US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

And I have lost patience with the increasingly shrill and conspiracy-inventing Berners, and with Bernie's own vanity and counterproductive attitude. I'm tired of him complaining about the rules of a campaign process that were written down and known before he ever registered to run, and his attempt to de-legitimize a process that he signed up to participate in. I'm tired of him claiming to Represent the People when fewer people have voted for him and his biggest victories come from goddamn democracy-suffocating caucuses. The candidate and the campaign have lost my faith. If my state's primary were held today, I'd probably vote for Clinton.

When this began I thought long and hard about voting for Sanders, and finally went with Clinton because I didn't think this revolution was anything more than a pipe dream. After months of being told that I am a shill and a sellout, and of watching Sanders claim to be anti-establishment while he angles for the superdelegates to overturn the will of pledged delegates...well, I am absurdly grateful I didn't vote for him.

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-vince-foster-media_us_57448e61e4b045cc9a721738

It was really only a matter of time.

Oh boy. Even back in the 90s this had traction only in the right-wing fever swamp, and Trump is a fool if he thinks bringing this up will move any voters out of the Clinton camp. I'll bet most under-thirty voters have no idea who Vince Foster was. What a clown. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm in two minds on the "putting Bill in charge of the economy" line.

Pro:

• It invokes the successful 1990s economy (whether or not Bill actually had anything to do with it).
• It avoids the mistake Al Gore made in 2000 of running away from Bill.
• Bill symbolises the world as it was before September 11th, the Financial Crisis et cetera. It's a return to normalcy, to borrow the phrase.
• Bill (unlike other Presidential spouses) has actually been President. He has credibility.
• It might help to revive Democratic support in places like Arkansas, and other places where Obama is hated.

Con:

• It undermines Hillary as a President (so people aren't voting for Hillary any more, but for Bill?).
• It undermines whomever Hillary chooses as VP (who is the real second in command here?).
• It feels a bit Back to the Future. There's a difference between invoking him in 2000 and invoking him sixteen years later.
• Bill may be a net asset, but he's a double-edged asset (the economy isn't just what he's remembered for).
• The economic circumstances of 2017 (weak aggregate demand) are very different from the circumstances of 1993 (budget deficit means high borrowing costs).

Overall, I hope it's just a "try it and see" move. If it works, great. If it gets criticised, by November everyone will have forgotten about it.

[ThinkerX]

The article I linked to in the last thread - and quoted again towards the start of this one - did mention something about 44% of the voters polled wishing there were a credible 3rd party alternative.  Not saying a third party will carry any states, or gain any electoral votes whatsoever.  But they might do a tad better this time around than normal.  Might even hit 10% or 20% of the votes in a few states. 

And the degree of polarization I see on this thread and elsewhere is alarming.  It's like nobody is willing to acknowledge the other side is not going to go away, or makes valid points at least some of the time.  More, adherents of both parties almost seem to equate 'internal dissent' with 'treason to the party.' 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

I don't think I had the process confused. I don't think you were clear in your initial post that when you said "run as an Independent" you meant the person had already gotten themselves on the ballot in all 50 states. That's a much more specific and higher qualification than just "running as an independent." 

Personally I also do NOT think people should run for President as pure independents. I think they should form a party and get on the ballot that way, as the Libertarians have done. 
 

 

 

Yeah, I get ahead of myself when I'm typing, I apologize. I had just listened to an interview with, I think, Gary Johnson? Libertarian, talking about this and probably jumped in without a lot of context. I'm not against independent--but I don't think there is a democratic equivalent to libertarian is there? I mean, if someone ran as a socialist, which I'm all for, most people wouldn't get past the title. Independents seem to be the democratic equivalent (like Bernie), but I admit that's just something I perceive to be the truth and there may be a viable, left-leaning party out there I'm not thinking about.    

[Centrist Simon Steele]

56 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

When this began I thought long and hard about voting for Sanders, and finally went with Clinton because I didn't think this revolution was anything more than a pipe dream. After months of being told that I am a shill and a sellout, and of watching Sanders claim to be anti-establishment while he angles for the superdelegates to overturn the will of pledged delegates...well, I am absurdly grateful I didn't vote for him.

Oh boy. Even back in the 90s this had traction only in the right-wing fever swamp, and Trump is a fool if he thinks bringing this up will move any voters out of the Clinton camp. I'll bet most under-thirty voters have no idea who Vince Foster was. What a clown. 

 

 

I don't understand why you're a shill or a sellout for going with Clinton. I am Bernie till the day he officially drops out, but I don't look at anyone who votes for Hillary the same way as I look at Trump. I look at the differences between Bernie and Hillary as ideological differences--but I can see the rationale in Clinton's side.

I don't begrudge Bernie trying to use superdelegates to his advantage, but then again, I think he is angling more toward just getting rid of them. He knows that he can't win the nomination, but the increasing pressure from the DNC to drop out, I think, is forcing him to explain how he could win. He is staying in to push his ideology as long as he can, and something can be gained from this at the convention. Concessions can be made to acquire his diehard supporters, and he knows this. But the DNC seems to be putting a lot of pressure on him not to go to the convention and make his case, so I think his argument is beginning to get lost. He can't say, "I'm going to lose, but I want to go to the convention," so he has so present a strategy. I don't believe for a second, even if he could sway the superdelegates, he would attempt to wrangle the nomination away from the person who received more votes.

[Kalbear]

Here's a good example of the kind of doublethink that Sanders has gotten people to show. So Sanders won Washington overwhelmingly, right? Well, only 230k people voted. 

In the primary ballot - which doesn't count, but is mailed to everyone's house and is an open primary - 650k voted, and Clinton won. 

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

But the DNC seems to be putting a lot of pressure on him not to go to the convention and make his case, so I think his argument is beginning to get lost. He can't say, "I'm going to lose, but I want to go to the convention," so he has so present a strategy. I don't believe for a second, even if he could sway the superdelegates, he would attempt to wrangle the nomination away from the person who received more votes.

Yeah, I don't even get this. The DNC isn't putting any pressure on him not to go to the convention. They just gave him 1/3rd of all the committee votes for setting the platform of the democratic party - this didn't even happen with Clinton in 2008. They've been quietly adding various positions of his to the party line. 

No, what they'd like him to do is either drop out because he can't win, or stop with the ceaseless attacks against the party's legitimacy and stop with the attacks against Clinton. And they're rightfully saying that if he burns these bridges, he's done with his senatorial seat and done with his allegiance to the Democrats. He won't get his committee seats, he won't get his tenure, he won't get his influence. Which is probably fair, given that they were not his for the taking but were given freely by the Democrats in exchange for playing nice. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, what they'd like him to do is either drop out because he can't win, or stop with the ceaseless attacks against the party's legitimacy and stop with the attacks against Clinton. And they're rightfully saying that if he burns these bridges, he's done with his senatorial seat and done with his allegiance to the Democrats. He won't get his committee seats, he won't get his tenure, he won't get his influence. Which is probably fair, given that they were not his for the taking but were given freely by the Democrats in exchange for playing nice. 

The difficulty there is twofold:

1. Bernie is incredibly popular in Vermont, and would likely beat any attempt by the Democrats to take him out (to the point where he probably wouldn't even have to worry about the Republicans coming through the middle). So, powerless or not, he's still in the Senate.

2. Senate seats matter. If in January 2017 President Clinton faces a Senate with 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and Bernie, you're going to have a messy situation. Especially with Supreme Court appointments.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The difficulty there is twofold:

1. Bernie is incredibly popular in Vermont, and would likely beat any attempt by the Democrats to take him out (to the point where he probably wouldn't even have to worry about the Republicans coming through the middle). So, powerless or not, he's still in the Senate.

2. Senate seats matter. If in January 2017 President Clinton faces a Senate with 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and Bernie, you're going to have a messy situation. Especially with Supreme Court appointments.

That's possibly true, and maybe they'll deal with it when the time comes, but I suspect very strongly that they'll take him off of his committee seats pretty damn fast. And while he's popular in Vermont, if he's seen as being obstructionist of the Democratic president he'll be gone pretty fast - and likely replaced by a Republican, not a Democrat (and point of fact, Democratic senators don't often win or didn't often win Vermont, so that wouldn't be that surprising). 

I also suspect that if he's really burning these kind of bridges the Democrats will have no choice. They can't let people like this just do whatever they want and potentially cost the presidency. They'd rather suffer with SC justices not going nominated than that. Compromise only goes so far. 

I really hope it doesn't happen, because Sanders has a lot of potential to revitalize a generation of progressive voters and even potentially charge an actual, viable party. He has a lot of good things to say, and does a good job of saying them. As it stands, right now, he's ignoring all of that in favor of attempting to win a race that he lost at least a month ago.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

and likely replaced by a Republican, not a Democrat (and point of fact, Democratic senators don't often win or didn't often win Vermont, so that wouldn't be that surprising). 

Well, yes, Patrick Leahy remains the only Democrat in history to have represented Vermont in the US Senate - but that's simply old-school Yankee Republicanism, and that sort of breed is extinct. Local Republicans might still win the Governorship, but there's a big difference between supporting some centrist local guy and supporting the nationwide Republican Party.

Short of Democrats voting en-masse for a Republican against Bernie (and can't you just see the martyr complex kicking in at that point), I can't see him losing.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I don't even get this. The DNC isn't putting any pressure on him not to go to the convention. They just gave him 1/3rd of all the committee votes for setting the platform of the democratic party - this didn't even happen with Clinton in 2008. They've been quietly adding various positions of his to the party line. 

No, what they'd like him to do is either drop out because he can't win, or stop with the ceaseless attacks against the party's legitimacy and stop with the attacks against Clinton. And they're rightfully saying that if he burns these bridges, he's done with his senatorial seat and done with his allegiance to the Democrats. He won't get his committee seats, he won't get his tenure, he won't get his influence. Which is probably fair, given that they were not his for the taking but were given freely by the Democrats in exchange for playing nice. 

 

Either way, there is a lot of what "they want" and he has to create some kind of strategy to get to the convention. It sure would be nice if he stopped going against Clinton and just...debated himself, I guess, so she could focus on Trump, but that's not how a campaign funded on other people's money should work.

I'm with ThinkerX, it's really hard to try and see both sides without being slapped around by the polarized notions of either side of this argument. Every question, comment, line of discussion is met with "Yeah. No." or "Yeah, I don't see this." Or whatever. Complete dismissiveness of the other viewpoint, and because of this we have a real shot at President Trump. I don't see this polarization changing at this point. It has only gotten worse over the last few months.

[mormont]

[mod] Folks, I know it's a politics thread and people are passionate, but let's remain polite, please. Thanks. [/mod]

[ThinkerX]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's possibly true, and maybe they'll deal with it when the time comes, but I suspect very strongly that they'll take him off of his committee seats pretty damn fast. And while he's popular in Vermont, if he's seen as being obstructionist of the Democratic president he'll be gone pretty fast - and likely replaced by a Republican, not a Democrat (and point of fact, Democratic senators don't often win or didn't often win Vermont, so that wouldn't be that surprising). 

I also suspect that if he's really burning these kind of bridges the Democrats will have no choice. They can't let people like this just do whatever they want and potentially cost the presidency. They'd rather suffer with SC justices not going nominated than that. Compromise only goes so far. 

And here we go again.  'Internal dissent,' even justified, equals 'treason to the party,' and by extension, the country. 

This type of vindictiveness solves nothing, and brings no benefit. Quite the opposite.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Either way, there is a lot of what "they want" and he has to create some kind of strategy to get to the convention. It sure would be nice if he stopped going against Clinton and just...debated himself, I guess, so she could focus on Trump, but that's not how a campaign funded on other people's money should work.

I'm with ThinkerX, it's really hard to try and see both sides without being slapped around by the polarized notions of either side of this argument. Every question, comment, line of discussion is met with "Yeah. No." or "Yeah, I don't see this." Or whatever. Complete dismissiveness of the other viewpoint, and because of this we have a real shot at President Trump. I don't see this polarization changing at this point. It has only gotten worse over the last few months.

This is a false dicotomy you are creating here. Sanders could easily continue campaigning without attacking Clinton. He's done it before after all. He could just stump about his issues constantly instead.

But, as I've said before, he can't do that and keep getting money. Which is the funny because you bring up "how a campaign funded on other people's money should work" and ignore that he's deliberately wasting these people's money by acting like he's totally gonna win this when everyone knows it's bullshit.

He's lying like crazy to get people to keep funding a campaign he knows is done for and that isn't even doing anything useful for the causes he supports anymore.

[Shryke]

53 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

And here we go again.  'Internal dissent,' even justified, equals 'treason to the party,' and by extension, the country. 

This type of vindictiveness solves nothing, and brings no benefit. Quite the opposite.

Dude, wtf are you even talking about?

You keep going on with this shit but even when you claim to cite when it's happening, it's nothing like these histrionics.

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I don't understand why you're a shill or a sellout for going with Clinton. I am Bernie till the day he officially drops out, but I don't look at anyone who votes for Hillary the same way as I look at Trump. I look at the differences between Bernie and Hillary as ideological differences--but I can see the rationale in Clinton's side.

I don't know either! Clinton isn't paying me for my vote, nor am I expecting to land a gig like secretary of transportation or something. Believe me, I am ready to sell out, but Hillary Clinton has shown no interest in buying me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Oh boy. Even back in the 90s this had traction only in the right-wing fever swamp, and Trump is a fool if he thinks bringing this up will move any voters out of the Clinton camp. I'll bet most under-thirty voters have no idea who Vince Foster was. What a clown. 

Which could be problematic. Younger people who haven't heard about the whole ordeal before likely won't know that the accusation has been widely discredited.

[Ormond]

8 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Yeah, I get ahead of myself when I'm typing, I apologize. I had just listened to an interview with, I think, Gary Johnson? Libertarian, talking about this and probably jumped in without a lot of context. I'm not against independent--but I don't think there is a democratic equivalent to libertarian is there? I mean, if someone ran as a socialist, which I'm all for, most people wouldn't get past the title. Independents seem to be the democratic equivalent (like Bernie), but I admit that's just something I perceive to be the truth and there may be a viable, left-leaning party out there I'm not thinking about.  

The possibility of voting for Jill Stein this year has been mentioned on this thread, and she is the candidate of the Green Party. The Green Party would certainly seem to be an alternative for people who want to build up a new party to the left of the Democrats.

http://www.gp.org/

[Maithanet]

9 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

When this began I thought long and hard about voting for Sanders, and finally went with Clinton because I didn't think this revolution was anything more than a pipe dream. After months of being told that I am a shill and a sellout, and of watching Sanders claim to be anti-establishment while he angles for the superdelegates to overturn the will of pledged delegates...well, I am absurdly grateful I didn't vote for him.

I also found both Sanders and Clinton to be acceptable, but flawed candidates.  My thinking was:

Sanders Pros:  Takes climate change seriously.  Tough on big corporations.

Sanders Cons:  Sounds amatuerish on foreign policy.  Unachievable promises.  Possibly unelectable.

Clinton Pros:  Broadly qualified, policy expert, I want to see a woman president

Clinton Cons:  Disagreeably hawkish.  Very high unfavorables.  Possibly unelectable. 

 

I went with Clinton in the end.  As the campaign has unfolded, I have also grown increasingly unhappy with Sanders, particularly his cavalier attitude towards undermining the results of the primaries that have already occurred.  This election we've seen two major candidates (Trump and Sanders) actively trying to convince their supporters that defeat = democracy subverted.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  Declaring a failure of democracy because the other person got more votes is taking steps down a very dangerous path. 

[BloodRider]

17 hours ago, Shryke said:

Oh, he's totally not responsible for the good economy except in that he didn't really fuck it up.

But that's besides the point, which is that he's credited for the good economy. That's the way people see him and remember him. So saying "Bill will be in charge of the good economy" makes sense politically because that links your future administrations economy to Bill Clinton's economy, which is remembered well.

Two things about that.

1) At least at first, he did what you are supposed to do when the economy is good, and employment is low - run a surplus, and switch to short(er) term debt.  This is SO important,  What you do when things are going great matter as much (or more) as what you do when the economy is in the shitter.  That said, he did lose his way on this, in that surpluses became the ends, and not the means that you use to smooth out economic cycles.

2) Much has been said about how the internet was REALLY responsible for the 90s economy, and it is true - it was the genesis of the great economy.  HOWEVER, it is was necessary for the good times, but not sufficient to ensure that this would happen.  By way of contrast, the UK and Canada basically had the internet at the same level in the 90s, but they went through sizable recessions in that time.  Meanwhile Clinton worked closely with Greenspan to get Monetary and Fiscal policy in sync, so that the US could capitalize on the tech driven shocks to aggregate demand and supply.  It was, at the time, unprecedented, and showed a great deal of foresight on both their parts.  Yes, luck was involved, but we were also very lucky to have both those guys in the right frame of mind to make something of the opportunity luck uncovered.