US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mudguard said:

He's still running against Clinton.  There's no reason he should need permission from Clinton to debate Trump.  I also don't assume the worse in Sanders, unlike many Clinton supporters that assume Sanders will use the debate as a platform to bash Clinton with Trump.  As you say, Sanders can easily use the debate to bash Trump instead.  

He can, but given the more recent debates it's very easy for him to go negative (as he has the last two debates) and my suspicion is that Trump would want to goad him into it. And Sanders is kind of easy to manipulate in debates emotionally. I don't think that Sanders is mwahahah evil - but I think he has a combination of too much positive idealism about other people's motivations ,and he's too easy to emotionally manipulate, especially based on incomplete information. (the example of him yelling that Clinton was unqualified when Clinton didn't say that he was is a good example of this). 

Just now, Mudguard said:

I also don't think it will be that easy for Trump to steal away Sanders supporters during a debate, no more than it will be easy for Sanders to steal away Trump supporters.  Trump still needs the support of the Republican base.  It would be very dangerous for him to have a love fest with Sanders in an attempt to woo a small number of Sanders supporters that would really consider voting for Trump.  

It's not about wooing Sanders supporters. It's about two things: 

• Convincing Sanders supporters that they should not under any circumstance support Clinton
• Convincing Sanders supporters that Trump really isn't that bad.

Again, the debate at this point is basically what happens to Sanders' supporters. Trump isn't wanting to steal anyone away, because he isn't trying to beat Sanders. He's wanting to use Sanders as a political tool. Sanders wants to beat Trump, but this is also a political tool - to show that he can beat Trump, but also that Clinton sucks. 

Just now, Mudguard said:

I actually don't see much upside for Trump in a debate with Sanders.  He would need complete control of the moderators of the debate in order to be able to drive his agenda.  I really doubt that the debate will actually happen.

The debate would be on Fox. The same Fox that just released a special 'The Trumps' focusing on all the awesome part of Trump's family. I don't think controlling the debate is that hard, and Trump has never had a hard time curbing any debate towards the things he wants. 

[Shryke]

Trump has officially turned down the debate:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-debating-bernie-sanders

Quote

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders -  and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.

So basically a lesser version of what he could have gotten out of the debate itself, but with no risk involved. Sanders gave him an easy opening to take a swipe at Clinton while trying to keep the angry Sanders supporter narrative going.

[Kalbear]

See, now? Now would be a good time for Sanders and Clinton to come together, call on Trump to debate Sanders, and go after him for being afraid. Especially since a tech company was going to host it for $10mil to go to charity as long as they could host the actual debate (which would be probably even better). 

Shaming Trump and calling him a coward hits right at his supporters' core values and more importantly his own sense of machismo.

[Shryke]

As I said earlier, a debate would probably be an easy win for Trump because all he has to do is what he does in that statement above and just keep talking about how Clinton robbed Sanders of the nomination through dirty tricks and prompting Sanders to agree with him because he would be repeating what Sanders' campaign has already been saying for awhile now.

This serves as an easy and very well publicised attack on Clinton and also as a way to weaken her and the Democratic Party by continuing to rile up Sanders' supporters against Clinton.

The only real risk involved was either the debate ends up actually being about policy or Sanders doesn't play along and straight up scuttles his own campaign on live national television.

[Mudguard]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He can, but given the more recent debates it's very easy for him to go negative (as he has the last two debates) and my suspicion is that Trump would want to goad him into it. And Sanders is kind of easy to manipulate in debates emotionally. I don't think that Sanders is mwahahah evil - but I think he has a combination of too much positive idealism about other people's motivations ,and he's too easy to emotionally manipulate, especially based on incomplete information. (the example of him yelling that Clinton was unqualified when Clinton didn't say that he was is a good example of this). 

It's not about wooing Sanders supporters. It's about two things: 

• Convincing Sanders supporters that they should not under any circumstance support Clinton
• Convincing Sanders supporters that Trump really isn't that bad.

Again, the debate at this point is basically what happens to Sanders' supporters. Trump isn't wanting to steal anyone away, because he isn't trying to beat Sanders. He's wanting to use Sanders as a political tool. Sanders wants to beat Trump, but this is also a political tool - to show that he can beat Trump, but also that Clinton sucks. 

The debate would be on Fox. The same Fox that just released a special 'The Trumps' focusing on all the awesome part of Trump's family. I don't think controlling the debate is that hard, and Trump has never had a hard time curbing any debate towards the things he wants. 

I don't think Sander's is easy to manipulate.  If so, Clinton should have been able to convince him to drop out by now.  He likes to shout and yell; that's just his style.

I doubt Trump will be able to convince many Sander's supporters of anything.  I'm assuming that Sanders will fully support Clinton after the convention.  If so, what Trump says will be meaningless.  I also assume that Sanders will bash Trump.  Why would Sanders supporters believe Trump over Sander?

Even if on Fox, as long as Sander's doesn't cooperate with Trump, Trump won't gain anything.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mudguard said:

I don't think Sander's is easy to manipulate.  If so, Clinton should have been able to convince him to drop out by now.  He likes to shout and yell; that's just his style.

He's easy to emotionally manipulate. Especially to cause anger. He's like the opposite of the Hulk. That doesn't mean you can get what you want, but it is easy to push his buttons. 

Just now, Mudguard said:

I doubt Trump will be able to convince many Sander's supporters of anything.  I'm assuming that Sanders will fully support Clinton after the convention.  If so, what Trump says will be meaningless.  I also assume that Sanders will bash Trump.  Why would Sanders supporters believe Trump over Sander?

Even if on Fox, as long as Sander's doesn't cooperate with Trump, Trump won't gain anything.  

Trump simply has to say exactly what he said above to convince them - because Crooked Clinton and DWS won't allow Sanders to win, he won't debate Sanders. Trump doesn't have to appeal to them as a good choice - all he has to do is make Clinton look like the REAL enemy. Just like he did in the above message. 

And what is Sanders going to say? No, the system isn't crooked? He's been saying that this whole time! Or DWS isn't crooked and bad? He specifically just came out and said that! Trump doesn't have to have Sanders cooperate with him - all Trump has to do is say the same shit that Sanders has said over and over. That's it.

[Mudguard]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

See, now? Now would be a good time for Sanders and Clinton to come together, call on Trump to debate Sanders, and go after him for being afraid. Especially since a tech company was going to host it for $10mil to go to charity as long as they could host the actual debate (which would be probably even better). 

Shaming Trump and calling him a coward hits right at his supporters' core values and more importantly his own sense of machismo.

Sander's was already laying the groundwork for that by stating that he hoped Trump wouldn't be too afraid to follow through.  The question from Kimmel to Trump about debating Sanders was a question from the Sanders camp that Kimmel passed on to Trump.  Looks like it was a good tactical move by Sanders to troll Trump.

Trumps penchant for speaking before thinking got him in trouble.  It was obvious that Trump had little to gain from the debate.

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I actually don't see much upside for Trump in a debate with Sanders.  He would need complete control of the moderators of the debate in order to be able to drive his agenda.  I really doubt that the debate will actually happen.

I don't see much upside for Trump either and apparently neither did Trump himself.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At the same time - I've not felt this angry about some of my acquaintance's behavior in 6 years, since one of my friends came out as a bigot. It bothers me on a very basic moral level to think that people would be okay with sending the US into chaos and violence and open revolt so that maybe in a few years things would be better. It bothers me that their friend's rights are so meaningless to them that they would happily spend them if it meant (maybe) getting something more like what they want down the road.

That's because you are classifying the various issues as if they were of roughly equal importance. They are not. The various "rights" and the like are all important to somebody, but the system can and will go on regardless of how the conflicts over them are eventually resolved. On the other hand, the economic situation and its natural progression (increasing inequality and lack of decent jobs) add up to an existential threat. If it is not resolved properly (e.g. a genuine FDR v2.0), it can and will destroy our society altogether and faster than one would think as it includes a positive feedback loop.

[Mudguard]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He's easy to emotionally manipulate. Especially to cause anger. He's like the opposite of the Hulk. That doesn't mean you can get what you want, but it is easy to push his buttons. 

Trump simply has to say exactly what he said above to convince them - because Crooked Clinton and DWS won't allow Sanders to win, he won't debate Sanders. Trump doesn't have to appeal to them as a good choice - all he has to do is make Clinton look like the REAL enemy. Just like he did in the above message. 

And what is Sanders going to say? No, the system isn't crooked? He's been saying that this whole time! Or DWS isn't crooked and bad? He specifically just came out and said that! Trump doesn't have to have Sanders cooperate with him - all Trump has to do is say the same shit that Sanders has said over and over. That's it.

Trump doesn't need the debate stage to bash Clinton.  That's not what a debate between Trump and Sanders would be about.  What you are describing is some sort of bizarre joint conference where Trump blathers on about Clinton the entire time.  Obviously, that would never happen, as Trump realized.

[Mudguard]

Here's Sander's response to Trump backing out:

Quote

"I hope that he changes his mind again. Mr. Trump is known to change his mind many times in a day," Sanders said. "Trump is a bully, he's a big tough guy. Well, I say to Mr. Trump, what are you afraid of?"

So instead of castigating Sanders for trying to debate Trump, Clinton supporters should be thanking him for providing them with this opportunity to bash Trump and call him weak and afraid and a flip flopper.  Relax, Sander's is on your side.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Mudguard said:

Here's Sander's response to Trump backing out:

So instead of castigating Sanders for trying to debate Trump, Clinton supporters should be thanking him for providing them with this opportunity to bash Trump and call him weak and afraid and a flip flopper.  Relax, Sander's is on your side.

Unpossible.  Sanders is satan incarnate, and must be criticized for everything he does, says, or doesn't do or say, depending on the circumstance.

The funny part is, lots of posters lambasting him here for this, he should've consulted Clinton, blah blah blah...  As if they even know whether he did or not.

Lot of armchair political strategy insiders here it seems, to whom it doesn't even occur that Sanders is a lot more savvy than they are when it comes to political campaigns.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Trump doesn't need the debate stage to bash Clinton.  That's not what a debate between Trump and Sanders would be about.  What you are describing is some sort of bizarre joint conference where Trump blathers on about Clinton the entire time.  Obviously, that would never happen, as Trump realized.

Agreed. Sanders might get trapped into having to hit Clinton here and there, but the majority of his time would be spent carpet bombing Trump. Sanders debating Trump doesn't help Clinton, and could hurt her a bit, but that would pale to compare to the damage Sanders could do to Trump, and if Trump attacked Sanders too much, he'd ruin his chances of courting Sanders supporters.

Since Wacko Trump chickened out quickly, this is already a win for the Democrats. And I think Trump is actually nervous to debate either Clinton or Sanders. He's going to look like a know-nothing idiot on the debate stage when he actually has to face a real opponent and won't be abler to get away with his usual shtick. He actually fared rather poorly in the GOP primary debates. it just didn't effect his narrow base of supporters. It should play out differently when the entire country is watching. Or so I hope.

[Mudguard]

19 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Unpossible.  Sanders is satan incarnate, and must be criticized for everything he does, says, or doesn't do or say, depending on the circumstance.

The funny part is, lots of posters lambasting him here for this, he should've consulted Clinton, blah blah blah...  As if they even know whether he did or not.

Lot of armchair political strategy insiders here it seems, to whom it doesn't even occur that Sanders is a lot more savvy than they are when it comes to political campaigns.

 

Yeah, I think Sander's has done really well, considering that a year ago he was relatively unknown and a self described socialist.  By staying in, he can continue to wring more concessions.  This debate move with Trump was pure genius.  

I also think Clinton's response to Sanders these past few months has been very smart.  She has been completely hands off and has supported his right to stay in till the convention.  She knows that she's won and that he'll come around at the convention.  There's no upside for attacking Sanders now.  I think it would also be smart for Clinton supporters to do the same.  What do they have to gain by bashing Sanders?  He's already lost, so now it's getting them on your side.

[Kalbear]

Quote

That's because you are classifying the various issues as if they were of roughly equal importance. They are not. The various "rights" and the like are all important to somebody, but the system can and will go on regardless of how the conflicts over them are eventually resolved. On the other hand, the economic situation and its natural progression (increasing inequality and lack of decent jobs) add up to an existential threat. If it is not resolved properly (e.g. a genuine FDR v2.0), it can and will destroy our society altogether and faster than one would think as it includes a positive feedback loop.

Except here's the weird thing with that logic - this implies that it needs to be fixed right this second. Even though there's very little sign that it actually does. Furthermore, we have evidence from FDR 1.0 that it not only can be fixed, it can be fixed fairly quickly. And the first time it was fixed it was not after really incompetent government or hated people or something like that, and it's certainly not like FDR was some odd outsider. 

So to me, it's weird to classify these 'problems' which are at best speculative as a major emergency, and accept that we should cause major suffering right this instant to fix problems that aren't actually there yet. And even better, do so by completely obliterating the prior system. 

[Swordfish]

51 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Yeah, I think Sander's has done really well, considering that a year ago he was relatively unknown and a self described socialist.  By staying in, he can continue to wring more concessions.  This debate move with Trump was pure genius.  

I also think Clinton's response to Sanders these past few months has been very smart.  She has been completely hands off and has supported his right to stay in till the convention.  She knows that she's won and that he'll come around at the convention.  There's no upside for attacking Sanders now.  I think it would also be smart for Clinton supporters to do the same.  What do they have to gain by bashing Sanders?  He's already lost, so now it's getting them on your side.

Agreed.  I don't understand the need to turn Sanders into some enormous boogeyman here.  The pretzel like logic that you have to fold yourself into to make his staying in the campaign some major problem for Hilary is pretty astounding.

It's almost like people are so accustomed to this kind of behavior, that they just can't help themselves.  'I've chosen candidate X, therefor I must villainize candidate Y in order to validate my choice'.

Very odd.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Trump doesn't need the debate stage to bash Clinton.  That's not what a debate between Trump and Sanders would be about.  What you are describing is some sort of bizarre joint conference where Trump blathers on about Clinton the entire time.  Obviously, that would never happen, as Trump realized.

Bashing Clinton is exactly what a Trump/Sanders debate would be about. That's the only reason Trump would do one. That's why his campaign considered it. Trump couldn't give a shit about Sanders except as a way to go after Clinton.

He's taken the low-risk option though and just used the opportunity to do what he'd do on stage in a press release instead.

[Mudguard]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Bashing Clinton is exactly what a Trump/Sanders debate would be about. That's the only reason Trump would do one. That's why his campaign considered it. Trump couldn't give a shit about Sanders except as a way to go after Clinton.

He's taken the low-risk option though and just used the opportunity to do what he'd do on stage in a press release instead.

That's what Trump may have wanted it to be about, and what the fevered imaginations of some Clinton supporters imagined that it would be about, but the reality is that no debate between Trump and Sanders would play out that way.  Sanders would never play along with such a script, which Trump soon recognized, and so he did the only thing that made sense, which is to withdraw from the debate.  He got trolled by Sanders.

[Ormond]

Was just watching some CNN and MSNBC briefly and the Libertarian convention is on. There seems to be some chance that the Koch brothers will put their money behind the LIbertarian candidate this year.

If the Libertarians do get enough monetary backing to run national ads and get much more attention than ever before, they might get enough votes to influence the outcome in swing states. If that happens, do you all think they'd draw more from Trump or Clinton? They'd seem to be a logical place for some "never Trump" people to go -- but on the other hand some young Sanders supporters might also be attracted to them because of their fairly isolationist foreign policy and pro-drug-legalization ideas. So would it be a wash or would it really influence the electoral college outcome? I can't decide myself.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I'd love to know what you are basing this assumption on.

Which part?

The GOP talking the big game about integrity and morality? Or the Democratic party, who actually drop their politicians over that stuff?

I gave a few examples. My bet is, if Spitzer had been a Republican somewhere in the south, he would have come forward with some half-hearted apology, that he did some soul searching, and found that Jesus had forgiven him (basically what Sanford did). And Sanford is in congress now, while Spitzer is kinda done. 

And this year's flag bearer for that moral majority party, is the Donald...

And somehow the immoral candidate is Hillary, because she did not leave her cheating husband.

[Shryke]

23 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

That's what Trump may have wanted it to be about, and what the fevered imaginations of some Clinton supporters imagined that it would be about, but the reality is that no debate between Trump and Sanders would play out that way.  Sanders would never play along with such a script, which Trump soon recognized, and so he did the only thing that made sense, which is to withdraw from the debate.  He got trolled by Sanders.ar

Yeah, no. Trump controls half the debate and can make 50% of it about whatever the fuck he feels like. And that would be shitting on Clinton and the Democrats while inviting Sanders to agree with him. The only way Sanders can not play along is to either completely ignore him or go back on his recent campaign stances and defend Clinton and the DNC and the like. So the best outcome here is only half the debate is an attack ad in Trump's favour.

Of course the reality is Trump was probably never gonna go along with it because just accepting and then turning down the invitation gets him more then enough out of this. He gets his name in the headlines again for a few days and gets the news to again report on him shitting all over Clinton and the Democrats and rile up Sanders' supporters by pushing the idea that he was robbed of the nomination. It's almost the same outcome as the debate, but at no risk or downside.

The idea that he "got trolled" here is farcical. Sanders just served him up an opportunity to shit all over all his opponents. And Sanders got ... nothing out of this. Except pissing off the Democratic Party even more since reports so far from other Senators and such are that they are pissed off at his bullshit over this. He tried to make a play to show that he was the one that could beat Trump, not Clinton, and all he got out of it was giving Trump a chance to call him a loser and attack Clinton and the Democrats.

Like, look at his press statement. He doesn't say "I refuse to debate Sanders", he says "I will debate the real winner of the Democratic Primary, not some second-place loser who got his nomination stolen from him by crooked politicians". He backs out by saying Sanders is too pathetic to debate and gets to take a swipe at Clinton et all on the way.