US Election 2016: DO NOT MY FRIENDS BECOME ADDICTED TO WATER

[Martell Spy]

Well, looks like the division on the right isn't over yet...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/30/trump_unleashes_tirade_against_bill_kristol_over_independent_bid.html

 

Trump Unleashes Tirade After Bill Kristol Says Independent Candidate Will Run

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why on Earth would he do that? He only joined the Democratic party because that was his pathway to the presidency. If he doesn't get the nomination he will quite happily see the Democratic party burn because he has no real interest in or loyalty to the Democratic Party. He sees the Democrats as a whole as Republican lite because on many issues he's further left of the Democratic consensus position than the Democrats are left to the Republican consensus position, and on some things he seems more aligned with the Republicans. This is the thing, a party loyalist in Sander's position would drop out, shake hands with Hillary and say it was a good fight, but it's time to come together and work for the common good, which includes maximising the Democratic share of House seats and taking back the Senate. Sanders isn;t interested in any of that.

Sanders isn't a party loyalist, but his history in Washington involves working with Democrats, and being treated as one on committees. As a Senator, he most certainly has an interest in a Democratic Senate majority.

[Ormond]

49 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, looks like the division on the right isn't over yet...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/30/trump_unleashes_tirade_against_bill_kristol_over_independent_bid.html

 

Trump Unleashes Tirade After Bill Kristol Says Independent Candidate Will Run

It would be nice if Bill Kristol were correct, but given his past track record on predicting political outcomes I'm very skeptical whether he's correct that there is a person who will really make such a run, and even more so IF there is such a person that he or she will really have "a real chance".

It looks to me like the best alternative for disaffected Republicans this time around will be the Libertarians. But of course this year is so unpredictable there's a small chance Kristol will be correct for once, I guess.

[Shryke]

26 minutes ago, Ormond said:

It would be nice if Bill Kristol were correct, but given his past track record on predicting political outcomes I'm very skeptical whether he's correct that there is a person who will really make such a run, and even more so IF there is such a person that he or she will really have "a real chance".

It looks to me like the best alternative for disaffected Republicans this time around will be the Libertarians. But of course this year is so unpredictable there's a small chance Kristol will be correct for once, I guess.

It depends on their goals since there's basically no one who would have a real chance at winning but you could certainly get someone who has a chance at saving downticket races and/or attempts to save the Republican brand.

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

It would be nice if Bill Kristol were correct, but given his past track record on predicting political outcomes I'm very skeptical whether he's correct that there is a person who will really make such a run, and even more so IF there is such a person that he or she will really have "a real chance".

It looks to me like the best alternative for disaffected Republicans this time around will be the Libertarians. But of course this year is so unpredictable there's a small chance Kristol will be correct for once, I guess.

 

 

 

 

I would agree that Kristol's predictions have been awful. In fact he's the king of bad political predictions in recent times. I'm wondering if he's speaking from personal knowledge of something going on, however. Or if he's full of shit. Of course, when trying to decide if Kristol is full of shit, it's usually wise to assume he is. But this is the person who spent a million dollars to gift us with Tom Cotton in the Senate. So he's not just a bad political writer and fortuneteller.

The other interesting thing is how terrified Trump sounds in his tweets. Not only does he seem to take it seriously, he completely overreacts, throwing out threats about losing the SC.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

See the following.

As I've pointed out above, "the following" is simply wrong. Clinton has already won -- I don't see why people (and not just on this board, I've seen the same nonsense in certain media outlets which is where I presume you are getting it from) feel the need to bolster her position with outright falsehoods.

[mormont]

[mod] A periodic reminder: we understand that people get passionate about this subject but there is a difference between passionate and just aggressive. The normal expectations apply. Remain civil, don't make things personal. [/mod]

[Kalbear]

So to be clear:

• Clinton has not yet clinched like Obama did in 2008 (she needs currently 72 delegates total) including superdelegates
• Clinton cannot claim victory without a vote unless she wins something like 80% of the pledged delegates on June 7th and 14th, so it is very likely that a vote on the convention floor will happen
• There is virtually no reason whatsoever to believe that the superdelegates will switch their vote at the convention to Sanders
• For the most part the only reason that Sanders is as close as he is relies heavily on caucuses - if every state was an open primary Clinton would likely have a pledged + super clinch, and if every state was a closed primary Clinton would likely have a pledged clinch

[Altherion]

The convention is around 2 months from now though; a lot can happen in that time. For example, some hacker can decide to release samples of Clinton's emails (maybe real, maybe fake). Alternatively, what if Trump continues to improve vs. Clinton and stays the same vs. Sanders? That is, suppose the convention comes around and Trump is +10 against Clinton, but -10 against Sanders? I think it is worth it for Sanders to stay in the race and force a vote and to keep as close as possible. It's not likely that he will get the nomination, but stranger things have happened.

[Kalbear]

Again, you're arguing against phantoms for saying that Sanders should bow out, though also again there is very little value in his campaigning right now. If he needs to be the emergency backup, making himself look more of an ass to the establishment isn't going to do any favors to him or to the party. If he wants to court everyone as the choice to beat Trump, he should be, ya know, not fighting Clinton. And probably the biggest one - if he's going to be begging for the system to undemocratically select him over the will of the voters, he probably shouldn't be making the system out to be super undemocratic. 

Like, pragmatically - if your play is that you want people to consider you over your opponent who are establishment, who are risk-averse and who are party supporters, going against them and telling them how much they and the system sucks is probably a bad call. Obama had basically precisely the same problem in 2008, and went the other way - looking for allies in the establishment, looking for endorsements, genuinely wanting to be the leader of the party. This...is not that.

[GrimTuesday]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why on Earth would he do that? He only joined the Democratic party because that was his pathway to the presidency. If he doesn't get the nomination he will quite happily see the Democratic party burn because he has no real interest in or loyalty to the Democratic Party. He sees the Democrats as a whole as Republican lite because on many issues he's further left of the Democratic consensus position than the Democrats are left to the Republican consensus position, and on some things he seems more aligned with the Republicans. This is the thing, a party loyalist in Sander's position would drop out, shake hands with Hillary and say it was a good fight, but it's time to come together and work for the common good, which includes maximising the Democratic share of House seats and taking back the Senate. Sanders isn;t interested in any of that.

All my opinion of course, but that's the way I see it with a person who only joins a party to serve a specific self-interested end.

As Roose Bolton's Pet Leech said, Sanders has always caucused with the democrats and in the grand scheme of things, while they are Republican lite (a sentiment I share, except the Democrats aren't willing to have a real fight half the time), they are still the lesser evil. Sanders can work with the Democrats, not the republicans. I guess I might have been clear what I meant, in so far as Sanders needs to start cutting deals with Clinton, (probably not the DNC though, both sides seem to hate each other). Sanders has essentially run a campaign meant to force Clinton left, and I would say that that has been successful, and now it is time for him to start making deals where he will try to bring his supporters on board, provided that some of his signature issues are represented in the official party platform. While Sanders won't win, he has proven that a true left wing candidate can gain support, especially in places like the Pacific Northwest, where I'd say we are already more left wing than the bulk of the Democratic Party, and I think it will inspire other more progressive, left wing candidates to throw their hats in the ring in future.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Sanders isn't a party loyalist, but his history in Washington involves working with Democrats, and being treated as one on committees. As a Senator, he most certainly has an interest in a Democratic Senate majority.

 

16 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

As Roose Bolton's Pet Leech said, Sanders has always caucused with the democrats and in the grand scheme of things, while they are Republican lite (a sentiment I share, except the Democrats aren't willing to have a real fight half the time), they are still the lesser evil. Sanders can work with the Democrats, not the republicans. I guess I might have been clear what I meant, in so far as Sanders needs to start cutting deals with Clinton, (probably not the DNC though, both sides seem to hate each other). Sanders has essentially run a campaign meant to force Clinton left, and I would say that that has been successful, and now it is time for him to start making deals where he will try to bring his supporters on board, provided that some of his signature issues are represented in the official party platform. While Sanders won't win, he has proven that a true left wing candidate can gain support, especially in places like the Pacific Northwest, where I'd say we are already more left wing than the bulk of the Democratic Party, and I think it will inspire other more progressive, left wing candidates to throw their hats in the ring in future.

Maybe so. But to Me Sanders is more like Nader in 2000. His goal is personal and the party consequences for the Democrats aren't terribly relevant to him personally. Whether you ascribe to the Bush won because of Nader theory or not, the fact is Nader didn't want either Bush or Gore to be president, he wanted himself to be president and that was is one and only goal. If he had to voice an actual preference between Bush and Gore I assume he'd rather have had Gore, but in the end he was in it for his own cause. Sanders is the same. And Sanders has worked with republicans and Democrats. If in the Senate he can be a deciding or influential voice then it's more in his interests for there to be more like a 50/50 Senate than for the Democrats to have a clear majority, unless they have a 59 majority, but that's not going to happen.

Put it this way, in my opinion, Sanders would rather be president with a Republican super majority in congress, than not be president with a Democratic majority in congress. So, again in my opinion, he's not willing to sacrifice his own personal ambition for the greater Democratic party good. Maybe having a self-described socialist as president could be worth that sort of outcome for the left as it could have the effect of dragging the entire country left-ish in the long term. If Sanders sees his cause as not just right but righteous then perhaps to be true to the way he sees things he should continue to fight tooth and nail. Maybe at this point he's looking to sacrifice the queen in order to win the game further down the track. Imagine what the long term political consequences would be of an unmitigated disaster of a Trump presidency? It might ultimately be better for the progressive cause than a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you are playing the long game as a socialist or a progressive then the second best outcome for 2016 (best outcome being Sanders as President) might be a one term crappy Trump presidency.

 

[Kalbear]

Quote

Put it this way, in my opinion, Sanders would rather be president with a Republican super majority in congress, than not be president with a Democratic majority in congress. 

Yeah, I mostly agree with this. 

It's really hard to determine what Sanders' motives are at this point. His stated goals - move the party left, have the plank of the DNC, get progressive power moved - are largely undermined by his actions. And he knows it, because people are quietly and now openly telling him this. His strategy appears to be focused entirely on the here and now. 

And he hasn't been particularly helpful to the Democratic party. He's voted with them on procedural matters - but that was also something of a contractual obligation, as that allowed him to get his committee seats that he would not get if he didn't caucus with the dems. He has gone to a couple fundraisers but has also been kind of disruptive at times. 

Instead of ascribing motives to him, let's take what he's done on face value:

• Consistently attacked the legitimacy of the primary nominating system, but only when it did not benefit him (he has not said one word I could find about the undemocratic nature of caucuses, for instance)
• Inconsistently wanted to use the primary for his own needs (hating superdelegates and saying that they are undemocratic and against the will of the people but pleading them to choose his side is an example).
• Consistently attacked the purity of Clinton, specifically her ties to wall street and her funding.
• Consistently stayed on his own message and own promises, even when this proved to be damaging (his interview with the New Yorker is an example, as is his refusal to condemn Castro). 
• Consistently attacked Trump specifically and Republicans in general
• Consistently stated that his goal is to ensure Trump does not win - though note that he has also said he is okay with damaging Clinton short-term, and also note that he has implied or outright said that he is a better match for Trump in the general.

Based on this, I'd conclude that he is more interested in winning than changing the world or the system. He does not care about the legitimacy of the primary particularly much, one way or another, except in how it affects him. (This is also true of Clinton or Trump or Obama or most everyone). I suspect that he believes that Clinton will lose against Trump and thus the logical choice for him is to try and win the primary at all costs so that he can beat Trump. (that this also enforces his rationalizations for staying in the race and his choices for attacks gives more likelihood of this suspicion). I believe that he is otherwise ideologically very pure about certain things and has been so for most of his adult life, and impurity or changing makes him deeply suspicious. 

I also strongly suspect that he does not know particularly well how to lose. And that when given the choice between fighting even harder and escalation or backing down, he is going to attempt to escalate. (this, I suspect, is one of the things that has turned off people about him recently). 

[ThinkerX]

I have said for a while now radical transformation looms for both parties.  The business lobby of the republicans is coming to the realization their views are downright despised by most of the base - but also somewhat in line with the more corporate democratic establishment.  Likewise, Sanders 'movement' is essentially a successor to the 'Occupy Movement' - and when that bunch gets rejected by the democratic establishment (witness some of the recent posts on this thread) they will go elsewhere or do something with the potential to crash the entire two party system.  Their ranks also include a huge swath of younger folks, which has long lasting implications. 

You keep thinking of the movements of Sanders and Trump as something you can just dismiss, then you are in for hells own shock.  Maybe 2020.  Maybe 2024. 

[Kalbear]

You said that in 2012 and 2008 as well. You said Obama would be impeached. Do you ever go back and change your mind based on prior bad predictions?

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It's really hard to determine what Sanders' motives are at this point. His stated goals - move the party left, have the plank of the DNC, get progressive power moved - are largely undermined by his actions. And he knows it, because people are quietly and now openly telling him this. His strategy appears to be focused entirely on the here and now.

There are a few possibilities. The first is that he knows something we do not -- perhaps something about the emails or another Clinton scandal (if there's anything you can count on with the Clintons, it's that there is always another scandal). The second is that he somehow believes that he can still win in defiance of all evidence to the contrary. The third, which I personally think is by far as the most likely, is that he knows he cannot win, but he is indeed trying to move the Democratic party to the left.

You are correct in that people are both quietly and openly telling him that his actions are counterproductive to this cause... but I very much doubt that he is stupid enough to believe such people. If Sanders toes the party line (i.e. expresses unconditional support for Clinton in the general race) and his supporters follow him in doing so, Clinton will immediately move to the center. This is not unique to her -- many presidential candidates do the same thing -- but it hardly moves the party to the left. Furthermore, if she is elected, she will almost certainly wait a bit after the inauguration and then declare that the latest version of the Trans Pacific Partnership is now sufficiently different from what she opposed during the campaign for her to support it and in general we will end up with something like a third term of the Obama administration, but even friendlier to Wall Street and even more aggressive in the Middle East.

The only way to stop her from doing that is to make it very clear that the support of the left wing is not unconditional, which is more or less what Sanders is doing. To move the party to the left, his supporters need to be very near a state of open revolt, both before and after the general election.

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You said that in 2012 and 2008 as well. You said Obama would be impeached. Do you ever go back and change your mind based on prior bad predictions?

Past Predictions:

1981 - School project, ran a few numbers, and concluded the then USSR would collapse within a decade.  Government failure to uphold their end of the social contract. I was thinking a bloody civil war type deal, not a peaceful protest.

1988 - Predicted Bush I would be a one term president, mostly because he'd have to renege on 'no new taxes.'

1992 - Predicted Clinton would last two terms, engage in bureaucratic reform, oversee a period of relative prosperity, but would be impeached in the second term because of 'personal honesty' issues.  Trying to be 'all things to all men.'  Never works.

2000 - I did think Bush II would be a one term president, but also said if he did get reelected it would be because of complete democratic incompetence, and he would stand a fair shot of impeachment in the second term.  Predicted his term would be marred by major corporate scandals and he would get the US involved in one or more wars.  Gutless democrats declined to impeach.  If they had, that might have helped stop the 2007-2008 meltdown.

2008 - Said Obama might try to bring about 'hope and change' but there was so much 'Wall Street' money in his campaign he was effectively a corporate sock puppet.  Figured he'd ultimately cave to Wall Street. Did not anticipate the absolute republican hatred for Obama.   

2016 - Clinton victory: one term, marred by major corporate scandals to rival those in Bush II's time, along with what amounts to a 'social sellout.'  No major accomplishments.

Trump victory: He WILL do something impeachable within the first two years, and both parties (aka 'establishment') will cooperate if need be to see him impeached. 

Good enough? 

Clear enough?

 

[mormont]

I'm not sure that listing your (mostly unverifiable) correct predictions is an answer to a question about your incorrect ones. It's typically the answer fortune tellers give, for example. 

As for Sanders, I think emotion is playing into this much more than he, or his supporters, are generally willing to admit. Having done better than anyone ever expected, having at one point perhaps thought he might actually win, it's got to be hard for him now to concede the fight. I suspect he's looking for reasons to stay in, to avoid that unpleasant moment when he has to admit it's over.

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

The only way to stop her from doing that is to make it very clear that the support of the left wing is not unconditional, which is more or less what Sanders is doing. To move the party to the left, his supporters need to be very near a state of open revolt, both before and after the general election.

No support is unconditional, and presidents spend a good deal of time trying to please (or pacify) this faction or that. Hillary Clinton, should she be elected, will have to do the same, regardless of how the Bernie-or-Bust people vote. 

In any case, I suspect the lion's share of Sanders people will go over to Clinton once Bernie finally throws in the towel, regardless of what they are saying now. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

On May 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Shryke said:

He's not. Basically any information we have on his wealth and income suggests he's ALOT less rich then he boasts about.

I was being sarcastic. Sorry if t wasn't clear.

3 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Past Predictions:

1981 - School project, ran a few numbers, and concluded the then USSR would collapse within a decade.  Government failure to uphold their end of the social contract. I was thinking a bloody civil war type deal, not a peaceful protest.

1988 - Predicted Bush I would be a one term president, mostly because he'd have to renege on 'no new taxes.'

1992 - Predicted Clinton would last two terms, engage in bureaucratic reform, oversee a period of relative prosperity, but would be impeached in the second term because of 'personal honesty' issues.  Trying to be 'all things to all men.'  Never works.

2000 - I did think Bush II would be a one term president, but also said if he did get reelected it would be because of complete democratic incompetence, and he would stand a fair shot of impeachment in the second term.  Predicted his term would be marred by major corporate scandals and he would get the US involved in one or more wars.  Gutless democrats declined to impeach.  If they had, that might have helped stop the 2007-2008 meltdown.

2008 - Said Obama might try to bring about 'hope and change' but there was so much 'Wall Street' money in his campaign he was effectively a corporate sock puppet.  Figured he'd ultimately cave to Wall Street. Did not anticipate the absolute republican hatred for Obama.   

2016 - Clinton victory: one term, marred by major corporate scandals to rival those in Bush II's time, along with what amounts to a 'social sellout.'  No major accomplishments.

Trump victory: He WILL do something impeachable within the first two years, and both parties (aka 'establishment') will cooperate if need be to see him impeached. 

Good enough? 

Clear enough?

 

If your going to include predictions like that the Soviet Union would collapse, then what about your consistent prediction that the world would run out of oil, and that this would lead to rioting and civil war?