2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[archibaldcrane]

Well, it's probably a good thing that she doesn't need additional voters to flock to her to easily win the primary.

[Xajii]

Yes, paying someone hundreds of thousands of dollars to talk for an hour is an effective way of giving back to its people.

Absolutely! It is one of the most common practices for the sort of high end of the Fortune 500 tier corporations to use their event budgets. Schools spend a fuckton on speakers too..

[Dotsudoku]

And even if it's not, in what way does that incriminate the speaker?

[Galkaeater]

It took me a long time to realize Cenk wasn't associated with The Onion.

Cenk 'The Armenian genocide didn't happen but it should happen again' Uygur

[Gredival]

1. Because who in the fuck throws down hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone and expects nothing back? Of course this money isn't going to appear as payoff money thats why HRC will do dinners that cost thousands of dollars a plate. There's a video that sums up this mentality. It isn't a damn coincidence that businesses are flocking to support Hillary and leaving Bernie in the dust.

Corporations often donate to BOTH candidates in the same race because regardless of who wins they are buying face time.

Whether or not that turns out badly for the people depends on the politician.

Again, case in point, look at the telecomm industry. There are tons of senators that don't believe in net neutrality because tons of telecomm lobbyists have told them, backed with monetary contributions, that the policy is bad for (their) business.

However, AT&T and Verizon contributed to Obama as well. When Obama nominated Wheeler to the FCC and everyone anticipated Obama had been bought off and Obama was giving the telecomm industry their FCC chairman of choice (because of Wheeler's deep connections to the industry).

Yet Wheeler oversaw more substantial guarantees of net neutrality than ANYONE thought possible when he was nominated. No one thought the FCC would make the move to regulate net neutrality the way they did, including the other Democrat appointed FCC Commissioners Clyde and Rosenworcel -- I actually had asked Commissioner Rosenworcel this question point blank in the summer of 2013 and she said she didn't think the FCC could/would do that.

There are obviously exceptions with certain politicians who become beholden to certain interests, but guess what, that requires the politician to NEED the business and their money. That's why Trump's whole argument is "I'm rich enough that I can never be bought."

What do you realistically think HRC is going to do for Wall St. at this point, especially when she already released a regulatory plan that is more thorough than Bernie's (i.e. it goes beyond merely "break up the banks!" and "Glass-Steagall!") that was even approved by Elizabeth Warren?

2. And what had she said she'll do to overturn Citizen's United or fight against it? More democracy except that doesn't fix Citizens United. Slowly changing the supreme court makeup (Which is what Bernie proposes) or adding an amendment to the constitution to limit cash flow to elections. She doesn't offer any solutions.

And what has Bernie said he'll do to overturned CU? He talks about the need to get money out of politics but he's got no more of a plan for doing than than she does. All he does is talk about the power of the American people and a grass roots revolution.

Sorry the American people can't will CU away nor can they change the political system just because they want to.

The reason nothing gets done is because of the obstructionist power the minority can wield in Congress (particularly the Senate). Mobilizing the American people does squat in light of this. Those obstructionists are insulated because they are serving constituents who want obstruction. They hate Obama, they hate the left, they hate progressive legislation. They are happy to re-elect Representatives/Senators who's only agenda is to say no the a Democratic administration or to help the next Republican roll back as much of Obama's accomplishments as possible.

Also this revolution denies history. Obama had passionate volunteers on a massive scale, won the White House on a vision of hope and change where Washington would work together. He had a movement far broader than anything Sanders has done. But he couldn't keep his volunteers engaged throughout his presidency because they got tired of getting no where. And they got no where because the Republicans stone-walled him. It took every ounce of his political capital to get the ACA through, and what he ended up with was cut off at the knees.

So why would Bernie’s grassroots revolution, changing politics by using the will of the American people, succeed where Obama could not?

If the argument is that political system no longer empowers voters, how can the solution be to use the people's power?

One of my favorite quotes ever was what HRC told BLM activists: "I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate."

BLM activists and others on Bernie's side see this quote as the pinnacle of what's wrong with HRC.

I see this quote as powerful evidence of why she's the absolute best choice for President. It shows that she understands how to build change.

The only way you fix the system is from the inside. That's literally how it is designed. And the only way you get to do that is by winning. Winning is priority number one. Then you enact gradual changes, not even foot by foot but inch by inch. Sometimes things you may want to do you may not be able to, because you have to keep your eyes on the polls. But if you don't make those sacrifices now, you will never get opportunities in the future.

Case in point: Obama and gay marriage. Obama clearly supported gay marriage from the start, but he took the whole "civil union" stance because it was more moderate (therefore less offensive) than being for marriage equality. Then when the opportunity came, later down the road, he was able to come out in support of it. And it is no coincidence that it was during his Presidency that gay marriage became the law of the land in all 50 states.

Gay rights activists were furious with him at the start for being too "scared" to take a stand. What about now?

3. This goes back to the Feinberg situation where he's being called dirty because he has national support rather than a Super PAC pumping money into him.

Uh, what are you even talking about.

I brought up Feingold to point to how a politician committed to refusing outside money got smashed because of that, and now he's back after learning you fight fire with fire.

You seem to just be lost by this example.

Super PACs are a result of the Citizens United ruling and have become a mainstay. If HRC was really against it, maybe she wouldn't have $55m of Super PAC money behind her.

And Bernie has a SuperPAC behind him? He may not be as gung-ho about it as HRC is, but with the rules of how PACs operate, his campaign literally has as much involvement with the pro-Bernie PAC as HRC's campaign has with the pro-Hillary PAC.

4+5. People are stupid. If you look over at the republican field you'll see Trump. And you see the massive amount of support Trump has because people over there are sick and tired of the system as well. You know HRC isn't going to convince them. The media hasn't fucking attempted to quell down Trump because the moment they start trying to ask him any hard questions he takes over the damn interview.

Both Hillary and Trump have decided not to do anymore debates because as it turns out Bernie's policies flat out beat hers. And because Trump realises that if Cruz grows a pair and starts attacking him like Rubio did right before the Chris Christie news came out then he might have a shot. It seems impossible and improbable but this leads to #6.

HOW IS THIS A RESPONSE AT ALL?

I challenged you to show me that Bernie was electable by providing me with polls that show he beats Trump/Cruz head to head in swing states.

I asked this because you keep reposting a national head-to-head poll where Bernie had better margins than Hillary, and I have pointed out five separate times why you cannot posit that Bernie is electable based on that poll.

You're just as bad as Rubio. Can't answer the question? Let's introduce a tangent about Trump and maybe people will forget the question.

I could answer what you said, but I'm not going to because it's asinine and I'm not going to enable you to keep dodging. So once again.

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

5. "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."

6. Because my vote, by itself is meaningless.

This small part is true, but the issue is the voting paradox; even if YOUR vote doesn't matter, a collective comprised of many people like you can actually turn elections.

Again, Nader 2000 in FL.

My vote is a fucking molecule in the great sea that supports Bernie Sanders. My vote is my voice. Looking back at the last 8 years of Obama, I see a lot of things I don't like. Between the bailouts, the tax forgiveness, the fact that the ACA just made shit more expensive. The fact that 8 years after bush we're still involved in the middle east bombing people, creating veterans to send them back into a system that actually doesn't care for them. I don't want a Neo-liberate who's only progressive when the time has come. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

So instead of holding your nose to vote for Hillary, you will stay at home or throw your vote away writing in Bernie or voting for Stein.

The EFFECT of which is to help Cruz/Trump. Because when you refuse to vote for the candidate of the two major parties that represents the best chance for the best outcome, your vote is indistinguishable from those who don't vote or those who vote for the worse option.

The fact that your vote was a voice for Bernie won't matter after the election. All that matters is who we are stuck with after the election.

Now an argument could be made that voting for a 3rd party or a write-in candidate may ultimately lead to a better world than holding one's nose for the lesser of two evils. However I don't find that argument convincing. I cannot reasonably foresee a world in which a failed 3rd party candidate sparks any sort of "political" revolution. The only thing they do is act as spoilers.

So what happens when 40% of the DNC who supports Bernie Sanders decides not to vote for Hillary? Hillary has to pander to us. Hillary has to move her $12/hr position to $15/hr. Hillary will have to think about the polices that Bernie Sanders has been pushing for.

We lose, and it will be the fault of you and the rest of the Bernie bros., just like Bush 43 was the fault of the idiots that voted for Nader.

And if she does end up being serious about them and actually convinces Bernie to the point where he'll endorse her then I will most likely not write in Bernie or vote Green Party. I will support Hillary. This is a democracy and we don't win every time

You really think there's ANY chance in hell that Bernie doesn't endorse Hillary when this is over?



The problem with Bernie continuing to run is people like you that are getting butthurt. Everybody knows he will support Hillary, the question is whether or not it will be too late.

7. Because its possible to out fund without a Super pac. Bernie's proved that 3 months in a row now and how many people knew about him in 2015?

Even if he can run his own campaign on small donations, the hundreds of Senators, Congressmen, State Senators, State Assemblymen, Governors, etc. throughout the country can't. And he can't effect change alone.

Again, your position is equivalent to telling the army to fight an opponent armed with guns using only knives because you believe guns are bad. The point isn't whether guns are bad or not, the point is that you're willfully choosing to lose.

Feinberg has raised the most money of any candidate challenging an incumbent senator because there's national pressure against Citizens United. Because giving corporations more of an edge than actual citizens is kind of a fucking bad thing. Corporations only exist to make profit and the only reason why they'll support a candidate is because that candidate will likely help their bottom line. A corporation has a duty to its share holders to make more profit

Holy shit I'm regretting bringing up FeinGOLD, not because I was wrong, but because you are proving completely incapable of understanding the narrative at play.

He is accepting outside money, which he didn't do, out of principle, in 2010. The fact he is now accepting outside money is helping his campaign to be far more effective than it was six years ago.

He is fighting fire with fire.

And let me remind you that "Money in politics existed before Citizens United and it will exist after it for as long as money equals power in society. "

You want to fix that? Great. Guess what, Bernie's revolution using your massive "sea" of voices won't do shit.

Repeating again, "The only way you fix the system is from the inside. That's literally how it is designed. And the only way you get to do that is by winning. Winning is priority number one. Then you enact gradual changes, not even foot by foot but inch by inch. Sometimes things you may want to do you may not be able to, because you have to keep your eyes on the polls. But if you don't make those sacrifices now, you will never get opportunities in the future."

So we circle back to the question of whether Bernie can actually win, which you haven't answered, and how he can change things once he wins, where he has given nothing more than an asinine response about the power of the "American people."

Comparatively Hillary is also against Citizens United and she has laid out more of a plan than Bernie has. Remember what HRC told BLM activists? "I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate."

BLM activists and others on Bernie's side see this quote as the pinnacle of what's wrong with HRC. I see this quote as powerful evidence of why she's the absolute best choice for President. It shows that she understands how to build change.

Bernie Sanders has done nothing but gain ground as time has gone on. He's gaining ground on Hillary, he's been gaining ground against the Republicans (Just like Hillary has been) and not to mention the two parties are in vastly different settings. We as people who primarily support democrats have two very qualified candidates to pick between. Meanwhile across the fence the republicans pick between which bug they'd rather eat while the one subpar candidate that might stand a chance wastes away in the background. If I didn't believe Bernie had a chance I wouldn't be fighting here. Its a long shot, its kind of unlikely especially with the games both HRC and the media are playing against him (The last townhall they just asked her about her feelings on Trump.).

Because, here's the weird thing. Bernie in the last 3 months has gained 14 points on Hillary. [b]What happens if Bernie barely lags behind Clinton in delegates, but is most popular in all of the national polling that has occured? [b]What is more dangerous to the DNC? To have a charged, excited youthful support base suddenly vanish because you want your established candidate to win? To tell a new generation of possible democrats to go fuck off? As it turns out, Bernie likely doesn't give a rats ass about the DNC.

A. NATIONAL POLLING ISN'T HOW ELECTIONS ARE WON.
B. They need to shut up and remember that who is in the WH matters beyond if it's Bernie in the WH.
C. Youth is not a valued demographic for a reason, because they do stupid shit like this.

I'm supporting the candidate I agree with.

And your noble intention means jack shit when we get stuck with Trump/Cruz for four years, and we get double-fucked with another 20 years of a conservative SCOTUS because you let a Republican replace Scalia.

[thetruepandagod]

[Gredival]

[kisada]

it's like a squirt gun vs a fire hose

[archibaldcrane]

Remember that Feingold only started accepting outside money after trying for months to get his opponent Ron Johnson not to (to sign the "Badger Pledge" ) and was ignored. After that, he said fuck it.

[Gredival]

Remember that Feingold only started accepting outside money after trying for months to get his opponent Ron Johnson not to (to sign the "Badger Pledge" ) and was ignored. After that, he said fuck it.

Sure, but the point is that he didn't hamstring himself like he did six years ago trying to be better than his opponent.

[notorious bum]

Gred, I gotta give props for that post, my dude. Nobody can accuse you of not putting in work on this shitty sub forum.

[Minions]

I still don't understand this shit.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/bernie...linton-videos/

So clinton won the votes, but Bernie won the actual delegates since apparently some people didn't show up.

[Fiye]

Greenvale, I appreciate the time you put into me. I'll give a longer response in a bit, but for now let me makeep this statement. As long as Bernie is an option in the primary, my support is for him. Bern supporting Hillary is my sign that she'll attempt some more progress than she's stated.

The thing I keep on hearing is that both sides will appeal their base in primaries and then become moderate in the general.

I have no doubts that she'll work to get Bernie'so and I have fairly certain she will get his support. But until that day comes it's all about the Bern and his movement. It's all about holding her feet to the fire.

[Silenka]

I still don't understand this shit.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/bernie...linton-videos/

So clinton won the votes, but Bernie won the actual delegates since apparently some people didn't show up.

Though I said I didn't wanna post here again, I really have to express my dissatisfaction with this. Though I voted for Bernie in the primary, it was clear there were a lot of Hilary voters as well. They were almost even, and I was disappointed when it was called for Clinton. However, if she had the most votes then she had the most votes. But she gets screwed over because instead of counting those votes, we count the delegates who showed up. Which means that any number of people may as well have fucking sat at home thumbing their asses for all the good their vote for Hilary did. Delegates just randomly volunteer from the crowd of people who show up, which seems like a pretty fucking lousy way for a candidate to get accurate representation.

This plus the primary hijinks in other states just sours me even more to getting involved with politics at all. Its 20 fucking 16 and we still can't count every individual's votes properly. Whether that's out of sheer incompetence or a purposely rigged system I don't know, maybe a combination of both. It shouldn't be this difficult. I'm sure this same thing has been happening for every election now - I never paid this much attention to it before but I'm sure it's not something that just broke recently - and I have to wonder when it will end, if ever. The reformation of voting rules and making sure we have the capability to actually count all the citizen's votes seems like something we should invest in.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Greenvale, I appreciate the time you put into me. I'll give a longer response in a bit, but for now let me makeep this statement. As long as Bernie is an option in the primary, my support is for him. Bern supporting Hillary is my sign that she'll attempt some more progress than she's stated.

The thing I keep on hearing is that both sides will appeal their base in primaries and then become moderate in the general.

I have no doubts that she'll work to get Bernie'so and I have fairly certain she will get his support. But until that day comes it's all about the Bern and his movement. It's all about holding her feet to the fire.

It still boggles my mind that you think the second most liberal serious hopeful for President that we have ever had in this country needs "her feet to the fire".

[Sho]

Damn. Gred put in dat work doe.

[archibaldcrane]

If he wants to vote for Bernie in the primary more power to him. People shouldn't be so cynical as to not vote for their #1 in the primary.

The general is simply another beast and November is a long time from now.

[Sho]

Greenvale, I appreciate the time you put into me. I'll give a longer response in a bit, but for now let me makeep this statement. As long as Bernie is an option in the primary, my support is for him. Bern supporting Hillary is my sign that she'll attempt some more progress than she's stated.

The thing I keep on hearing is that both sides will appeal their base in primaries and then become moderate in the general.

I have no doubts that she'll work to get Bernie'so and I have fairly certain she will get his support. But until that day comes it's all about the Bern and his movement. It's all about holding her feet to the fire.

The idea is that yes, they do move further and further left & right to appeal to the base in the primaries then go moderate in the general. The problem is the stigma that will follow them into the general. Should it matter? Maybe, especially when you consider that both Trump and Clinton have high negatives.

I think what's ironic is that I can't even personally be 100% in believing that Sanders will even endorse Clinton for the general, just due to how staunch of a believer in his anti-Wall Street sentiments.

Love her or hate her, Clinton is the most qualified person (since the race began) to become President. She's also the most informed -- she'll be instantly ready to take on the duties of President as soon as she takes office, whereas a Trump, Sanders, Cruz or Kasich would have to spend a few weeks of their 100 days getting up to speed on how the White House operates.

[Sho]

I think a better question right now that should be asked is:

"Does Bernie Sanders have a silver tongue? One sweet enough to coax superdelegates to vote for him?"

He can either attempt this or fall back and become a protest candidate. The math for Sanders has caught up to him, and he might not make it beyond April.

[Minions]

Though I said I didn't wanna post here again, I really have to express my dissatisfaction with this. Though I voted for Bernie in the primary, it was clear there were a lot of Hilary voters as well. They were almost even, and I was disappointed when it was called for Clinton. However, if she had the most votes then she had the most votes. But she gets screwed over because instead of counting those votes, we count the delegates who showed up. Which means that any number of people may as well have fucking sat at home thumbing their asses for all the good their vote for Hilary did. Delegates just randomly volunteer from the crowd of people who show up, which seems like a pretty fucking lousy way for a candidate to get accurate representation.

This plus the primary hijinks in other states just sours me even more to getting involved with politics at all. Its 20 fucking 16 and we still can't count every individual's votes properly. Whether that's out of sheer incompetence or a purposely rigged system I don't know, maybe a combination of both. It shouldn't be this difficult. I'm sure this same thing has been happening for every election now - I never paid this much attention to it before but I'm sure it's not something that just broke recently - and I have to wonder when it will end, if ever. The reformation of voting rules and making sure we have the capability to actually count all the citizen's votes seems like something we should invest in.

The best part of this whole process, is finding out the alternatives (and maybe even the main delegates?), can apparently change their vote to whoever they want. Basically the whole primary process in this state is a farce as far as the convention is concerned. A delegate could come from a location that was 80-20, and still vote for the opposite person.