2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Kurokikaze]

You do realize the nomination was a bluff to call the republicans on their obstructionism, right?

Theres absolutely no reason to believe that this is true... Obama is pretty weak when it comes to leveraging his power over Republicans. So when the Republicans say "OK we'll allow it" he's going to go ahead and nominate Garland so he can look like the guy that brought the parties together instead of a Democratic president that just nominated a conservative justice.

[Melena]

Theres absolutely no reason to believe that this is true... Obama is pretty weak when it comes to leveraging his power over Republicans. So when the Republicans say "OK we'll allow it" he's going to go ahead and nominate Garland so he can look like the guy that brought the parties together instead of a Democratic president that just nominated a conservative justice.

Actually there are a lot of reasons, number one being that if Hillary or Bernie wins, they are going to turn around and nominate a far left liberal. Obama essentially gave an olive branch saying you will confirm this nominee who is a moderate republican that leans left of Scalia, or you're going to get stuck with a far left liberal in a year. It was an easy win win, as either way the court shifts to the left compared to what it would be with Scalia alive.

[Dimmauk]

I was watching the news and they were talking about how moderate Muslims turn to ISIS. They were saying that they were disenfranchised, and felt like there was no hope for them even though it wasn't really true. After hearing the same thing over and over, they started to believe the cause. They started buying into the radicalization, the xenophobia, the attack on their religion and their god. Its how a couple of Muslims that owned a bar, turned to blowing up Paris.

It sadly reminded me of Trump supporters.

[dasva]

Friedrichs v. CTA deadlocked 4-4 today. If Scalia had still been alive, this ruling would definitely have gone 5-4 and gutted the ability of public employee unions to represent their workers. This underscores how important the SCOTUS appointment is and why it's important to make sure that a Democrat fills Scalia's seat.

Eh? It was trying over turn the ability to force all public employees even if not a part of a union to pay dues and to require affirmative consent for unions to collect and use money from members for politics. If that guts unions abilities you might want to rethink how you run your union. This is also the same union that consistently campaigns against voucher programs...

[Gredival]

Not speaking about anyone specific in this thread, but I've found this kind of mentality usually among those raised in the internet age with this being the first time they're eligible to vote. Admittedly anecdotal, just a funny coincidence.

I don't think it's a coincidence to also note that these kids weren't alive or politically conscious during the Bush years. They don't understand how bad things can get if the GOP controls all three branches. It's the same reason they don't value free speech and would rather have safe spaces.

Except our wonderful president immediately went to the middle and picked Merrick Garland, a centrist Republican. The two biggest things I keep on hearing about him (Aside from his time as a U.S. Federal Prosecutor) is that he's disliked by the NRA and in the case of SpeechNOW the D.C. District Court went further than Citizen's United and struck down Contribution limits.

This isn't progressive/socialist by any means. Hell if Merrick Garland had been nominated sooner I bet Friedrich v. CTA would've gone 5-4 against Unions. You claim to be want progressive/socialist policies but Hillary appears to be more conservative than Obama. Hillary is literally following in Sanders footsteps to try to pander to his demographic.

Oh you want $15/hr minimum? Nah, we're aiming for $12.
Single payer medicare? Nah we're going to improve the ACA.
Oh TPP? I supported it in 2012 but now I'm totes against it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_9104096.html



Nevermind history wherein she didn't speak up against the Defense of Marriage ACT (Which Sanders voted against) and then voted for the Iraq War.

She's a Neo-liberal. But she just happens to be slightly progressive in social issues when it happens to be easily winnable instead of standing up to fight for basic rights with minority groups. If you really want progress stop accepting the damn status quo and accepting hillary as invincible. If you don't challenge the system then we get the same bullshit economics wherein our government infrastructure will just keep withering away.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/03/free-stuff.html

I really just want to post this article because its a good read.



This is why I won't support any Democrat/Republican candidate besides Bernie. Maybe if and when (Which admittedly seems likely) Hillary wins the nomination, she'll have to actually make a case to get my vote. I don't want half assed progress.

+1 critical reading. No one here is arguing Hillary is more or equally progressive as Bernie. We're arguing that shouldn't be the litmus test for whether or not she earns your vote.

Quite simply what you have consistently failed to grasp is this: what matters is what your vote does, not what your vote stands for. The election is a consequentialist/utilitarian matter, not a Kantian/deontological decision.

Your vote for Bernie may stand for more-liberal-than-Hillary values, but if it sends Cruz/Trump to the White House it means you and everyone else who voted for Bernie actually voted for xenophobia, enshrining Christian value as law, and economics favoring the 1%. Case in point: a vote for Nader stood for a belief in "true" progressive values that Gore didn't, but was effectually a vote for Bush 43 and a litany of neo-con fopo policy and Reagan-inspired tax cuts.

[Churchill]

I was watching the news and they were talking about how moderate Muslims turn to ISIS. They were saying that they were disenfranchised, and felt like there was no hope for them even though it wasn't really true. After hearing the same thing over and over, they started to believe the cause. They started buying into the radicalization, the xenophobia, the attack on their religion and their god. Its how a couple of Muslims that owned a bar, turned to blowing up Paris.

It sadly reminded me of Trump supporters.

The difference in the outcomes is roughly 1500 years of civilization.

[Inshiya]

So can someone that's actually keeping track of the primaries inform me on the chances of a contested Republican convention now? Like, what states does Trump need to win/lose for him to not get the 50% threshold?

[Minions]

Kasich and Cruz would support the other, but not Trump. Nor should they.

Trump will or won't-- who knows. Who cares? He's not running 3rd party, because he's cheap. He's not paying for anything with his own money so far, and he won't if he loses here, because he knows he won't win, and he's not going to blow a billion of his own cash to lose.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. For <100k he can be entered as independents in many states, enough to signify a giant middle finger to the GOP, and ruin any hope. Sure some states close entries before the RNC votes, but many don't. I'd be very surprised if Trump even batted a eye blowing 100k on sending a message. Even entering 1 contest as Independent before the vote would send a strong message that either you vote for trump or he sinks your chances.

[kisada]

I don't think it's a coincidence to also note that these kids weren't alive or politically conscious during the Bush years. They don't understand how bad things can get if the GOP controls all three branches. It's the same reason they don't value free speech and would rather have safe spaces.



+1 critical reading. No one here is arguing Hillary is more or equally progressive as Bernie. We're arguing that shouldn't be the litmus test for whether or not she earns your vote.

Quite simply what you have consistently failed to grasp is this: what matters is what your vote does, not what your vote stands for. The election is a consequentialist/utilitarian matter, not a Kantian/deontological decision.

Your vote for Bernie may stand for more-liberal-than-Hillary values, but if it sends Cruz/Trump to the White House it means you and everyone else who voted for Bernie actually voted for xenophobia, enshrining Christian value as law, and economics favoring the 1%. Case in point: a vote for Nader stood for a belief in "true" progressive values that Gore didn't, but was effectually a vote for Bush 43 and a litany of neo-con fopo policy and Reagan-inspired tax cuts.

I was going to post pretty much this. Like, I get it. Bernie supporters want a real progressive type of change and they don't see hillary as that person. That's fair enough but idealism only works to a certain extent before reality sets in and you have to go with the devil you know. When you don't, you get 8 years of bush. It's hard to say where the country would be if gore took the crown instead of bush way back then. But i imagine any bernie or bernie type candidates would have a much smoother path to getting their policies and agendas in place now in 2016, if bush didn't fuck america for two entire terms, and then set the table for obama being obstructed for the entire last one. Progress isn't always about batting 1.000. Much of the time it's about falling flat on your face but enough so that you get to stick your foot in the door. If bernie fails and clinton wins, it's not the end of the world because someone like him who will be more electable will eventually come around.

Conversely, if the GE rolls around and trump/cruz wins because bernie supporters are still throwing their "if we can't have it, no one can" tantrum guess what happens to all that idealism? It gets completely disrupted for 4 years and with these guys there's a gigantic chance a lot of that shit goes backward. And all that idealism that bernie supporters are hanging onto devolves from actually having a shot into just what it really is, idealism.

[Andalusian girls]

Friedrichs v. CTA deadlocked 4-4 today. If Scalia had still been alive, this ruling would definitely have gone 5-4 and gutted the ability of public employee unions to represent their workers.

is that what we're calling requiring compulsory fees from teachers who are nonunion members and do not believe in the positions advocated by the public unions

[archibaldcrane]

The fees are only for the costs of grievance mediation and bargaining (that non-union members benefit from). They cannot be used for advocating for positions or whatever nonsense you are talking about.

[Inshiya]

is that what we're calling requiring compulsory fees from teachers who are nonunion members and do not believe in the positions advocated by the public unions

Positions advocated by public unions such as better pay, time off, medical coverage, training, and evaluation?

Ya, it's a bitch when people love what collective bargaining has bought our workforce, but don't want to support said collective bargaining due to years of propaganda.

[Blubbartron]

This union issue is pretty simple. It's about a person's right to choose. A person should have the right to choose whether to join a union or not. They should have the right to choose whether they support a union or not. If they won't join and support the union, then they are not entitled to benefit from anything the union does. That means they have to negotiate their own contract, and they don't get a union representative on their side if the bosses try to fire or discipline them. That's their risk to take, if they so choose. They'd be stupid not to join the union, but it is their right.

[Fiye]

But the general matchups consistently show that Bernie is more electable. The only issue comes when the republicans Nominate Kasich, in which he flat out destroys Hillary across the board and gives Sanders a run for his money. You act as though Bernie is running third party.

[archibaldcrane]

You act as though head to head polling has any predictive value this far out.

This really is babby's first election for you eh?

[Minions]

But the general matchups consistently show that Bernie is more electable. The only issue comes when the republicans Nominate Kasich, in which he flat out destroys Hillary across the board and gives Sanders a run for his money. You act as though Bernie is running third party.

Lets be honest. Bernies is running third party candidate, but under the democrat banner. He is not a democrat, and he even tells everyone he is an independent, running as a democrat so he can get media coverage.

General matchups don't mean shit at this point, as Bernie has not been the target of a single attack by republicans up to this point. I want to see how he polls once he starts being the democratic target. If anything Hilary taking all the attacks should put Bernie at his highest polling right now.

[Kyte]

Eh, I've seen plenty of attacks on him- he's been getting them from both the GOP and Hillary.

[Quicklet]

So can someone that's actually keeping track of the primaries inform me on the chances of a contested Republican convention now? Like, what states does Trump need to win/lose for him to not get the 50% threshold?

I don't have exact numbers for you but I'd say it's about 50/50 we get a contested convention at this point. 538 has Trump at 95% of where he needs to be right now (based on projections) to hit the 1,237 delegate threshold, but unless he completely collapses in the next two weeks he will either get there or get very close.

[Cantih]

running as a democrat so he can get media coverage.

No. He's running for the Dem nomination to PREVENT a Nader (and it's the same reason why the DNC is even allowing it).
There's also the fact that he's been caucusing with Dem side of the aisle for decades, which helps.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't have exact numbers for you but I'd say it's about 50/50 we get a contested convention at this point. 538 has Trump at 95% of where he needs to be right now (based on projections) to hit the 1,237 delegate threshold, but unless he completely collapses in the next two weeks he will either get there or get very close.

It really depends on how the unpledged delegates fall. There will be 150ish delegates that are not bound to any candidate by RNC rules, and while Trump will probably be a bit short of a majority of pledged delegates he may very well garner enough of their support to push him over the majority on the first ballot.