2016 Election Thread

[Squirrel]

 

I didn't actually say "better" or "behind"......the flow of history doesn't always take the correct course first......nor did I say Europe couldn't learn from the US. Nor, to answer Dave's comments.....no place did I type Europe was better off than the US. Nor did I say that Bernie could do much of anything.

 

I said it was inevitable that the US will do more of what he is suggesting, in the future, than it is now.

 

You are reading things I am not typing at all.....

Well, I have an excuse with my blurred vision.

[TheLeviathan]

It's true that we might do things more like Europe in the future, but there are a lot of differences in the U.S. that Europe and others simply don't have to deal with.  We also handle a host of things differently than they ranging from education to tax policies.  There is a lot of nuance to a discussion of comparing ourselves to other countries and (much like everything else) you don't get a lot of nuance with Bernie.  

[DaveW]

 

 There is a lot of nuance to a discussion of comparing ourselves to other countries and (much like everything else) you don't get a lot of nuance with Bernie.  

This.

 

This is a big reason why a bunch of n00bs with no life experience/no real knowledge (see: White Privileged College Students) are the only ones who truly are falling for the "message"

 

 

GET OFF MY LAWN!

[Willihammer]

 

I didn't actually say "better" or "behind"......the flow of history doesn't always take the correct course first......nor did I say Europe couldn't learn from the US. Nor, to answer Dave's comments.....no place did I type Europe was better off than the US. Nor did I say that Bernie could do much of anything.

 

I said it was inevitable that the US will do more of what he is suggesting, in the future, than it is now.

 

You are reading things I am not typing at all.....

Most people people defending Sanders at this point in the campaign seem to pedestalize the European/socialist way of doing things. You defended his campaigning so I assumed that was the case but evidently yours is strictly fatalistic. My apologies.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This.

 

This is a big reason why a bunch of n00bs with no life experience/no real knowledge (see: White Privileged College Students) are the only ones who truly are falling for the "message"

 

 

GET OFF MY LAWN!

 

I love this rant, for all it's ridiculous rantiness......

[Mike Sixel]

 

Most people people defending Sanders at this point in the campaign seem to pedestalize the European/socialist way of doing things. You defended his campaigning so I assumed that was the case but evidently yours is strictly fatalistic. My apologies.

 

Mostly fatalistic, yes. I do agree with him on single payer*

 

*my opinion, and does not reflect my employers' necessarily**

 

** just felt like doing that today!

[Craig Arko]

 

I love this rant, for all it's ridiculous rantiness......

It just happens to be wrong, but what the hell.

[Squirrel]

 

I love this rant, for all it's ridiculous rantiness......

 

Heh ... ridiculous rantiness ... I love that description of Dave!

[PseudoSABR]

This is my two-cents on governance and free college.

 

Universal higher education, just like universal health care, should not again be relegated to "let's not do it, until we have the fool proof plan." The debate shouldn't be about whether or not to institute free college, the debate should be how we get that done.  We need to experiment, and perhaps the States might be a good place to test-drive some possible plans--just as Colorado is doing with legalizing pot, or Massachusetts did with Romenycare.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

My sense of the law is that, in general, there is no right to protest on private property.

I think there's a good argument that political rallies constitute state-action (quasi-public facilities, local municipalities running security, state-sanctioned political party), which would then make the first amendment enforceable upon Trump and his authorities.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

I know this is nothing shocking, but the way the media is cover this election is embarrassing, even if Bernie wins a couple states today it really doesn't make a difference, he is just too far behind in the delegate count at this stage. (And none of the super delegates Hilary has are going to switch over last minute as well)

 

In reality, Bernie should probably just drop out after today, however he clearly loves the spotlight at this point, so we will continue to get beaten over the head with a false narrative that he "has a shot"

I think a Bernie victory is very unlikely, however, your assessment is just dishonest. 

 

Clinton leads Bernie in delegates-won 748 to 542.  Super delegates are not committed or pledged; they can change at any time before the convention; many of those who were once committed to Clinton later switched to support Obama. 

[Mike Sixel]

On the protesters......they are just playing into Trump and his supporters' hands on this one. Protest outside, on the street, with lots of yelling and signs. It is just as effective, but doesn't empower the people you disagree with.

[PseudoSABR]

 

This.

 

This is a big reason why a bunch of n00bs with no life experience/no real knowledge (see: White Privileged College Students) are the only ones who truly are falling for the "message"

 

 

GET OFF MY LAWN!

I think of it this way: they aren't invested in the system that Bernie wants to bring down as much as older liberals.   I think many of us conflate 'life experience' with having 401K.  It's not that we think there's any less corruption in the stock market than when we young, it's that we'd personally feel the hit should the sham suddenly fall apart.  

 

There's also a lot more to Bernie's support than White Privilege liberals, though that's clearly part it.  He speaks, at least to me, directly to my values and principals.  Too long have liberals publicly hedged their principals to get elected and get things done.  I'm tired of starting negotiation at the 50 yard line, when the other side makes no such concessions 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The debate shouldn't be about whether or not to do institute free college, the debate should be how we get that done.  We need to experiment, and perhaps the States might be a good place to test-drive some possible plans--just as Colorado is doing with legalizing pot, or Massachusetts did with Romenycare.  

I believe this is how the US should implement damned near everything.

 

We're a Republic, yet we routinely forget to take advantage of one of its biggest advantages: small scale experimentation.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I believe this is how the US should implement damned near everything.

 

We're a Republic, yet we routinely forget to take advantage of one of its biggest advantages: small scale experimentation.

 

As long as that isn't about things that have a truly federal effect.....like marriage or other civil rights, I generally agree. The issue is, despite clear evidence that funding education at the state level works better than funding it at the district level, and many other things.....some states just don't want to do that. What do we do with the children in those Southern states that just won't invest in education?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As long as that isn't about things that have a truly federal effect.....like marriage or other civil rights, I generally agree. The issue is, despite clear evidence that funding education at the state level works better than funding it at the district level, and many other things.....some states just don't want to do that. What do we do with the children in those Southern states that just won't invest in education?

I agree that civil rights, defense, etc. are federal issues. Those are universal issues that impact the entire country.

 

Disclaimer for the rest of the post:

 

I hate the south. I have since I was a child. It's my opinion they have continually dragged the rest of this country down and wasted vast resources fighting their largely backwards way of thinking about damned near everything.

 

Give them what they want. Let them suffer the pain of state-run and -funded programs (or, in their case, lack thereof). Anyone who wants to leave, come on north. We'll accept you with open arms. Break the back of the south and once that is accomplished, then maybe we can actually move forward as a cohesive union.

 

I look at places like Scotland and the stark differences between it and the American south are disheartening. Scotland is pure blue; they're all about workers' rights, democratizing equality, and all the other things you'd expect a bunch of blue collar citizens to fight for as a group. Then there's the American south, which routinely votes against its own damned interests as a population.

 

Well, I say let them vote against their own interests. Let them see the folly of their decisions and suffer the consequences of it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

As long as that isn't about things that have a truly federal effect.....like marriage or other civil rights, I generally agree. The issue is, despite clear evidence that funding education at the state level works better than funding it at the district level, and many other things.....some states just don't want to do that. What do we do with the children in those Southern states that just won't invest in education?

 

I agree, we need a national solution, but any proposal will have a lot more legitimacy if we can point to how, say, California did it.   We need to be willing to try federally-funded programs on a limited basis, so we can see whether they will be viable nationally.  

 

If Bernie was smart, he wouldn't be demanding free-education, though that would still be the goal, rather, he'd be advocating that he'd figure out how to do it through a variety of federal experiments instituted in various states. 

[DaveW]

It just happens to be wrong, but what the hell.

What other group has Bernie won over Hilary? White younger males. Name one more.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Well, I say let them vote against their own interests. Let them see the folly of their decisions and suffer the consequences of it.

Except it's not just the Republicans in the South who suffer the consequences; sure the poor, rural redneck whites vote against their interests and so might the church-going poor (and I think these people make up a minority of Republican voters), but largely those who are most affected by the Southern values (or lack their of) are not the ones voting Republican.   The lack of education and public resources helps entrench power in that such people lack the means and ability to organize and overcome such burdens, thus they tend not to vote, and when they do, they do so acting on their base desires.

 

*I'm generalizing here, and I realize not everyone fits into my rough sketch.

[Squirrel]

 

I agree, we need a national solution, but any proposal will have a lot more legitimacy if we can point to how, say, California did it.   We need to be willing to try federally-funded programs on a limited basis, so we can see whether they will be viable nationally.  

 

If Bernie was smart, he wouldn't be demanding free-education, though that would still be the goal, rather, he'd be advocating that he'd figure out how to do it through a variety of federal experiments instituted in various states. 

 

But that's the biggest problem I have with Bernie is that he isn't proposing to do things this way. I am often 'accused' of not wanting to try for change when I suggest incremental change vs 'do it all now' change. That's where he's flawed for me ... not the issues, but the how. And I think that's a big flaw for a presidential candidate. Not that you can't point to flaws with any of them in one regard or another.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What other group has Bernie won over Hilary? White younger males. Name one more.

 

I suggest if you really want an answer, you might read 538, or the Atlantic, or even Fox News....they can all answer that question for you.

 

If he was only winning white young males, he would win zero states.

[DaveW]

I suggest if you really want an answer, you might read 538, or the Atlantic, or even Fox News....they can all answer that question for you.

 

If he was only winning white young males, he would win zero states.

How about you actually show me a stat overall that shows him winning anything more than white males. Hilary destroys him across the board in every other demo more or less. He has no path to the nomination at this time, no matter how the idiots in the media will try to spin it. (Latest Vegas odds have Hilary at -1000) which is pretty much a stone cold lock. If somehow she has health issues or some other scandal last minute, then Biden would swoop in and take the nom.

 

Bernie has won states like Oklahoma etc because of his ability to get the college kids to come out and vote in the primaries.

 

PS I read 538 all the time. Bernie has no path to the nom.

[DaveW]

On the protesters......they are just playing into Trump and his supporters' hands on this one. Protest outside, on the street, with lots of yelling and signs. It is just as effective, but doesn't empower the people you disagree with.

Protesters by and large are THE WORST. Get a job or hobby.

[DaveW]

I think a Bernie victory is very unlikely, however, your assessment is just dishonest.

 

Clinton leads Bernie in delegates-won 748 to 542. Super delegates are not committed or pledged; they can change at any time before the convention; many of those who were once committed to Clinton later switched to support Obama.

The difference between Clinton and Obama is minimal (message wise etc) the difference between Sanders and Hilary is huge. The super delegates won't flock to Bernie because they know that Bernie would never be able to win a GE.

 

FYI up 200 delegates is a ton at this point. That is more than Obama had at any point over Hilary.

 

Hilarys odds have gone up week by week to win the nom, to where they are now a lock. The only thing that trips her up is some

Major scandal or major health issue, and and even then Bernie can't win.

[Mike Sixel]

 

How about you actually show me a stat overall that shows him winning anything more than white males. Hilary destroys him across the board in every other demo more or less. He has no path to the nomination at this time, no matter how the idiots in the media will try to spin it. (Latest Vegas odds have Hilary at -1000) which is pretty much a stone cold lock. If somehow she has health issues or some other scandal last minute, then Biden would swoop in and take the nom.

Bernie has won states like Oklahoma etc because of his ability to get the college kids to come out and vote in the primaries.

PS I read 538 all the time. Bernie has no path to the nom.

 

Again, you are reading stuff I'm not writing....you said "he is only attracting college students", then you said "he only attracts young white males". I said "he is attracting more than just them".

 

NO PLACE did I say he could get the nom. why do you insist on reading things that aren't posted?

 

Right in the middle, this lays out areas of states that are NOT about young white males only, or even college students only.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-bernie-sanders-pull-off-an-upset-in-ohio/

 

[Craig Arko]

 

I suggest if you really want an answer, you might read 538, or the Atlantic, or even Fox News....they can all answer that question for you.

 

If he was only winning white young males, he would win zero states.

I'm just happy that my wife and I have found the Fountain of Youth.

[DaveW]

 

I'm just happy that my wife and I have found the Fountain of Youth.

This is such a tired rebuttal, YES some other individuals from other groups (50+, women, Hispanic, black etc) will vote for Bernie (just like some college kids will vote for Hilary)

Point me to a group that Bernie has won over Hilary (overall, not in some random small state), or just make another snarky quip since he hasn't won any other groups.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This is such a tired rebuttal, YES some other individuals from other groups (50+, women, Hispanic, black etc) will vote for Bernie (just like some college kids will vote for Hilary)

Point me to a group that Bernie has won over Hilary (overall, not in some random small state), or just make another snarky quip since he hasn't won any other groups.

 

But we aren't arguing he's winning, we are arguing against your statement that he ONLY attracts white, young, male, college students, when there is plenty of data out there that that is not true.

[DaveW]

 

 

Again, you are reading stuff I'm not writing....you said "he is only attracting college students", then you said "he only attracts young white males". I said "he is attracting more than just them".

 

NO PLACE did I say he could get the nom. why do you insist on reading things that aren't posted?

 

Right in the middle, this lays out areas of states that are NOT about young white males only, or even college students only.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-bernie-sanders-pull-off-an-upset-in-ohio/

Basically he wins with "very liberal people" and places with colleges.

 

Here is the article you pointed me to, what "real" demographic is he winning besides "Super Liberals" and "College" Is he winning Adults 35+? 50+? Females? Hispanics? Blacks? Middle Class?

 

 

The share of African-Americans is the best predictor of the Democratic vote to date, with Clinton performing significantly better in congressional districts with more black voters.
    Clinton also performs slightly better in districts with more Hispanic voters, although the magnitude of the effect is considerably smaller than that for black voters.
    Sanders performs better in districts that express liberal attitudes on social policy3.
    Sanders performs better in districts with major colleges, as measured by the number of people employed in postsecondary education in each district.
    As other researchers have found, Clinton performs better in the South, even after controlling for other factors.4
    Sanders performs better in districts where more voters are in labor-union households.
    Clinton performs better in districts where voters are more in favor of gun control.5
    Sanders performs better in caucuses relative to primaries, other factors held equal.

 

 

[DaveW]

 

 

But we aren't arguing he's winning, we are arguing against your statement that he ONLY attracts white, young, male, college students, when there is plenty of data out there that that is not true.

That is the only group he is winning. He attracts white young male college students, and the very very liberal. That's it. Yes, some random people pop up here and there, but that is more the exception.