US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[BloodRider]

6 minutes ago, Notone said:

 

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?

 

Well, I see that as a strawman.  Sure she brings up how shitty Trump is.  Mainly because its true, and she'd be a fool not to.  But she is running as the most competent insider.  You may not find that inspiring, but it is something to vote "for".

[A Horse Named Stranger]

43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

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. 

That's somewhat close to Nader. And I respectfully disagree with both Ralph and you in that respect. IMO that'd be taking the second step before the first. 

The US electoral system with their first-past-the-post voting system would need to go first. A strong third party candidate would realistically eat into the electorate of either the GOP's or the Democrat's candidate. Which would then give the party with the undivided vote the state. It would basically have the same effect as a third party run from Bloomberg (you can add to or replace Bloomberg with Jill Stein or Ron Paul if you like). If the electoral college vote were proportionally divided among the candidates, it could/would change the process. Assuming Bloomberg can use his votes as a bargaining chip for political concessions (combined with a the VP position?). 

With the first-past-the-post voting you will somewhat inevitably wind up with a party duoply. Which makes the third party option so unattractive.

[Jace, Extat]

This Sanders 'Revolution' thing is I think what's aggravating so many Clinton supporters. Wallstreet reform, college reform, these things are not a 'revolution', that's a fancy (and severe) word that is getting thrown around on the internets because it sounds pretty.

Look at it this way, Sanders had a lot of support. Way more than anyone expected. But over 60% of the party picked the other candidate, Hillary Clinton. I don't claim to speak for every Democrat, but I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because she is imminently qualified as a two term senator and former secretary of state, she has clear policies that seem attainable, and she's been a champion of equality and women's rights for decades. Furthermore, I see shifting your stances in reflection of the party's desires as an attribute, not a detraction.

The broadest possible classification for a 'Democrat' in my opinion is someone who supports equality, personal rights, social programs, and who's dogshit scared of backwards Republicans. So when a bunch of Bernie Sanders' supporters (who were at least this past year Democrats) declare that they're gonna go vote for a tangerine colored reality TV star who purposefully appeals to the most negative aspects of the Republican party (and by extension, humanity) out of some noble quest to let 300 million people fall on their sword (let's be honest, there aren't a whole bunch of minorities about there making this ruckus), be it by inaction or reaction, it's a little frustrating.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

@BloodRider

Of course you can see that as a strawman. But I think she and he campaign do not do a particularly good job in advertising her strengths. 

@Pony Queen Jace

Quote

Look at it this way, Sanders had a lot of support. Way more than anyone expected. But over 60% of the party picked the other candidate, Hillary Clinton. I don't claim to speak for every Democrat, but I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because she is imminently qualified as a two term senator and former secretary of state, she has clear policies that seem attainable, and she's been a champion of equality and women's rights for decades. Furthermore, I see shifting your stances in reflection of the party's desires as an attribute, not a detraction.

Now, those are fairly legit and much better reasons to actually vote for her. 

Quote

The broadest possible classification for a 'Democrat' in my opinion is someone who supports equality, personal rights, social programs, and who's dogshit scared of backwards Republicans. So when a bunch of Bernie Sanders' supporters (who were at least this past year Democrats) declare that they're gonna go vote for a tangerine colored reality TV star who purposefully appeals to the most negative aspects of the Republican party (and by extension, humanity) out of some noble quest to let 300 million people fall on their sword (let's be honest, there aren't a whole bunch of minorities about there making this ruckus), be it by inaction or reaction, it's a little frustrating.

I still think you are overestimating the number of true Bernie believers, that will actually vote for Trump. Trump is like the exact political opposite of what Sanders is campaigning for.

[Maester Drew]

11 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Doing nothing helps the Greater Evil, since one of these two will be the next President. If there was a None of the Above option, fine, but there isn't. You're dealing with the consequences of a FPP voting system.

This also works the other way. If you're a Republican who detests Trump but regards Clinton as Satanic, not voting simply helps your least favourite candidate - in this case Hillary, because you failed to vote for Trump.

But there is a choice similar to none of the above: voting third party.

If Clinton wins, okay.

If Trump wins, okay.

In either case, the people have decide who they want to be their next president. 

 

You know, I used to see one positive of a Trump presidency. The Republicans and the Democrats in Congress would unite and work together to stop his crazy plans. But the more I thought about it, the more I noticed its lack of sustainability: Trump voters will not be happy seeing their representatives trying to impede Trump... and then there will be pro-Trump candidates and challengers in 2018 to campaign against, we'd see a lot of anti-Trump congressmen lose from both the Republicans and Democrats...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On other Trump related news.

http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-acknowledges-climate-change-at-his-irish-golf-course/

For Trump climate change is the thing that exist at Ireland's coast and eats away his golf course, but it does not exist in winter in New York. 

[Maester Drew]

16 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

So when a bunch of Bernie Sanders' supporters (who were at least this past year Democrats) declare that they're gonna go vote for a tangerine colored reality TV star who purposefully appeals to the most negative aspects of the Republican party (and by extension, humanity) out of some noble quest to let 300 million people fall on their sword (let's be honest, there aren't a whole bunch of minorities about there making this ruckus), be it by inaction or reaction, it's a little frustrating.

I agree with @Notone Some Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary, others will vote for a third party candidate, and yes some will vote for Trump. The point is, it's only a minority of Bernie supporters that are voting for Trump.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

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. 

 

Uh. Yeah. You're confusing the process, I think. The process to even get on the presidential ticket in all fifty states as an independent is a long shot: 

1. An individual can run as an independent. Independent presidential candidates typically must petition each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot. For the 2016 presidential contest, it was estimated that an independent candidate would need to collect in excess of 900,000 signatures in order to appear on the general election ballot in every state.^[1]

Then on top of this you have to be polling at a certain level to enter the debate stage? When the polls often aren't conducted in a way that's balanced or fair, and honestly, how can an independent have a chance to poll high without getting on the national stage? It's a bogus system. To get on the ballot in all fifty states is probably going to be shut down by one of the two parties in control, so if you miraculously overcome that nightmare, you have a right to debate. How many people do you think will end up on that stage?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Uh. Yeah. You're confusing the process, I think. The process to even get on the presidential ticket in all fifty states as an independent is a long shot: 

1. An individual can run as an independent. Independent presidential candidates typically must petition each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot. For the 2016 presidential contest, it was estimated that an independent candidate would need to collect in excess of 900,000 signatures in order to appear on the general election ballot in every state.^[1]

Then on top of this you have to be polling at a certain level to enter the debate stage? When the polls often aren't conducted in a way that's balanced or fair, and honestly, how can an independent have a chance to poll high without getting on the national stage? It's a bogus system. To get on the ballot in all fifty states is probably going to be shut down by one of the two parties in control, so if you miraculously overcome that nightmare, you have a right to debate. How many people do you think will end up on that stage?

I don't think Ormond is confusing anything. His standard - that in order to participate in a general election debate, a candidate must be on the ballot in enough states to mathematically have a chance at winning the electoral college - is way, way lower than the ACTUAL current standard, which is that a candidate must garner at least 15% support across five national polls. It is much, much easier to collect less than a million signatures to get on the ballot in every state than it is to score at least 15% in five national polls. The reality is, if you can't even get enough signatures to get on the ballot in a majority of states, you are never going to score 15% in a national poll. 

**edited to add: Of course, the DNC and RNC control the Commission on Presidential Debates. They would never agree to a threshold standard as low as Ormond suggests making it. So it's a pipe dream regardless. 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Ormond's proposal does make some sense, especially when one considers that pollsters don't often include other options.

[Kalbear]

on the idea that Clinton isn't giving people to work for - I think this is just unfair. She's certainly on the attack against Trump right now, but she's been telling people about her ideas and giving specific policy statements on what she's going to do, how she's going to do it, where the money is going to come from and what she's going to support in general for a while now. 

If anything what she has failed to do is give a specific awesome slogan. And I guess that's fair, but it's not the same thing as not having reasons to vote for her. 

Major reasons to vote for her:

• Incredibly strong supporter of women's rights, LGBT rights
• Domestically a very progressive candidate - supporting more health care for all, taxes on the rich, infrastructure improvements, education improvements
• Major supporter of criminal justice reform and prison reform
• Major supporter of strong immigration reform
• Strong supporter of traditional European allies
• Traditional US adversaries actually fear her

If I were going to give a slogan for her, I'd go with "United We Stand" or something like that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

but she's been telling people about her ideas and giving specific policy statements on what she's going to do, how she's going to do it, where the money is going to come from and what she's going to support in general for a while now. 

Clinton does a superb job of explaining her policies, how they'll work and what they'll cost. But she needs to find a way to explain them more enthusiastically. She can come across as too monotone and dispassionate and she doesn't convey a lot of emotion. I watched her this weekend in an interview give incredibly well thought out answers, but she also came across as very boring. This could lead to a lot of people tuning her out, especially when she's facing P.T. Barnum. She doesn't need an awesome slogan, although that wouldn't hurt. She needs to do a better job at engaging and connecting with voters.

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

I agree with @Notone Some Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary, others will vote for a third party candidate, and yes some will vote for Trump. The point is, it's only a minority of Bernie supporters that are voting for Trump.

You forgot about the section of those that will abstain from voting.  Sanders has done very well with young people who have historically been very difficult to get to the polls.  Though these people also typically fall into the 'not likely voter' category, Sanders was able to tap into to make a much closer primary.

Sanders voters that are voting for Trump are idiots.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

on the idea that Clinton isn't giving people to work for - I think this is just unfair. She's certainly on the attack against Trump right now, but she's been telling people about her ideas and giving specific policy statements on what she's going to do, how she's going to do it, where the money is going to come from and what she's going to support in general for a while now. 

If anything what she has failed to do is give a specific awesome slogan. And I guess that's fair, but it's not the same thing as not having reasons to vote for her. 

Major reasons to vote for her:

• Incredibly strong supporter of women's rights, LGBT rights
• Domestically a very progressive candidate - supporting more health care for all, taxes on the rich, infrastructure improvements, education improvements
• Major supporter of criminal justice reform and prison reform
• Major supporter of strong immigration reform
• Strong supporter of traditional European allies
• Traditional US adversaries actually fear her

If I were going to give a slogan for her, I'd go with "United We Stand" or something like that.

My very distant perception however is, that she has not been that great communicating it. She has not been good to hammer home those policies, with some sort of statement.

Sanders might have been tiresome with his 1% and 99%, and breaking up the banks, getting corporate cash out of politics, oh and raise the min. wage to 15$/h. But he has been very effective at getting his message out - much more effective than Clinton.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

It's a tough call and a bit of a gamble on her part.

But he's a valuable resource when he keeps his mouth under control. The problem is he tends to fly off the handle alot these days. But I seriously question if she could get him to keep his mouth shut if she tried. And who would really believe he wasn't involved at all anyway?

So I do sorta imagine he's ending up involved because him not being involved just wasn't gonna fly and if he's gonna be there campaigning and shit ya might as well play off the best thing people remember him for.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Clinton does a superb job of explaining her policies, how they'll work and what they'll cost. But she needs to find a way to explain them more enthusiastically. She can come across as too monotone and dispassionate and she doesn't convey a lot of emotion. I watched her this weekend in an interview give incredibly well thought out answers, but she also came across as very boring. This could lead to a lot of people tuning her out, especially when she's facing P.T. Barnum. She doesn't need an awesome slogan, although that wouldn't hurt. She needs to do a better job at engaging and connecting with voters.

To be fair, once Sanders finally drops she'll have Obama doing that for her.

And Campaign Obama is Obama's ultimate evolution.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

To be fair, once Sanders finally drops she'll have Obama doing that for her.

And Campaign Obama is Obama's ultimate evolution.

I wonder if the FBI investigation is going to prevent Obama from doing that.  It would look like a conflict of interest to have him campaigning for someone under investigation.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I wonder if the FBI investigation is going to prevent Obama from doing that.  It would look like a conflict of interest to have him campaigning for someone under investigation.

Exceedingly doubtful, and it's pretty clear that the only people who particularly care are the ones that would be least swayed by Obama campaigning on her behalf. 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Exceedingly doubtful, and it's pretty clear that the only people who particularly care are the ones that would be least swayed by Obama campaigning on her behalf. 

I suppose it depends on what Obama knows.  He may not want to tie his legacy to Clinton if her or her staff end up getting indicted.  Or if the Russians release the 10,000 emails they say they have of hers.

Obama is presumably getting frequent briefs on the investigation.  If the investigation does have legs, do you think it would be ethical for him to endorse and campaign for someone under investigation by an agency that reports to him?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I suppose it depends on what Obama knows.  He may not want to tie his legacy to Clinton if her or her staff end up getting indicted.  Or if the Russians release the 10,000 emails they say they have of hers.

Obama is presumably getting frequent briefs on the investigation.  If the investigation does have legs, do you think it would be ethical for him to endorse and campaign for someone under investigation by an agency that reports to him?

I don't see why it would be unethical, honestly. It's like saying that it would be unethical to support any Democrat that has any issues out there. He isn't the head of the FBI or the Justice department. He cannot direct either to investigate or drop investigations (that _would_ be unethical). Maybe if it went to a jury trial or something (it wouldn't), but otherwise I don't see the issue. 

I think he's more worried about uniting the Sanders supporters and making sure that they feel like the process has been played out correctly. Once that's done, I don't think he'll hesitate for a second to try and get Clinton the win, because I think that his legacy is meaningless without a Democrat in office after he is. Especially if it's Trump.