US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Robin Of House Hill]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And announcing that LGBT rights are human rights, yes. 

The idea that she hasn't evolved while you have is especially funny. Do you think she currently supports DOMA? Or DADT, given that she voted to repeal it? Do you think she currently supports the TPP deal? You have this image of who she was in the 90s and then claim she hasn't evolved, but ignore what her actual stated positions are. 

The Glass-Steagall thing I'll grant you, given that it's worthless now. She shockingly doesn't support worthless laws. 

Monsanto I have no idea what you're talking about. She isn't opposed to GMOs, just like almost every single scientist out there. If Sanders is opposed to GMOs then he's just as loopy as a antivaccer. 

I can't help but notice that her "evolving" seems to coincide with what she finds to be politically expedient.  Jumping on a bandwagon after it has gained momentum, leaves me with no measure of comfort.  If the sentiment of the voters she is trying to attract for her own gain, was to change, I think she'd "evolve" again.

No, she isn't anti-GMO and that is a problem.  A hypothetical:  A GMO crop is developed to resist an herbicide used to control weeds.  Seems like a great idea.  It cuts the cost of food production and might even increase production.  What happens a year of more after it is in use and it is discovered that the GMO crop is very susceptible to a competitor's herbicide?  I suppose you could warn people not to use the two, in combination, but what happens if this crop cross-pollinates with a non-GMO crop or another GMO crop and the results are unpredictable?  Sound far-fetched?  How many highly trained medical doctors told pregnant women that Thalidomide was safe?

[Altherion]

Those polls are strange. Of the 14% who said that they will not vote for Clinton in November, 12% voted for her in the primary. That's only 1.7% of all voters, but it's still as strange thing thing to do.

[Weeping Sore]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Monsanto I have no idea what you're talking about. She isn't opposed to GMOs, just like almost every single scientist out there. If Sanders is opposed to GMOs then he's just as loopy as a antivaccer. 

Umm, this probably belongs on another thread, but while there's nothing inherently wrong with GMOs, in practice the modifications made by Monsanto have been exclusively oriented toward their profit at the expense of small farmers (unable to recover seed from their crops and re-plant to ensure they buy new seed from Monsanto), agricultural workers (exposed to higher amounts of glyphosate as it is poured onto Round-up Ready crops, with increased levels of lymphatic cancer resulting) and consumers who are consuming crops that have had higher concentrations of glyphosate (amounts that would have killed unmodified crops) with potential long term accumulation of the carcinogen. So it's not the genomic changes themselves but related issues for which No GMO is a convenient umbrella.

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Those polls are strange. Of the 14% who said that they will not vote for Clinton in November, 12% voted for her in the primary. That's only 1.7% of all voters, but it's still as strange thing thing to do.

Yeah I noticed that too; there's a similar phenomenon among some Sanders voters. I chalk it up to a combination of people not understanding the question, messing with the poll, or being a dixiecrat (there's plenty in parts of upstate; I saw pickup trucks in high school with the confederate flag) trapped in the closed primary and deciding to vote anyway.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Thanks Fez. Seems like NY does not reflect national polls.

[Weeping Sore]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yeah I noticed that too; there's a similar phenomenon among some Sanders voters. I chalk it up to a combination of people not understanding the question, messing with the poll, or being a dixiecrat (there's plenty in parts of upstate; I saw pickup trucks in high school with the confederate flag) trapped in the closed primary and deciding to vote anyway.

Canvassing for Sanders I met quite a few registered Democrats who were planning on voting for Trump (I had assumed in November), but quite possibly they went to the primary thinking they could vote for the Donald and had to make do with Hill or Bern.

[mormont]

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I can't help but notice that her "evolving" seems to coincide with what she finds to be politically expedient. 

I think we had this conversation already and noted that actually, this is not always true.

Anyway, anyone who changes position will inevitably sometimes be vulnerable to this accusation, if only because it is as opinions change that, well, opinions change. Lots of people changed their position on gay marriage in the last few years, for example: if they hadn't, it wouldn't be legal! But of course, lots of those who changed their position were politicians, and that means you can accuse them of political expediency.

Another way to put it is, the argument on gay marriage was won, so that means lots of people were persuaded. If Clinton was among them, is that a problem?

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

Another way to put it is, the argument on gay marriage was won, so that means lots of people were persuaded. If Clinton was among them, is that a problem?

Not only that, but virtually all politicians act within the boundaries of their political party.  Hilary Clinton certainly does.  And yet it seems like she faces a lot more accusations of changing her opinions for political expediency rather than an actual change of heart than say, Obama, Kerry, or Biden. 

Clinton has been a mainstream Democrat for her entire career, and there's every reason to assume she will remain that way if elected President.  If you do not want a mainstream Democrat, then look elsewhere, but I find the idea that she will abandon Democratic policies whenever beneficial to her to be extremely unlikely.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Kasich now needs 162% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.

Go get 'em, Johnny!

[Slick Mongoose]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kasich now needs 162% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.

Go get 'em, Johnny!

He still has more chance of getting nominated than Sanders.

[Robin Of House Hill]

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think we had this conversation already and noted that actually, this is not always true.

Anyway, anyone who changes position will inevitably sometimes be vulnerable to this accusation, if only because it is as opinions change that, well, opinions change. Lots of people changed their position on gay marriage in the last few years, for example: if they hadn't, it wouldn't be legal! But of course, lots of those who changed their position were politicians, and that means you can accuse them of political expediency.

Another way to put it is, the argument on gay marriage was won, so that means lots of people were persuaded. If Clinton was among them, is that a problem?

My apologies.  I haven't been rigorously following these thread, of late.  There is no question that people's opinions change.  My skepticism comes when they change their opinions because there is something in it for them.  When Clinton as SecState implemented policies, I have no real way of knowing if she was taking the lead or implementing what POTUS wanted.

The "problem" is that if she takes a position because it is politically advantageous to do so, rather than because she believes in that position, what happens if the political winds change direction?  

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Not only that, but virtually all politicians act within the boundaries of their political party.  Hilary Clinton certainly does.  And yet it seems like she faces a lot more accusations of changing her opinions for political expediency rather than an actual change of heart than say, Obama, Kerry, or Biden. 

Clinton has been a mainstream Democrat for her entire career, and there's every reason to assume she will remain that way if elected President.  If you do not want a mainstream Democrat, then look elsewhere, but I find the idea that she will abandon Democratic policies whenever beneficial to her to be extremely unlikely.

That's exactly what many are doing.  Obviously many people are not satisfied with mainstream Democrat policies as a whole.

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kasich now needs 162% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.

Go get 'em, Johnny!

Step 1: Finish dramatically behind the other two remaining candidates in the pledged delegate count.

Step 2: ??????

Step 3: President!!!

 

Its not really quite as bad as that. I sort of understand his logic, it's just extremely unlikely. He thinks that it will be a contested convention (maybe), that most establishment Republicans hate Trump and Cruz (true), and that because he is performing best in the general election polls he can make a convincing case to be a compromise nominee.

The problem is, its not going to happen. Either Trump is going to win first ballot or Cruz will win on the second ballot because he's been so successful at getting his own people in as delegates who will abandon Trump as soon as they are no longer bound. Plus as soon as people start actually paying attention to him his general election numbers will start to go down the same as everyone else's. But I guess he doesn't really have much to lose. He's got total control of the state party in Ohio so there's no way to threaten him really, and he's not in danger of going into personal debt over the campaign.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

That's exactly what many are doing.  Obviously many people are not satisfied with mainstream Democrat policies as a whole.

And that's fine.  I don't begrudge Sanders supporters for wanting more, although I am skeptical he could deliver on most of his promises. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Fez

I generally agree, I just found the stat to be hilarious. 

More numbers:

Sanders needs 73% of the remaining delegates, both super and pledge, to win if no supers backing Clinton flip.

Trump needs 58% of the remaining delegates to avoid a contested convention.

 

[aceluby]

Just now, Maithanet said:

And that's fine.  I don't begrudge Sanders supporters for wanting more, although I am skeptical he could deliver on most of his promises. 

Promises?  Like cross your heart and hope to die?

He has policy proposals, and while I agree that he couldn't get any of them through in the current political climate, it's the direction and vision and voice that I want to lead the country.  Did we say we would put someone possibly on a spaceship if the right circumstances become available and people meet me halfway?  Or did we say we're going to put someone on the moon w/out knowing full well how the hell that was going to happen?  We need more of that.  Ideas that bring hope.  Ideas that spark other ideas.  Big ideas.

But given this critique, which of Hillary's policies is she going to be able to deliver assuming she simply carries on for Obama's third term?  I mean, if nothing is going to get passed anyway, how is this a knock on Sanders?

[alguien]

36 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I can't help but notice that her "evolving" seems to coincide with what she finds to be politically expedient.  Jumping on a bandwagon after it has gained momentum, leaves me with no measure of comfort.  If the sentiment of the voters she is trying to attract for her own gain, was to change, I think she'd "evolve" again.

If we want to talk about evolving views:

"I view marriage as a lifelong commitment between husband and wife." -Bernie Sanders, 1982. (who opposed gay marriage in favor of civil unions as late as 2006)

Though they differ probably most substantially on foreign policy, actually, both democratic candidates are pretty awesome on women's rights and LGBT rights. Claiming Clinton has just done so for political expedience ignores her long record of doing so before it was popular, such as marching every year since 2000 while in the Senate with NY's pride parade, passing numerous anti-hate legislation, securing adoption rights for same sex couples, and crafting the first UN resolution for rights of LGBT people all over the world. (this was after helping trans staff in the state department, something she didn't have to do at all). 

[Swordfish]

47 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think we had this conversation already and noted that actually, this is not always true.

Anyway, anyone who changes position will inevitably sometimes be vulnerable to this accusation, if only because it is as opinions change that, well, opinions change. Lots of people changed their position on gay marriage in the last few years, for example: if they hadn't, it wouldn't be legal! But of course, lots of those who changed their position were politicians, and that means you can accuse them of political expediency.

Another way to put it is, the argument on gay marriage was won, so that means lots of people were persuaded. If Clinton was among them, is that a problem?

Timing matters.  HRC has an uncanny knack of changing her position only once it's politically safe to do so.  The equivalent of rushing onto the battlefield and sabre rattling, once the battle is already over.

Is it nice that she conforms and doesn't dig in her heels?  Sure, i guess.  but it's not particularly laudable and it's not what a lot of people want from a leader.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Promises?  Like cross your heart and hope to die?

But given this critique, which of Hillary's policies is she going to be able to deliver assuming she simply carries on for Obama's third term?  I mean, if nothing is going to get passed anyway, how is this a knock on Sanders?

Please, a Presidential candidate's policy proposals are often called promises. 

And I think that there is a benefit in offering more modest proposals that have a better chance of passing than offering bigger ones that almost assuredly will not.  Take the Clinton budget vs the Sanders budget.  One contains some modest tax increases on the wealthy, and some other needed funding reallocations.  With a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, it is very unlikely she would get all of those things, but I would reasonably expect to get some of them.  In contrast the Sanders budget is a huge change in tax rates for all Americans, is generally tied with an equally massive change in health care, and would be almost totally unachievable even with a democratic majority in both houses, which he will not have.  So while I think that Sanders has some good ideas in his budget and I support single payer health care, I accept that it isn't an option for this cycle, and to put it on the table does little other than push the parties further apart.

[Weeping Sore]

50 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

And not only that, but virtually all politicians act within the boundaries of their political party.  Hilary Clinton certainly does.  And yet it seems like she faces a lot more accusations of changing her opinions for political expediency rather than an actual change of heart than say, Obama, Kerry, or Biden. 

Clinton has been a mainstream Democrat for her entire career, and there's every reason to assume she will remain that way if elected President.  If you do not want a mainstream Democrat, then look elsewhere, but I find the idea that she will abandon Democratic policies whenever beneficial to her to be extremely unlikely.

The Clintons were part of a redefinition of what a mainstream Democrat is after Carter failed to secure a second term, Mondale won just a single state and Dukakis tanked against H W.

So being pro-business and pro-free trade was already a politically expedient abandonment of what had been considered core Democratic principles previous to 1992. Still, modest tax increases on top earners (a roll-back of a tiny fraction of the Reagan top-income tax cuts) and what at the time were socially liberal policies made the Clinton years a welcome change after 12 years under Reagan-Bush. Listing accomplishments from the Clinton years, though, you're struck by how many of the bragging points sound Republican. Welfare reform, Truth in Sentencing, Fiscal Responsibility and deregulation of Wall Street (and yes, these were 2nd term working with a Republican congress, a feat that is impossible today). Also, nice that there were no major wars (Serbs would beg to differ, but let's let that one go).

When Hillary voted for the Iraq war even though she almost certainly knew better, it felt like she was polishing her tough-guy bona fides in preparation for a presidential run wherein she would not be painted as a liberal pacifist wimp against a Republican opponent. Yes, she joined 28 other Democratic senators in doing so. Yes, it might have cost her the 2008 nomination, and it has still been a liability for her in this primary cycle, and with good reason.

But I'll still vote for her in November, because the Supreme Court. Just don't ask me to be happy about it.