US Election: I could never get the hang of Tuesdays

[The guy from the Vale]

I'd call Drumpf shady as all hell, too. In a quite a different way to Hillary, but still. Calling the Don's campaign "transparent" overlooks his tax shenenigans, his overestimation of his own net worth, and the fact that he's most likely a domestic abuser and rapist.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

As much as I like Sanders, I don't think he's a particularly good campaigner. He hasn't been hitting Clinton nearly as hard as he could have been where she's vulnerable, and when he's attacked, especially when it's an unfair attack, he doesn't respond with a vigorous defense.

I think this is one reason why Sanders would struggle against Trump. Strategy aside, I get the impression from Sanders that this is also a temperamental and personal preference: he doesn't like, or believe he should engage in, the personal stuff. But if you try to take the high ground against Trump mocking you, well, we've seen that doesn't work. He hits you and you look weak. Voters will say they want a dignified campaign but if the personal attacks are flying, they seem to expect a candidate to give as good as they get.

And yes, I've seen the matchup polling about Trump vs Sanders. But I'm highly sceptical of it. That's a view the voters take about the candidates as individuals: not a comparison of the two actually engaged in a fight.

[Arkhangel]

Dropping in to say AMERICA WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

You know all that crap about American exceptionalism and saving the world from darkness and bla bla bla which usually gets every other country on the planet rolling their eyes about American arrogance? This is your moment to walk the walk because seriously, if Trump wins he is a major global threat to everything from international peace to economic stability to climate change.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I do agree with you that he's made a conscious choice to not attack Clinton too hard to avoid possibly creating a rift in the party for the general or to avoid giving Republicans ammunition, but I feel this supports my assertion about him not being a particularly good campaigner. If he's out to win, then he needs to draw the direct associations from Clinton to big money and Wall Street, and really needs to push her to release transcripts, etc. He can state facts and draw associations without devolving into mudslinging.

Regarding my point about defending himself from unfair attacks, however, I think this is an example of my evaluation of him as a campaigner. There is absolutely no reason to avoid mounting a strong defense of your record when you're unfairly attacked (e.g., as much as I admire John Lewis, I was extremely disappointed in his statement about Sanders during the CBC PAC endorsement of Clinton, which I found to be a particularly egregious example of an entirely unfair attack against Sanders' record of civil rights activism).

It wasn't that at all. The actual context of the whole thing is that he was at an event for the CBC PAC's endorsement of Clinton and they kept asking him about Sanders activism and his response was basically "Fuck off with these Sanders questions, he was not involved in anything I was doing at the time so I don't know shit about him from back then". He even clarified later that he wasn't trying to say Sanders had done nothing ever.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

As much as I like Sanders, I don't think he's a particularly good campaigner. He hasn't been hitting Clinton nearly as hard as he could have been where she's vulnerable, and when he's attacked, especially when it's an unfair attack, he doesn't respond with a vigorous defense. 

When it became apparent that he had become a serious contender, he didn't act soon enough to shore up his foreign policy weak spot, and bizarrely relied on attacks on Clinton's Iraq War vote to attack her from the left when he had many more recent examples where he could attract progressive voters tired of military adventurism. Plus he started out as a practical unknown with no money and was carrying the whole socialist baggage to boot. Honestly, I think Sanders' success has far more to do with his lone voice crying in the wilderness finally gaining traction among an electorate sick and tired of the Third Way politics personified by Clinton. And I have a pet theory that Sanders only decided to run once Warren decided not to, while Clinton has essentially been running for President since 1992.

In contrast, Warren had many Democratic groups calling for her to run, and therefore would have begun with a higher floor than Sanders, was far more well-known than Sanders nationally, doesn't come with the "outsider" label that Sanders does since she's part of the Democratic Party, would be able to capture the zeitgeist of the party in the same way as Sanders since her message is essentially the same, doesn't come with the socialist baggage, and would be another woman candidate for the nomination for those that rate that as one of their higher priorities. Plus, she doesn't look like she's older than God.

What zeitgeist would she have captured that Sanders didn't? What's her message beyond the same issues Sanders is hammering over and over? She's big on income inequality and financial regulation and the like, and we love that about her, but she's not a candidate with any sort of broad platform or experience beyond that. It's one of the reasons she's good in the Senate. 

But, like, if you think Sanders needed to bone up on his foreign policy bonafides, Warren has even less of those. The few times she has spoken on issues like that that I've seen, I kinda wished she hadn't. (her comments on the Israel situation were quite disappointing was the big one I remember)

Warren's got all the same issues as Sanders but without the long record in government.

 

And Sanders you are being entirely unfair to here. He's done a great job of starting from the position he is and building up enough of a campaign to be a legitimate challenge to Clinton, even if it turns out not as big a one as the media was implying a month ago. He stumps surprisingly well and his debate performances have been solid and his fundraising is impressive. He's managed to rile up the youth vote pretty well for an old socialist from a tiny little north-eastern state.

His foreign policy is kinda weak yes, but that exposes the same issue Warren has which is that he's a pretty narrow candidate in the end. Plus his specific platform is actual fairly protectionist which isn't gonna help him on that front.

He has refused to go personal, sure, but so has Clinton and the democratic primary has been much much better for it. Watch the debates, it looks like actual adults talking. That's not a minus, that's a plus. But his refusal to go personal doesn't mean he hasn't attacked Clinton or that she hasn't attacked him back. He's been hitting on her Wall St connections frequently and on her Iraq War vote. He doesn't expand beyond that for the most part I think because his own voting record on any of the other national security stuff would come back to bite him. He's voted for a ton of the same kind of stuff over the years.

You seem to be trying to characterize the issue as one of Sanders not campaigning hard enough against Clinton, not hitting her weak spots enough, but that's not actually the big issue from what we can tell. The problem Sanders is hitting is that he pushes one message really hard and that message does not seem to resonate well outside his core base. And his attempt to forge a different kind of coalition within the democratic party is not working. Sanders is getting alot of young white people out for him but he's losing the rest of the democratic party base. That's been his issue all along. His socialist baggage is not the main issue. (in fact, the current primary voters are identifying really damn liberal from what I saw briefly in the exit polls, which is not usual at all)

 

And, to swing back to the other point here, I don't see any reason why Warren would have done better on that account against Clinton.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Bonesy said:

Which is something I hope you all appreciate. Sanders is pushing left. Pushing towards the betterment of Americans, the world, and society in general.

I'm not a crazy person, I don't think, to want that. So I will continue fighting for it in my limited, ridiculed fashion.

I apologize for disrupting this conversation by not apologizing for pointing out why a Clinton nomination ensures a Republican President.

I desperately hope I'm wrong. But if the shady Clinton campaign loses to the transparent Trump campaign, don't you dare blame us.

Trump's campaign is transparently racist and bigoted. Beyond that I don't even get this comparison.

[Jo498]

20 minutes ago, Arkhangel said:

 This is your moment to walk the walk because seriously, if Trump wins he is a major global threat to everything from international peace to economic stability to climate change.

The American Conservative website did an evaluation of the foreign policy stances and the two least hawkish candidates were Sanders and Trump. Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Trump (e.g. the latter has no interest in further provocation of Russia), so I think while the US might suffer under Trump (and of course they deserve it if they vote for him) the rest of the world might become a little safer... The only problem I see is that Trump is fairly clueless in foreign affairs and will have to rely on advisors whereas Clinton is an experienced (hawkish) politician in that field.

(As for climate change - that ship has sailed years or decades ago and no candidate would be able to make a difference in a country so heavily dependent on fossile fuels.)

[mormont]

I think a counsel of despair on environmental issues is just wrong. Yes, it's too late to avoid some negative consequences. But it's not too late to make things worse.

As for Trump and foreign policy, it's not so much the wars as the diplomatic damage and the contempt for multilateralism that I think people fear.

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Bonesy said:

Which is something I hope you all appreciate. Sanders is pushing left. Pushing towards the betterment of Americans, the world, and society in general.

This statement is, in a nutshell, why the Sanders campaign ticks me off. It's not Sanders himself, nor his message, but the idea that Bernie wants what is good and right for America and that Hillary (and, by implication, her followers) are simply on the take. People generally don't work that way, and as most politicians are, as a rule, people, they don't work that way either. I think that both Clinton and Sanders are basically good public servants who, like every politician in history, have made some compromises along the road to where they are now. That does not mean I have to like or agree with everything about them to support either one; as has been said before, if you will vote only for a candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time, you'd better get yourself on the ballot.

All Democrats support a progressive agenda, Bonesy, even if we disagree on some details. I'd like us to keep that in mind.

EDITED TO ADD: Jonathan Bernstein has some interesting things to say about Clinton. Worth a read.

[Fez]

With the late calls of CO and MN for Sanders and MN for Rubio and AK for Cruz, looks like last night ended up being less decisive than it initially appeared. At least, from a narrative point of view, from a delegate point of view it looks like Clinton does now have an insurmountable lead while Trump has a commanding lead that only Cruz has any chance of catching while Rubio is incredibly far behind both of them.

Gaming things out from here, I suspect that for the Democrats...

March 5: Sanders has some comfortable wins in Nebraska and Kansas while Clinton dominates Louisiana, they get the same number of delegates out of the night.

March 6: Sanders wins Maine.

March 8: Clinton wins Michigan and dominates Mississippi.

March 15 is truly Sanders' last shot, but even if he has a great night, I don't see how he catches up to Clinton's delegate lead. And I don't think he will have a great night, Clinton is almost certain to win North Carolina and Illinois and has a great shot at Missouri. Polls from last week also show her with big leads in Florida and Ohio, so if anything its far more likely that she's the one who will have a great night.

Barring some totally outside factor (e.g. an indictment), if I bet on politics I would be willing to bet damn near anything that Clinton will be the nominee.

 

As for the Republicans, its kind of hard to tell which states are the ones where Cruz has the best shot at beating Trump. There's also no way of knowing yet if the establishment will get over its hatred of Cruz and decide to back him instead of Rubio due to hating Trump even more. It does seem that Trump does worst in closed caucuses, which means March 5 could be interesting since 3 of 4 states for the Republicans that night are closed. But if he can win Louisiana, which is a primary, and at least one of the three, probably Kentucky, that should stop any talk of him weakening from getting too out of hand. I suspect Trump does well on March 8, but again, lot of variable here, and then March 15 is judgment day. Not only are so many big states voting, but other than North Carolina they are all winner-take-all states. That's the other reason people say Florida is Rubio's last shot. Not only is it a horrible look if he loses his home state, he desperately needs those 99 delegates.

The Ides of March is going to be one interesting night, but the two weeks until then are going to be interminable. I'm going to do my best to avoid all political news.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

 This is your moment to walk the walk because seriously, if Trump wins he is a major global threat to everything from international peace to economic stability to climate change.

The American Conservative website did an evaluation of the foreign policy stances and the two least hawkish candidates were Sanders and Trump. Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Trump (e.g. the latter has no interest in further provocation of Russia), so I think while the US might suffer under Trump (and of course they deserve it if they vote for him) the rest of the world might become a little safer... The only problem I see is that Trump is fairly clueless in foreign affairs and will have to rely on advisors whereas Clinton is an experienced (hawkish) politician in that field.

(As for climate change - that ship has sailed years or decades ago and no candidate would be able to make a difference in a country so heavily dependent on fossile fuels.)

Trump's hawkishness is different from everyone else's.

He expresses that he doesn't want to continue Americas use of military power to help other people, which I think I think is both a good and a bad thing.

On the other hand he said expresses that he'd be much more willing to use Americas military power for the countries naked self interest and ego stroking and cites Putin as a positive example.

Also, somewhat contradicting the other stuff, he has repeatedly expressed that he's the only strong enough to eliminate ISIS. Do you think he intends to do so with Apprentice reruns?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Today walking into work down Madison Avenue, I saw a man in plus fours, a bow tie and spats.  I assume he is going to some fancy golf club today that I'm not allowed in.  Otherwise it's New York, so whatever.  Anyhow, I had half a second thinking how out of touch he was.  Then I realized that my inability to truly comprehend the rise of Trump probably makes me pretty out of touch.  I get the rise of Sanders.  I think his policies are misguided and unrealistic, and if able to actually be enacted would probably do real harm for the country.  But I understand why his message is appealing, and I think he has principles (not my principles, but principles).  But Trump? The man has no principles.  I see principled people running away from everything he stands for.  So is so much of America unprincipled? That saddens me.  Anyhow, in the general election, I would vote for the unprincipled Hillary over the unprincipled Trump any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  At least she doesn't openly support mass murder and the Klan.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Zabzie,

I'm right there with you.  I tend to fall to the right side of the spectrum and I cannot fathom Trump's rise.

[DanteGabriel]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zabzie,

I'm right there with you.  I tend to fall to the right side of the spectrum and I cannot fathom Trump's rise.

I don't understand your surprise. He is all the GOP's nativist, know-nothing, anti-intellectual, authoritarian rhetoric of decades, vomited back up. He is the political distillation of the Reagan coalition.

All he's done is shout what the Republicans have been whispering for decades.

[IheartIheartTesla]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And yes, Clinton's results have outperformed what the polls forecasted her, largely on the strength of her overwhelming support from the black population. That said, she did better than expected everywhere save one place - Colorado. 

I looked at the 538 models for Oklahoma and Mass, and they had Hillary winning the former, and the latter by 7 points. She actually underperformed in those states. MN had negligible polling so she probably did as well as expected, if you project by demographics and whatnot.

[Ormond]

Zabzie and Scot, you really need to read the long Vox article on how Trump is basically the candidate of the authoritarian personality wing of the Republican party:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

The authoritarians who vote for Trump have a different view of what it means to be "principled" than you do. First, they really do believe that all "politicians" are unprincipled liars and don't see any difference between Trump and any other candidate on that score. Right wing rhetoric the last two or three decades has been way too effective at convincing them that government is the problem and almost everyone who holds elective office is corrupt and against their own interests.

Secondly, the "principles" they most want to uphold are "strength" and rejection of all those who they see as being "different" or "other" from themselves. What most on this site perceive as "bullying" on Trump's part, they see as being a willingness to do what they think should be done to keep them safe from harm -- harm both in the sense of physical threats from terrorists, and in terms of threats to societal changes and increasing diversity which creep them out. 

Thirdly, part of authoritarianism as a personality trait is that it leads to an even greater "compartmentalization" and inability to see contradictions in oneself and one's leaders than average humans have. SInce Trump was the first candidate to say the things these people want to hear, they became committed to him, and they aren't going to be swayed by just a few unsavory facts about his past being reported, which they will either dismiss as being media and establishment lies or as being irrelevant to (or even supportive of) the "strong daddy" image they perceive Trump as having. 

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zabzie,

I'm right there with you.  I tend to fall to the right side of the spectrum and I cannot fathom Trump's rise.

I don't find it unfathomable at all.  The same thing is happening all over Europe.  People are switching from long-established centre right and    centre left parties, to new populist parties on the right and left.  Voters are fed up with years of static living standards, and high levels of              immigration.  You may think that the populists have no real answer on these subjects, but it's hardly surprising that people are turning away from the sorts of politicians they think have failed them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

To quote my wife, who doesn't support Trump but sees all politicians as venal and corrupt, people are angry and see Trump as no worse than the other politicians we have now except he's saying things they want to be said.  Does that square with what the Vox article says?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don't find it unfathomable at all.  The same thing is happening all over Europe.  People are switching from long-established centre right and    centre left parties, to new populist parties on the right and left.  Voters are fed up with years of static living standards, and high levels of              immigration.  You may think that the populists have no real answer on these subjects, but it's hardly surprising that people are turning away from the sorts of politicians they think have failed them.

The thing that's unfathomable about Trump to me aren't his populist-nativist politics, which are common throughout American history- and I think you're right that the appeal of these politics is rising across the Western world (I wonder if Trump's supporters know how worldly they're being, and how they'd feel if they knew)- it's Trump himself. The man has been something of a joke for a long time now, a reality TV star with bizarre hair who says outrageous things and whose most famous political activity before this campaign was accusing Obama of being a secret Kenyan. I can wrap my head around the appeal of the politics (which I find very ugly nonetheless), but not the appeal of Trump. That some people are unable to see through him, that they apparently view him as genuine and competent, blows my mind.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

As much as I like Sanders, I don't think he's a particularly good campaigner. He hasn't been hitting Clinton nearly as hard as he could have been where she's vulnerable, and when he's attacked, especially when it's an unfair attack, he doesn't respond with a vigorous defense.

I think it's pretty clear Sanders wasn't campaigning to win, otherwise he would have gone after her low hanging fruit. That decorum will be out the window in the General Election though, and I hope HRC has come up with some good ways to defend herself on those issues. Because Trump will be the exact opposite of Sanders.

4 hours ago, Shryke said:

It wasn't that at all. The actual context of the whole thing is that he was at an event for the CBC PAC's endorsement of Clinton and they kept asking him about Sanders activism and his response was basically "Fuck off with these Sanders questions, he was not involved in anything I was doing at the time so I don't know shit about him from back then". He even clarified later that he wasn't trying to say Sanders had done nothing ever.

IDK, I took it as him calling Sanders a fraud. And just after he made those comments, Clinton surrogates came out and actively underminded Sanders' involvement in the civil rights movement.