US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Kalbear]

Even more amusing is that Clinton is being accused of changing her views for political expediency while sanders changed his entire fucking party for the same, and did so unabashedly. 

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

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.

I agree with virtually everything you have here.  I am satisfied, but by no means thrilled with Clinton, but honestly I didn't like Sanders or O'Malley any better.  I am already expecting that she will be a one term president. 

[S John]

Zero chance I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general.  I think if I still lived in Virginia where it might matter I would consider it, but only as a desperate 'please God, anyone but Trump' kinda vote.   With little chance of a Clinton victory in Texas I don't feel obligated to bite the bullet and cast a lesser-of-two-evils vote so I'm going third party.    

[S John]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Even more amusing is that Clinton is being accused of changing her views for political expediency while sanders changed his entire fucking party for the same, and did so unabashedly. 

This is weak, dude.  Sanders has been beating the same drum for decades.  Joining a party to have a chance at actually getting elected, but maintaining your core principles, is not at all the same as tailoring your actual positions for expediency.  

[BloodRider]

1 hour 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.  

Do you take issue with how Sanders' views have "evolved" wrt Superdelegates?  Or his views on Democratic voters Southern states?  Or support of downticket candidates?  Or his view of the BLM movement having issues on race that are not resolved by fixing poverty?  Seems to me his views have evolved to coincide with what he finds to be politically expedient.  Or is that different somehow?

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

 It is so sad to see one party wants to change nothing for the better and the other wants to make everything worse. so many people willing to settle for the lesser of two evils.

I won't vote for Clinton and it has very little to do with her stance on guns.  It has to do with her positions on TPP, NAFTA, Keystone XL, DOMA, DADT, Glass-Steagal, and fracking, not to mention her coziness with Wall St. big banks, big pharma, fossil fuel and Monsanto.  I have one thing in common with Clinton.  In 1964, we both supported Goldwater.  I evolved.  She didn't.

So Hillary Clinton has political positions similar to Barry Goldwater? Uh-huh...

Democrats don't want to change anything for the better? Twenty million more Americans who have health insurance than when Republicans were in charge might disagree.

3 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Aside from changing passport regulations when she was SecState?

What I'm hearing is that Clinton has done nothing for trans people except the things she's done. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree with virtually everything you have here.  I am satisfied, but by no means thrilled with Clinton, but honestly I didn't like Sanders or O'Malley any better.  I am already expecting that she will be a one term president. 

My great fear is that both Clinton and Sanders would be one term president, giving Republicans another win in a redistricting year and further gerrymandering the country. In 2012 a million more people voted for Democratic candidates for the House than Republican candidates, but the latter still got 33 more members. 

[BloodRider]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My great fear is that both Clinton and Sanders would be one term president, giving Republicans another win in a redistricting year and further gerrymandering the country. In 2012 a million more people voted for Democratic candidates for the House than Republican candidates, but the latter still got 33 more members. 

That's just not realistic.  The demo in 4 year for presidential races is gonna suck for Republicans.  And unless they pull off some epic level Xanatos Gambit of disenfranchisement (especially unlikely since I bet the VRA get reinstalled here soon by SCOTUS) or, heaven fore-fend, change their outreach strategy AND convince people they are sincere about it; it will not ever get better for them. 

State and local?  Yeah, its looking good for Reps, but Dems will really have to shit the bed for a Rep to get elected.

*/me casts Summon @lokisnow spell*

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

This is the saddest, doomiest and gloomiest thread in all of Westeros. 

[BloodRider]

Just now, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is the saddest, doomiest and gloomiest thread in all of Westeros. 

The Harrenhal of threads?

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is the saddest, doomiest and gloomiest thread in all of Westeros. 

Only for non Eagles/Browns fans.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

That's just not realistic.  The demo in 4 year for presidential races is gonna suck for Republicans.  And unless they pull off some epic level Xanatos Gambit of disenfranchisement (especially unlikely since I bet the VRA get reinstalled here soon by SCOTUS) or, heaven fore-fend, change their outreach strategy AND convince people they are sincere about it; it will not ever get better for them. 

State and local?  Yeah, its looking good for Reps, but Dems will really have to shit the bed for a Rep to get elected.

*/me casts Summon @lokisnow spell*

Not really. There could be a large enthusiasm gap after 12 years of Dems holding the WH. Some Clinton scandal emerges, real or fake, that could sink her. Or just the fact that she's not that popular. The only reason I'm confident this go around that she'll win is because of Trump and Cruz. If the Republicans actually had a good candidate we would be in trouble. And with Sanders, I think it's pretty easy to see his Administration being largely ineffective, causing him to lose in 4 years. 

[Fez]

21 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is the saddest, doomiest and gloomiest thread in all of Westeros. 

Clearly you haven't spent much time in the off-season threads about the show.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is the saddest, doomiest and gloomiest thread in all of Westeros. 

But on the flip side there's a thread that speculates if Varys could be Joffrey's real mother, so it all balances out. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

26 minutes ago, alguien said:

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). 

I haven't said Sanders is without fault.  I'm also not a one issue voter.  If I agree with 90% of what he is for, but only 30% of what Clinton is for, it is logical for me to focus on reasons I'd rather not see her in the White House.  

The problem is that in my first post I mentioned a whole range of issues that I found problematic with regard to Hillary Clinton.  Yet the responses I've gotten have zeroed in on LGBT issues.  That wasn't my intent.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Timing matters.  HRC has an uncanny knack of changing her position only once it's politically safe to do so. 

Except that the evidence for this, as far as I've ever seen it, consists largely of people saying it over and over. And that's not evidence.

Is there some sort of objective proof that Clinton has done this more often than the average politician?

I realise that this is her image, and she has to live with it, whether justly earned or not. But I'm unconvinced about the substance behind it.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Except that the evidence for this, as far as I've ever seen it, consists largely of people saying it over and over. And that's not evidence.

Is there some sort of objective proof that Clinton has done this more often than the average politician?

I realise that this is her image, and she has to live with it, whether justly earned or not. But I'm unconvinced about the substance behind it.

Whether she's done it more than any other politician is not the particular bar that i find meaningful here,  but this would be extremely difficult to quantify.  

it has happened frequently enough, and drastically enough, to be noticeable, and that suffices for me.

You could certainly take the position that everyone who believes this is simply conditioned to do so by the messaging, but that is also something I think would be difficult to quantify.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, S John said:

This is weak, dude.  Sanders has been beating the same drum for decades.  Joining a party to have a chance at actually getting elected, but maintaining your core principles, is not at all the same as tailoring your actual positions for expediency.  

He hasn't, though. His stance on (for example) gay rights and marriage has changed considerably in the last decade. 

But what you say is true - he changed party affiliation to try and be more successful. Which is, ya know, political expediency. Doing something you don't believe in so that you can be more successful politically is the whole point. And I would argue strongly that being an independent means something fairly big in the two-party dominated system that we have - something that he threw away as soon as it became obvious he wouldn't be as successful at it. 

And this isn't the first time. He started caucusing with the democrats earlier in his career for similar reasons - because it got him more success. He signed a deal that said he'd vote the same on all procedural matters as the dems do so that he could get his committee chair. Again, political expediency. 

Which, ya know, I don't have a problem with. But I do have a problem with people being upset that Clinton has gone further to the left over her career as if that was a bad thing, but Sanders going further to the right is somehow totally fine and the only way he would get elected. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

So Hillary Clinton has political positions similar to Barry Goldwater? Uh-huh...

Democrats don't want to change anything for the better? Twenty million more Americans who have health insurance than when Republicans were in charge might disagree.

What I'm hearing is that Clinton has done nothing for trans people except the things she's done. 

This would work better if you replied to what I actually said, rather than what you assume I meant.  I never said her positions are the same as Goldwater, though by her own admission they were in 1964.  I made no claim they still are her current views.

Do you know how many people find that paying the tax penalty for not signing up with ACA costs them significantly less than what ACA would cost them?  But according to her, universal healthcare, which a goodly number of other countries seem to be able to have, is not possible here.

Actually, I only asked if the poster I'd replied to was referring to anything other certain regulations she put in place as SecState.

ETA:  In reviewing what I posted, I can see that my saying that I evolved while she has not, could have been interpreted in ways I hadn't anticipated. 

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The problem is that in my first post I mentioned a whole range of issues that I found problematic with regard to Hillary Clinton.  Yet the responses I've gotten have zeroed in on LGBT issues.  That wasn't my intent.

Probably because those were the ones that were the most wrong? Again, you're upset for a position that her husband held (and didn't particularly like) 20 years ago, while complaining that she hasn't evolved and ignoring what her currently stated position is and all the work she's done in support. 

With Monsanto and GMOs, you're arguing for a position that no one currently running holds. Not even Sanders. 

You're right about Glass-Steagall, but again - Clinton holds the position that most economists hold, which is that Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the recession and never was meant to, and the current act (Dodd-Frank) has a lot more toothiness to it. If you have a problem with people not supporting acts that don't work, guess that's cool. 

With trade agreements you're also arguing for a position that only Trump holds. And which Clinton does not (though apparently you don't believe her). 

And when her accomplishments and values are brought up, you dismiss them as not being necessarily what she believes in (despite her history with them) and that she might change her mind. Which...every single politician does.