2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Fiye]

Alright Gredival lets use some trend analysis because Bern has gotten exposure over time saying that Bernie was less known before and is now better known now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tial_race.html

Spoiler: show

Nothing too much different here. Both have been pulling far away from Trump since the beginning of march, though Sanders maintains a higher difference (But similar trend)

Forgive me for not getting the image sizes right, but Sanders has been able to keep a steady lead above Cruz since the start of the year. Hillary was just able to pull away recently, likely due to the Cruz Sex Scandal

The matchups against Kasich are not graphed since there's not as much data before feburary. But in both months, Kasich has flat out defeated Hillary and tied with Sanders.

What I want to get to you Gredival is Bernie isn't not electable. If that's the only thing stopping you from going with Bernie Sanders than I'm disappointed. You should support the candidate you desire. The candidate's who's policy you support more than the other. If that person is Hillary then I got no arguement. But my argument is that these primaries don't exist in their own little worlds. The candidates are taking pop shots are one another, including calling Bernie a dirty socialist who promises free shit and Hillary a snake who'll lie and cheat her way into the white house. I know I've argued this so many times with you, and my argument hasn't changed. And the only thing the polls have done have shown both Bernie and Hillary destroy trump. Bernie has always pulled out away from Cruz but Hillary is now pulling away quickly thanks to his scandal. And that both have trouble with Kasich, with Hillary losing by a decent margin. Maybe that'll if the RNC managed their contested convention strategy, but there's a good chance with Trump v. Democrat you won't have to worry either candidate losing.

[notorious bum]

Since the Clinton era, charter school investments get automatic tax credits that allow investors to double their money in as little as 7 years. Thanks in part to vigorous lobbying on the state and federal levels by charter schools and their investors and contractors the charter school industry is not subject to the same instructional, operational, fiscal and accounting, or conflict of interest rules as actual public schools. In most states it's perfectly legal for a charter school operator to give her brother the maintenance contract, her sister the instructional contract and her cousin the textbook contract, to replace the teachers with computer programs, while her own privately held company rents and subleases the school building at a hefty markup, all with public money, and misleadingly call yourself a “public school.”

http://blackagendareport.com/just-wh...-school-crooks

[Gredival]

Nothing too much different here. Both have been pulling far away from Trump since the beginning of march, though Sanders maintains a higher difference (But similar trend)

Forgive me for not getting the image sizes right, but Sanders has been able to keep a steady lead above Cruz since the start of the year. Hillary was just able to pull away recently, likely due to the Cruz Sex Scandal

The matchups against Kasich are not graphed since there's not as much data before feburary. But in both months, Kasich has flat out defeated Hillary and tied with Sanders.

Once again, completely and totally irrelevant. These are based off polling a national head to head match-up. I have now pointed out (to you specifically) five times that this is not how the election is decided. Therefore your data means nothing.

Furthermore, it has still has little predictive power this far out.

So show me some state by state polls for the kingmaker swing states that show Bernie leading theoretical GOP opponents for state specific contests.

What I want to get to you Gredival is Bernie isn't not electable.

He is completely unelectable.

Bernie needs to carry states like North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia. These states flipped/Obama's margins in these states decreased between 08 and 12 because moderates thought he was too liberal in his first term. And the Dems don't have the basic numbers advantage in these states to win without winning the majority of self-identifying moderates.

And in this country, those "moderates" are pretty right leaning. A candidate who is openly and unabashedly socialist will not win their vote just because the progressive wing of the Democratic party and young college kids are behind him.

If that's the only thing stopping you from going with Bernie Sanders than I'm disappointed. You should support the candidate you desire. The candidate's who's policy you support more than the other. If that person is Hillary then I got no arguement.

What I desire, which coincides with what the establishment policymakers and power brokers desire, is to win the election.

This is a country where the election deciders are moderates in extremely specific geographic regions of the country that are only important because the mix of non-education, apathy, and deception is high enough that people will vote (R) against their best interests but low enough that the (D) can sometimes trick the sheep into letting the good shepard lead instead of the bad one.

You don't get the luxury of voting for truth, and candidates don't get the luxury of running on principle. Russ Feingold found that out the hard way last cycle when he turned down PAC money.

Winning matters more than any ideological purity, but especially right now given that there is little chance a Sanders presidency actually gets any of its more progressive agenda passed compared to a Clinton presidency.

But my argument is that these primaries don't exist in their own little worlds.

But they do. Primaries favor flawed candidates who appeal to the fringe. The RNC and the DNC are facing the exact same problem, just that the respective fringes represent different ideals.

[thetruepandagod]

If Hillary had a heart attack and died Bernie would be dead in the water as soon as his policies actually became the focus of the media and scrutiny. His niceties don't translate to good foreign relations and economic policy. At this point it is safe to say that Trump is the republican nominee. If you are against this you better hope with your heart of hearts that Hillary is healthy because a Bernie nominee is the fast track to President Trump.

[Cantih]

but especially right now given that there is little chance a Sanders presidency actually gets any of its more progressive agenda passed compared to a Clinton presidency.

Stop using this point. Yes, with a GOP congress it's going to be more obstructionism. But trying to flip that into Clinton support does not follow.
It's like the old Fark joke on conservative articles "Both sides are bad; so vote republican".
"Neither candidate can get anything done; so vote Clinton".

Because there is one thing Sanders can do better than Clinton with a GOP congress.
Big money legislation that Clinton would be fine with letting through, would be vetoed by Sanders.

[Talint]

Hold on a sec.

He is completely unelectable.

Bernie needs to carry states like North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia. These states flipped/Obama's margins in these states decreased between 08 and 12 because moderates thought he was too liberal in his first term. And the Dems don't have the basic numbers advantage in these states to win without winning the majority of self-identifying moderates.

This statement grossly underestimates the reality that is the Blue Wall. Even at the most conservative estimates, Democrats start off with an electoral advantage of 237 to 206 (I give NC to Republicans), and that's not including general D-trends of NH, CO, WI, and IA.

Giving democrats those states, which are trending more blue, and that puts them at 266 -- all Bernie needs is one more state after that to win: FL, VA, OH, NV. In order for Trump to win the presidency, Trump would have to show being competitive in states like NH, CO, WI, and IA; and let's face it, I don't see that happening.

[Kaslo]

Long winded anecdote about when I was an asshole and a HOA would have been useful:

Spoiler: show

As an undergrad I rented a 5 bedroom house for a year with a few people in a somewhat nice neighborhood that had no HOA. We almost got all the way through the lease without cutting the grass. It was mostly because we were under the impression that it was going to be taken care of by the people that rented us the house, but after a few calls to them with reassurances that someone would be out and no one showing up we gave up on them. By this point it was well into summer and we were not going to buy a lawn mower to cut the grass for what would only amount to a handful of times because the renting company was turning out to be a real pain in the ass and none of us had the intentions of renewing for another year. We tried to get some kids to mow it that had come and solicited to us a few times, but they ultimately never showed up, and all the while our grass got taller and taller. Eventually we finally did get a neighbor to cut it but that was all the way into September and I think he had to cut it a total of 2 times before the grass stopped its seasonal growth. The worst part was that the house literally across the street from us was for sale, and they would come ask us to cut it and we would tell them that someone would be out to cut it because most of the that was the impression we were under.

In this neighborhood there was no through traffic, kids played in the streets, and the people were all very friendly. The neighborhood was a good neighborhood, it just lacked a HOA for some reason, and this resulted in them having little-to-no recourse to force us to cut our grass. HOA fees can suck, but when you sometimes have a shitty neighbor like us then it may be your only recourse.

Some places the City can come make you mow or fine you out the ass.

[Fiye]

You don't get the luxury of voting for truth, and candidates don't get the luxury of running on principle. Russ Feingold found that out the hard way last cycle when he turned down PAC money.

Calling this out because other people have called other things.

Did a quick wikipedia search to start some looking and then found this.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...197a0a5a0.html

How is he doing in money?

Feingold signaled last year that he would not renew the pledge, and as 2015 wound to a close, his share of out-of-state fundraising increased. In the fourth quarter, nearly three-fourths of the itemized individual contributions to Feingold’s campaign were from outside Wisconsin.

Feingold launched his bid to return to the Senate last year. He raised more than $7.4 million for his campaign through Dec. 31, the most recent deadline to report those figures to the Federal Election Commission.

That places Feingold first in fundraising among all Senate candidates challenging an incumbent and second among non-incumbents, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks money in politics.

Only Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for an open seat in California, raised more.

Of the $6.9 million in individual contributions that went to Feingold in 2015, 38 percent came from in-state contributors.

The guy lost his seat in 2010 during the tea party and he's running as a progressive liberal who won't take Super PAC money. As a result he's raised more money (most of it are national donations) and polling/predictions indicate he's doing favorably compared to the republican incumbent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...neral_election

[archibaldcrane]

I really doubt Feingold could've survived the Tea Party / Scott Walker wave election in 2010 regardless of PAC money.

However, if something good comes out of Bernie's run it could be that a divorced, publicly funded Jew like Feingold could see a path to the White House in the future.

He's the best, I'd vote for him over anyone.

[dasva]

I want to call bullshit on this, but I am willing to wait to explain what you mean by this.

Bullshit? It's simple teachers unions have campaigned against various schools choice programs in fact it was part of the cited issues in this case. Those programs vary in exactly how they work but general concept is to allow a students other options than publicly provided schools usually in a financial form. More money means you can better afford things. Though seems this was more or less already covered.

[Fiye]

Relevant youtube video about all these unions courtesy of the young turks.

(Skip to around 20:27)

[Gredival]

This statement grossly underestimates the reality that is the Blue Wall. Even at the most conservative estimates, Democrats start off with an electoral advantage of 237 to 206 (I give NC to Republicans), and that's not including general D-trends of NH, CO, WI, and IA.

Giving democrats those states, which are trending more blue, and that puts them at 266 -- all Bernie needs is one more state after that to win: FL, VA, OH, NV. In order for Trump to win the presidency, Trump would have to show being competitive in states like NH, CO, WI, and IA; and let's face it, I don't see that happening.

I'm mathing it based on the Red Wall then looking at what a (D) can afford to lose compared to Obama.

Under this we assume the following states are irrevocably lost: ID (4), MT (3), UT (6), WY (3), ND (3), SD (3), NE (5), KS (6), OK (7), TX (38), LA (8), MS (6), MO (10), KY (8), TN (11), AL (9), GA (16), SC (9), WV (5).

There's about 70 more EVs in states that Romney carried in that aren't guaranteed locks for any (R) candidate. However I don't even think it's necessary to consider those when you see how badly Bernie is going to do in the swing states: CO (9), FL (29), IA (6), NV (6), NH (4), NC (15), OH (18), VA (13), WI (10)

To reach 270, Bernie can only lose a maximum of 33 EV's from this group assuming that he carries every other state that Obama won in '12 (with the caveat that bringing NC back to the (D) side gives him breathing room).

I argue 1) he loses 41 automatically in OH, VA, WI; 2) he has probably loses FL which by itself can sink him and 3) there's no chance he gets NC to flip.

Let's go state by state.

VA - This is easy pickings for the GOP. Obama carried only by the slimmest of margins (.3%) so there is absolutely no margin for error in losing any moderates here. Obama lost a substantial amount of ground here between 08 and 12, which indicates that his "liberal" first term was too far left for VA. Hell, Mark Warner almost lost his midterm here.

WI - They let Walker stay in the Governor's mansion despite his primary accomplishment being abolishing organized labor. If the electorate is willing to let Walker do that, I can't imagine that there's enough people to get energized by a $15 minimum wage to keep this in Bernie's column.

OH - Fringe of the Bible belt. The moderates here will not be comfortable with the "radicalism" of Bernie's socialism. On top of that, a GOP candidate that throws red meat to the conservatives here can likely swing the state purely by playing a better ground game than Romney.

FL - The Northern half of FL is basically deep South. Additionally all the retirees in the South tend to skew to the right as well as the Cuban immigrants. The Democrats have the non-Cuban minorities and other urban city population. This dynamic ultimately favors the GOP. Obama only carried by .9% in 2012 after a 3% victory in 08, so they definitely aren't friendly to the progressive agenda. They also just sent Skeletor back to the Governor's mansion when he was challenged by Charlie Crist, who's significantly more moderate than Obama (being a Republican originally after all). I don't see Bernie keeping all of Obama's voters, much less winning over people scared of a radical GOP candidate at a pace that outstrips the voters he would lose by being a "radical" socialist.

NC - NC is basically a slightly redder version of VA. It went for Romney by 3% points after Obama barely carried it in 08. If Obama lost ground for being too liberal here, Bernie has no chance.

Stop using this point. Yes, with a GOP congress it's going to be more obstructionism. But trying to flip that into Clinton support does not follow.
It's like the old Fark joke on conservative articles "Both sides are bad; so vote republican".
"Neither candidate can get anything done; so vote Clinton".

Because there is one thing Sanders can do better than Clinton with a GOP congress.
Big money legislation that Clinton would be fine with letting through, would be vetoed by Sanders.

And stop using the talking point that just because Clinton has previously had engagements to speak to Wall St. firms that means she only has their interests at heart and she will screw everybody else.

Tom Wheeler was much more tapped into the telecom industry than Clinton is to Wall St., yet his nomination turned out far better than anyone could have hoped for. (Not even Rosenworcel thought the FCC would successfully use those rules to ensure net neutrality; it was Wheeler that pushed that through.)

It's as nonsensical as saying her campaign is funded by Wall St. or that Bernie's money is more pure because it doesn't come from anyone that is super wealthy. When you are from the state where the finance district lives, you'll obviously get more donors from the financial sector. Similarly, Democratic mega donors are Democratic for a reason and probably aren't pushing the same agenda as their GOP counterparts.

But I guess that narrative is too complex as it involved more than "Money is bad!"

Calling this out because other people have called other things.

Except those people didn't answer the question I keep posing to you. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't answer my questions and you can't defend your position.

How does Bernie win moderate voters in swing states where the politics and the fundamental demographics aren't friendly to him? With no more primary over-representation of the fringe to shield him and people who are fundamentally hostile to the idea of socialism, he's toast.

Bernie would have to rely on winning these people by convincing them that socialism isn't bad. And a campaign based on educating the electorate is doomed to fail. Quite simply, people are not that smart.

Not that this matters anyone. Bernie is actually, as a matter of fact, toast. Electable or not.

So the only question is why you think it's okay to waste your vote because you'd rather let someone you agree with on 5% of the issues beat someone you agree with on 75% of the issues because the guy you side with on 95% is sitting at home already,

Did a quick wikipedia search to start some looking and then found this.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...197a0a5a0.html

How is he doing in money?

How is he doing in money? Well your very article states "He raised more than $7.4 million for his campaign through Dec. 31 [....] places Feingold first in fundraising among all Senate candidates challenging an incumbent and second among non-incumbents"

Seems pretty good to me.

The guy lost his seat in 2010 during the tea party and he's running as a progressive liberal who won't take Super PAC money. As a result he's raised more money (most of it are national donations) and polling/predictions indicate he's doing favorably compared to the republican incumbent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...neral_election

Uh, that's exactly my point.

He lost on principle (i.e. playing like Bernie). Now he's taking PAC money, raising money from out of state, and as a result he has a much better shot of taking back his seat back now.

You might think Feingold abandoned his principles, but guess what, having him in that seat over Johnson leads to real world benefits that are much more important than taking a stand against money.

Even if Bernie could manage to fund a campaign without these tactics, the fact is the Democrats as a unit can't. You're yearning for a change that, right now, is complete and utter fantasy.

[Minions]

I agree it will all come down to whether Bernie can win swing states, and in general people who are on the poles don't end up doing well. Too far left, or too far right don't tend to get moderate votes.

[Blubbartron]

It's 100% legitimate. I'm pretty sure we posted links in this very thread showing Bill campaigning less than 100 feet from a polling place, and secret service blocking off the entire area so that no one could enter. He visited 3 different polling places on voting day, and all of them were areas heavily favoring Bernie.

[Minions]

It's 100% legitimate. I'm pretty sure we posted links in this very thread showing Bill campaigning less than 100 feet from a polling place, and secret service blocking off the entire area so that no one could enter. He visited 3 different polling places on voting day, and all of them were areas heavily favoring Bernie.

I ended up removing the link, since it looked like it was written by someone who had no idea what they are doing. The website itself has some tabloid-esque stuff on it, and people said the "court documents" are uploaded on dropbox... so idk
https://thehornnews.com/clinton-sued-election-fraud/

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ncomplaint.pdf

I doubt this goes to trial if it is even legit, because shaking hands and using a megaphone outside already were stated to not violate their current laws, but Bill was warned of the current laws. Blocking the entrance with Secret Service wouldn't be under his control, as they act of their own accord. A megaphone 100 ft from polling sites does not violate the law. Neither does shaking hands inside polling locations, so long as he does not say "VOTE FOR HILARY" while doing it.

[Fiye]

Uh, that's exactly my point.

He lost on principle (i.e. playing like Bernie). Now he's taking PAC money, raising money from out of state, and as a result he has a much better shot of taking back his seat back now.

You might think Feingold abandoned his principles, but guess what, having him in that seat over Johnson leads to real world benefits that are much more important than taking a stand against money.

Even if Bernie could manage to fund a campaign without these tactics, the fact is the Democrats as a unit can't. You're yearning for a change that, right now, is complete and utter fantasy.

I'm under the impression that he's raising money without a Super PAC this election cycle and he's gaining donations from across the nation.

Doing some more digging led me here. https://www.nrsc.org/press/icymi-sen...ey-2016-03-14/

By the way this website is calling him Mr. Clean so I wonder how they view him. (Hint, not good)

In the fourth quarter, nearly three-fourths of the itemized individual contributions to Feingold’s campaign were from outside Wisconsin...Feingold has collected nearly as much from the liberal bastions of California and New York as he has from Wisconsin.

Feingold first made the in-state donor pledge in his initial Senate bid in 1992 and followed in his three subsequent campaigns.

Last year, when Feingold acknowledged he would not adhere to the pledge in this campaign, he said it never was meant to be permanent. The pledge no longer makes sense, Feingold argued, after Citizens United and other court rulings unleashed an era of rampant outside spending in politics.

Anyway that article already quotes this as a source. So looking through it I see something else.

Two super PACs funded in part by wealthy out-of-state donors have formed to support Johnson. So far, none have surfaced to support Feingold.

For a typical candidate, the issue of in-state campaign funding might be marginal, said Mark Graul, a state Republican strategist not affiliated with the Johnson campaign.

The guy is fighting against republican Super PACs by using out of state money. Some more digging and hey I'm here http://www.rollcall.com/politics/gop...-pac-spending/

After losing re-election to a fourth term in 2010, Feingold, who had championed limits on spending in federal elections, launched the Progressives United PAC, which the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported spent a large percentage of the $7.1 million it raised on overhead and staff salaries. Republicans are already attempting to use that news to paint Feingold as a hypocrite.

Hey I'm getting somewhere. By the way http://www.progressivesunited.org/ is a garbage website. No info at all.

All you've done is highlight how important fighting for this shit is. He's taking PAC money because it turns out the seat is VERY valuble and the republicans pumped Super PAC money (Which has no campaign limit).

Hillary's not going to support that. How does reducing spending limits help her when she literally keeps a hit list of people who've supported her in the past. You know what, I can't argue this point any further, I'll agree that all you care about is which side wins the game and not the people involved. Damn the rules, the corruption, or the scandals.

[Gredival]

I'm under the impression that he's raising money without a Super PAC this election cycle and he's gaining donations from across the nation.

Doing some more digging led me here. https://www.nrsc.org/press/icymi-sen...ey-2016-03-14/

By the way this website is calling him Mr. Clean so I wonder how they view him. (Hint, not good)

The guy is fighting against republican Super PACs by using out of state money. Some more digging and hey I'm here http://www.rollcall.com/politics/gop...-pac-spending/

Hey I'm getting somewhere. By the way http://www.progressivesunited.org/ is a garbage website. No info at all.

All you've done is highlight how important fighting for this shit is. He's taking PAC money because it turns out the seat is VERY valuble and the republicans pumped Super PAC money (Which has no campaign limit).

Hillary's not going to support that. How does reducing spending limits help her when she literally keeps a hit list of people who've supported her in the past. You know what, I can't argue this point any further, I'll agree that all you care about is which side wins the game and not the people involved. Damn the rules, the corruption, or the scandals.

What are you even saying under all that drivel?

Feingold made his name as a campaign finance reformer (hello McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill?) and as a result he declined outside funds in 2010... and that sincere gesture crippled his campaign and contributed substantially to his defeat.

Now, Feingold is accepting outside money and is running his own PAC. He's doing what he has to in order to win. Because that's how politics works.

My point isn't that money isn't a problem; however throwing your vote away with Bernie doesn't fix that problem. Hell, even electing Bernie wouldn't mean that money will suddenly have no corruptive influence on politics. Money in politics existed before Citizens United and it will exist after it for as long as money equals power in society.

Demanding that Democrats hamstring themselves in the election because money is bad is like having your army fight with knives against people with guns because you think guns are bad.

[Rooney]

@Fiye

Think of politics like a children's playground game. There are multiple rounds (elections), and the winner gets to change the rules for the next round. The only way to change the rules is to win the game, and the only way to win the game is to play within the current set of rules. You want to change the rules drastically. This will probably cause a lot of the other kids (voters) to go play someone else's game (vote for the other party). If the goal is to keep as many people playing your game as possible (supporting your policies/voting for you), then incremental change is your best bet.

You are upset that Bernie isn't playing the game as well as Hillary, and that Hillary won't change the rules completely if/when she wins.

[notorious bum]

I'll agree that all you care about is which side wins the game and not the people involved. Damn the rules, the corruption, or the scandals.

Gred and a few others on here have made this point perfectly clear, this is why I have taken a less involved role in the thread quite a long time ago. Voting for the more effective evil for the second time in a row shouldn't be worn as a badge of honor for the socially conscious, and yet here we are.

I agree with much of what you post, Fiye, however, my disenchantment with electoral politics began during the '08 elections, and my support for Bernie is merely to get a stronger populist movement that does not begin and end with the presidency. This is what I bought into with Mike Gravel's candidacy and what I reflected on as Obama's fabricated Hope and Dream campaign was dangled above the desperate masses.

We have one celebrity candidate who energizes the racism that was hidden from the mainstream media bubble, whom is such a threat to the establishment parties because he is such a wealthy narcissist.

We have another candidate who energizes the disenfranchised and often ignored base of both parties, esp. for Dems, whom is a threat to the establishment because he wants basic welfare conditions for a 1st world country.

Both candidates put the spotlight on crony capitalism, even if one is doing so ironically, but the real kicker is that our celebrity hate-monger is saying things that are more radically left than even the Birdman, himself. Whether he can accomplish these things is not the point, he has gone out of his way to point out the transparent existence of our imperialist relationship with Saudi Arabia and the thousands of U.S. bases, as well as his popular rants on disastrous trade policies (again, ironically).

[dasva]

Money in politics existed before Citizens United and it will exist after it for as long as money equals power in society.

Well as long as money has any value it's going to have some power. One thing you can do to reduce it though is to limit how much politics is in money. Right now part of why so much money is thrown into politics is because it's effectively a personal investment and not in the good way