US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[lokisnow]

36 minutes ago, Altherion said:

People keep bring up the "lesser evil", but in fact, when the choice is between acting in support of a lesser evil, acting in support of a greater evil or doing nothing, there's a pretty strong philosophical argument that the only ethical option is to do nothing. I can try to reconstruct a variant of the thought experiment adapted to this situation if you like.

There is no choice between the "lesser" of two evils because Clinton is not evil.

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

There is no choice between the "lesser" of two evils because Clinton is not evil.

Agreed, though it's just a shorthand way of referring to a "good but flawed candidate" in competition with "the scum of the earth".

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

People keep bring up the "lesser evil", but in fact, when the choice is between acting in support of a lesser evil, acting in support of a greater evil or doing nothing, there's a pretty strong philosophical argument that the only ethical option is to do nothing. I can try to reconstruct a variant of the thought experiment adapted to this situation if you like.

Are you going to apply it to your earlier arguments in favour of voting for Trump? Because as I recall, those were heavily based on the idea that acting in support of a greater evil was ethical if in the long run it produced a greater good (or had a theoretical possibility of doing so).

[ThinkerX]

Doesn't matter if Clinton is 'good,' 'flawed,' or the 'lesser of two evils.'

She is still going to take office with the highest negatives ever, and will be bitterly opposed at every turn by the republicans...and very possibly fellow democrats.

Quotes from an article I linked to in the last thread:

 

Quote

Nearly 6 in 10 registered voters say they have negative impressions of both major candidates. Overall, Clinton’s net negative rating among registered voters is minus-16, while Trump’s is minus-17, though Trump’s numbers have improved since March. Among all adults, Trump’s net negatives are significantly higher than those of Clinton.

 

 

Quote

Nonetheless, Clinton is rated ahead of Trump across a range of attributes and issues, and she is seen as having superior experience, temperament and personality to be president. Trump is viewed as unqualified by a majority of adults, but he has strong appeal to voters as the ­anti-Clinton candidate who can bring change to Washington in an election year in which outsiders have thrived.

 

 

Quote

Among those registered voters who say they favor Clinton, 48 percent say their vote is in support of the candidate while an identical percentage say their vote is mainly to oppose Trump. Among Trump’s backers, 44 percent say they are casting an affirmative vote for the Republican, while 53 percent say their motivation is to oppose Clinton.

Support for the two candidates as they begin their direct engagement appears tepid. Less than half of those in Clinton’s column say they strongly support her, while a bare majority say they support her “somewhat.” The numbers for Trump are virtually identical.

Nor are people fully satisfied with their choice of major party nominees — 51 percent call themselves satisfied while 44 percent say they want a third-party option.

. 

 

 

 

 

'...less than half those in Clinton's column say they strongly support her, while a bare majority support her 'somewhat'...'

Not exactly a ringing endorsement

[mormont]

But the same is true of Sanders, and it's certainly true of Trump. Whoever wins, their policies will be opposed by the other party and a goodly chunk of their own. (Sanders' personal negatives are lower, but his agenda is more radical.)

The possibility of getting a President that will command cross-party support or even internal party unity and will be able to progress their agenda that way hasn't materialised. What you need now is to pick the best candidate to get stuff done despite that, who can deal with that situation.

[The Fallen]

This is kind of late, but I guess as they say, better late than never.

Hillary Clinton is very smart, very knowledgeable. And in any other election she would be a good candidate. But unfortunately, she was running against Bernie Sanders, who isn't your typical politician. Had she been running against another typical politician her negatives wouldn't be as visible or pronounced. Because no doubt that the other candidate would also have positions where they've flip flopped.

But when compared to Bernie Sanders her flip-flopping really looks bad. Now you can argue that it isn't flip-flopping, but rather her position is evolving. And if it was one position or two, I might buy that argument. But when it's a multitude of positions over a period of time it starts to look like political expediency. She started the negotiations on the TPP, but now she's against it (a position that came about after analyzing the political winds very carefully). She was also very quiet about the XL pipeline before coming out against it (with some more meteorological analysis). And of course, there are her positions on gay marriage, where before she believed in the sanctity of marriage between a male and a female, but now she's for gay marriage. Another one is her vote for the Iraq War.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders has never really had to change most or any of his positions because he's always held the same positions. But more importantly, his positions always seem to be the correct ones. Like his vote against the Iraq War. That took a lot of courage to go against a very popular (especially for emotional reasons) political stance. Yet he did the right thing and voted against it. That speaks to me of someone who isn't merely a politician trying to keep his job, but rather a politician who is trying to do the right thing. There are also other positions - like the cost of college and loans, wanting to regulate Wall Street and banking, fighting on behalf of workers and for a living wage - where Bernie Sanders was on the right side and Hillary Clinton seemingly took these positions because of their overall popularity with Democrats, not necessarily because she believes in them.

But the biggest issue I had, and continue to have, with Clinton is this idea that progressives need to make incremental changes. Her opponents on the other side, the Republicans, don't believe in incremental changes. When they get their hands on power they do everything to push through their agenda. Reagan and George W Bush didn't incrementally make changes or implement their positions. They went all-in and did a lot of damage to the country. Yet when Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama gain power they want to incrementally make changes. And now Hillary Clinton is proposing the same strategy. Why?

The reason I support Sanders is because I believe that in this time in history it is very crucial not just to get a progressive into office, but someone who is going to do everything in his power to implement the changes that this country needs and fight back against the neoliberalism that has taken root in the Republican Party. The days of centrist and Reagan Democrats need to end.

Will Bernie Sanders be able to implement all of his positions immediately or completely? Of course not. But when you sit down to negotiate you don't start off at the position that you want. You ask for more and then negotiate down to what you want. That's Bernie Sanders' strategy. Whereas Clinton wants to start negotiating at the actual position she wants, which will inevitably leave her getting an even worse position.

When this primary began I had a favorable view of Clinton. But the more I've listened to the two candidates and have been exposed to Hillary's history, combined with her feeling of entitlement (like this nomination is hers), the worse she looks to me. So now the question is, will I hold my nose and vote for Hillary or will I simply stay home and not vote at all? Maybe we deserve a Trump presidency and all the damage it will cause to the country. At this point, I can honestly say that the only reason I could think of to vote for Hillary is to make sure that the Republicans don't get to fill another Supreme Court seat. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

ETA:

Hillary Clinton has stated that if she wins the presidency she will appoint Bill Clinton to be in charge of the economy. Not only do I think that's not a good idea, but it makes it look like she's already giving part of her presidency to her husband. Can you imagine if a male presidential candidate stated that he was going to have his wife be the point person for the economy? Everyone would question who was actually going to be running the country.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Oh, Bernie's got a fair bit of nuance to his positions too (gay marriage - http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/, gun control - http://time.com/4177893/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gun-control/). I like the guy, but no politician can ever be a saint.

As for incremental changes... you seem to think that it's a matter of choice. If Hillary or Obama could wave a magic wand and achieve instant left-wing nirvana, they'd have done it already. As it is, Obama achieved the biggest reform in US health care since the Johnson era, but he only just managed it, because of the sheer size of institutional obstacles.

(Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, for all his popularity, ran into this problem. Between accommodating Southern racists and his court-packing failure, he couldn't wave a wand either. And if he can't, no-one can).

[ThinkerX]

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

The possibility of getting a President that will command cross-party support or even internal party unity and will be able to progress their agenda that way hasn't materialised. What you need now is to pick the best candidate to get stuff done despite that, who can deal with that situation.

My contention is Clinton is such a divisive figure that she will accomplish less than Obama.

More, she's trying to be 'all things to all people,' a stance certain to lead to disaster.  (Her supposed newfound support for leftist causes.)

I do not see Clinton (or Trump, if he somehow wins) lasting more than a single term.  (In fact, I still maintain both parties would join forces to impeach Trump, as he represents a threat to the political class as a whole, not just individual parties.)

And the 2020 election is going to be bigger mess than this one. 

 

[ThinkerX]

9 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

As for incremental changes... you seem to think that it's a matter of choice. If Hillary or Obama could wave a magic wand and achieve instant left-wing nirvana, they'd have done it already. As it is, Obama achieved the biggest reform in US health care since the Johnson era, but he only just managed it, because of the sheer size of institutional obstacles.

And the ACA is falling apart.  I see more and more increasingly bitter complaints about high payments and insane deductibles that make the policies effectively worthless.  Plus the insurers are backing out of the market.

Meanwhile, the disapproval rating for both parties is in excess of 80%.  Used to be, the local voters could at least count on a bit of local pork, enough to make them support 'their guy.'  Not so much anymore.  When that 80% disapproval hits the local level, there will be hell to pay. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Meanwhile, the disapproval rating for both parties is in excess of 80%.  

Nonsense. The Republican Party has about 60% disapproval, while the Democrats have about 50% disapproval:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/poll-republican-disapproval-222586

Neither is remotely in the 80% range. Moreover, taking a look at the congressional parties, which invariably poll the worst:

Democrats - http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm - disapproval in the high 50s

Republicans - http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm - disapproval in the 70s (or in one case, 81%).

So yeah. One poll showing 81% disapproval rating of congressional Republicans. That's hardly "the disapproval rating for both parties is in excess of 80%".

[mormont]

30 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

My contention is Clinton is such a divisive figure that she will accomplish less than Obama.

Right. And my contention is that Sanders is almost as divisive (and his agenda is much more so), and Trump is much more divisive than either. So basically, if you were hoping for a President that wasn't going to be a divisive figure, that ship sailed long ago.

It may well be that President Clinton would accomplish less than Obama, but Obama isn't standing. The question is, would she accomplish more than President Sanders? Or President Trump, if you would actually like him to accomplish any of the things he'd be trying to accomplish? Almost certainly, the answer in both cases is 'no'.

You can only pick from the choices you have and while it's fine to say none of them are ideal, they're still the choices your fellow citizens have agreed on.

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, The Fallen said:

But the biggest issue I had, and continue to have, with Clinton is this idea that progressives need to make incremental changes. Her opponents on the other side, the Republicans, don't believe in incremental changes. When they get their hands on power they do everything to push through their agenda. Reagan and George W Bush didn't incrementally make changes or implement their positions. They went all-in and did a lot of damage to the country. Yet when Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama gain power they want to incrementally make changes. And now Hillary Clinton is proposing the same strategy. Why?

Republicans may like bottom-up changes, but they don't usually get 'em. After eight-plus years they haven't managed to repeal Social Security. After sixty-plus they have failed to eliminate Medicare. The welfare state generally gets larger, but they nibble at the edges where they can--welfare reform in the 90s is a good example of this. So they make incremental changes all the time.

I don't know why you think Democrats are incremental by choice, either. The reason the ACA did not go further was not because Democrats just got scared but because a few Democrats got stubborn and Republican filibusters made it impossible to proceed without their support. So the party had to pass what legislation it could and wait until later for the rest. I think you're discounting the increased frequency of the filibuster and how that has affected policy. If you don't have sixty votes in the Senate you don't get your way, period. One can argue that the filibuster should be eliminated (I certainly do), but until then, it's what we've got.

(Also, Reagan totally made deals with Democrats, particularly on taxes.)

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I think Jon Oliver is right. The moment this election is over people need to start making moves now to get things changed. More than changing the DNC party rules or the RNC rules, what registered independents have found themselves forced to do is affiliate themselves with a party to be a part of the selection process. Which is BS. Getting a third candidate on the Presidential debate state is next to impossible. Sanders's successor needs to run in 2020 as an independent, and the rules should be reevaluated so he/she doesn't have to have some arbitrary polling number to participate in debates (when often the polls aren't even conducted to include these outsiders in the first place). The D and R need not control the process anymore is what has become clear.

[BloodRider]

10 hours ago, sologdin said:

those are fairly rigorously logical positions.

Yeah, that's fair enough.  For example Clinton is using SuperPACs while claiming (I believe her) that she will fight CU, etc.

[Kalbear]

I think it's more the nature of the objection. Hating the superdelegates because they do not represent the will of the people and then using them to circumvent the will of the people is a bit different.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I think Jon Oliver is right. The moment this election is over people need to start making moves now to get things changed. More than changing the DNC party rules or the RNC rules, what registered independents have found themselves forced to do is affiliate themselves with a party to be a part of the selection process. Which is BS. Getting a third candidate on the Presidential debate state is next to impossible. Sanders's successor needs to run in 2020 as an independent, and the rules should be reevaluated so he/she doesn't have to have some arbitrary polling number to participate in debates (when often the polls aren't even conducted to include these outsiders in the first place). The D and R need not control the process anymore is what has become clear.

Uh. no. There needs to be some cutoff as to who participates in debates, and wherever you set that cutoff someone is going to yell that it's "arbitrary."  Personally I think a bare minimum for being in nationally televised debates should be having one's name appear on the ballots in enough states so it is mathematically possible to win the electoral college. 

Not that the electoral college itself is a good idea -- but as long as we do have that system, actually having the theoretical possibility of winning it should be a minimum qualification for being considered a serious candidate who gets into debates. 

[Fez]

7 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

And the ACA is falling apart.  I see more and more increasingly bitter complaints about high payments and insane deductibles that make the policies effectively worthless.  Plus the insurers are backing out of the market.

I strongly disagree with that characterization. But even if it were true, the ACA is a lot more than the markets. For instance, more people have gotten coverage through Medicaid than the markets, and Medicaid is doing fine in most states. And the number of people who've gotten coverage of any time through the age-26 provision and the no-preconditions clauses also number in the millions.

ETA: And speak of the devil, look at what I just saw at work. 

Quote

The majority of enrollees in ACA-compliant non-group plans give their overall coverage a positive rating, with 14 percent calling their plan “excellent” and about half (52 percent) saying it is “good.”

 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's more the nature of the objection. Hating the superdelegates because they do not represent the will of the people and then using them to circumvent the will of the people is a bit different.

I don't see why anyone's fussing about superdelegates anyway. They've never overturned the actions of the pledged delegates, and probably never would unless the Democratic Donald Trump somehow emerged. (You'd better believe Republicans are wishing they had some superdelegates!)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Is Hillary making a mistake by saying she will put Bill in charge of "revitalizing the economy?"  On the one hand the economy was really strong during his presidency, but on the other it will highlight NAFTA and it will make it easier to attack Bill on his past indiscretions. I could really see it breaking either way.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

12 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Except that the general election won't be Trump vs A Grizzly Bear. It will be Trump vs Clinton. Which means if you're not voting Clinton, you're helping Trump, and "lesser of the two evils" most certainly becomes relevant.

 

I don't really see, how that is in disagreement, with what I said. I will try to rephrase my point though. Also @Shryke

 

The point the Clinton campaign makes, about uniting against Trump (same as the GOP establishment with their failed "Never Trump" campaign), is basically a negative choice campaign (I am somewhat lacking a better word). What I mean is, you are basically telling to vote against something, and not to vote for something. Which is not exactly the same thing. Sanders promised his supporters something to vote for (and it's nothing short of a revolution), Obama also promised something to vote for (change; yes, we can! and then hope). Both are/were somewhat more inspirational candidates than Clinton. Even Trump has somewhere beneath all his racist and moronic stuff some sort of positive messaging why people should vote for him ("Winning, so hard you will be tired of winning" "Make America Great again", "we will make such good deals").

What was Clinton's promise (or political vision if you prefer that) again? So why should people vote for Clinton; and try not to use Trump in that argument. If it really comes down to anybody but Trump, it really lacks some sort of appeal imo. The Grizzly Bear also falls under the "(s)he is not Trump category." So is it really such a high demand to expect from the Clinton campaign to come up with a reason to vote for her, other than to vote against Trump?