DaveW]

 

 I think a lot of people not necessarily Democrats really like what he says about wealth-disparity and corruption, and don't have the skin-curdling reaction to socialism that so many steadfastly seem to believe.  I've heard from plenty of self-identified Republicans that if Cruz or Trump is the nominee, they'd go for Bernie, but not Hillary.  And there's tangible reasons that they would do so, that aren't about Bernie's background or would change because of Republican attack ads.

The problem with Bernie has been and remains to be: He doesn't have any real solutions for wealth redistribution, corruption etc.

 

The minute people actually start to focus on these non solutions, he is toast, the Daily News article proved as much already, but since he isn't a legitimate candidate at this stage with any real chance to win the Dem nomination, nobody really cares.

[Badsmerf]

Stringer, kasich is a bad comparison to Bernie. Kasich is the candidate the gop should have rallied behind. Cruz appeals only to evangelical ultra right wing republicans. He has no chance to attract moderates.

 

A better comparison would be Ben Carson Policy wise.

[stringer bell]

 

Stringer, kasich is a bad comparison to Bernie. Kasich is the candidate the gop should have rallied behind. Cruz appeals only to evangelical ultra right wing republicans. He has no chance to attract moderates.

A better comparison would be Ben Carson Policy wise.

I get your point, but mine was that people "like" Kasich because he is not Cruz or Trump. They haven't examined his record, because he's unlikely to be nominated.

[Badsmerf]

Not true. I like him because he is realistic. He has conservative values and rationality. He has lead a purple state and done it well. I voted rand Paul, but my second choice was kasich.

 

I think there is a better chance than you are giving him credit for. If the gop wants to have a contender in November, he is easily the best candidate.

[Shane Wahl]

 

The problem with Bernie has been and remains to be: He doesn't have any real solutions for wealth redistribution, corruption etc.

 

The minute people actually start to focus on these non solutions, he is toast, the Daily News article proved as much already, but since he isn't a legitimate candidate at this stage with any real chance to win the Dem nomination, nobody really cares.

 

 

Are people here really making a big deal out of that NYDP interview? This is happening?

Have any of you bothered to check follow-up articles about it?

[Shane Wahl]

A takeaway that I think people "farther left" can be pleased about, regardless of a Clinton win:

Finally there seems to be a shift away from the right-wing's monopoly of all talk of ethics and moral values. Sanders isn't talking in these terms enough, but most of his support is due to an understanding along ethical lines about equality, justice, and basic human dignity. This is all coupled with an understanding of "human nature" as malleable and subject to heavy environmental influences.

 

I have been ranting about this for a long time (since Nader). Teaching Ethics 5+ times a year and thus discussing the history of moral thought all the time has always made me ill when considering how all "value talk" has been dominated by the right-wing for such a long time.

But the times have changed. I think George W. Bush and his Administration was a big wake up call, and I think the initial support of Obama was a sign of the change. It was made pretty stagnant through much of his two terms because of the strong amount of pacification (wars are just nicer under Democrats, aren't they?). It is here again, though, and while the Clinton machine is strong enough to overcome it right now, the next wave should end all of the rather milquetoast status quo-loving neoliberalism and pro-war agenda which merely is Republican-lite.

 

If you doubt this, just look at the GOP right now. The country is changing significantly and they have no idea how to deal with it. The hatred and ignorance that they have lived off of since 2000 (really since Reagan) has come home to roost in the form of Trump. There has been a significant shift to the left, and hopefully the mainstream Democratic Party with give up this nonsense after this election and move with this new moral compass.

Jill Stein for President!

[TheLeviathan]

Boy, it's hard not to watch this debate and see the most stark contrast of all:

 

Rhetoric vs. Pragmatism

 

Bernie just has no idea.  The environmental issue was laughable.  It's great to want to be aggressive about clean energy and the climate, but when the rubber meets the road that BS just doesn't fly.  Other countries aren't going to line up to give up on coal unless you give them viable alternatives.  The nation will turn back to coal and oil if you suddenly outlaw fracking and nuclear power.  

 

This guy would be a freaking disaster.

[Mike Sixel]

More people are employed in Solar than in coal in the US.......

[Craig Arko]

More people are employed in Solar than in coal in the US.......

Well, that's intriguing. Do you have a link on that?

 

I'm still holding out for fusion, but Solar is just fusion at a distance.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, that's intriguing. Do you have a link on that?

I'm still holding out for fusion, but Solar is just fusion at a distance.

 

No, but I'll find it. Now that I think about it.....that might have been in one particular state (it was an article about a coal state, and how it wasn't really a coal state, so I could be mis-remembering the data). I read it long ago, let me look.

[TheLeviathan]

 

More people are employed in Solar than in coal in the US.......

 

The jobs piece is great, but it doesn't change that question.  You can't change, overnight, what our energy sources are.  And yet Sanders criticized Clinton for being too "incremental". 

 

Yet his own plan is incremental as well because it sort of has to be.  But somehow he thinks you can get some Russian satellite to just up and quit coal for solar and anything less than that isn't taking the problem seriously.

 

It's as if he thinks the Presidency makes him some sort of wizard able to just make policy happen by merely speaking about the veracity of his ideas.

[Mike Sixel]

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......