2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Niiro]

Someone who claims to have been on the right side of history the whole time when she's blatantly full of shit with video evidence is going to have to make a better argument than "lol at least I'm not the republicans".

Not really....

If your only choices are a kick to the nuts or a rusty spoon castration you take the least damaging option.

[Sho]

That's all that there is to it. Take the kick to the nuts and hope a shining figure of a candidate shows up in 2020.

[kuronosan]

So your issue isn't with her platform, it's with her past?

If you're telling me, and candidate checkers are telling me, that her platform is like Bernie's only "more realistic", then no my problem isn't with her platform from a progressive sense. It's that I don't trust she'll shy away from shitty policies based on her past judgments.

TPP, Citizens United, all of that is important. How do I know she doesn't change her tone once elected and passes all the horrid things she supported before Sanders came into the race?

I'm dead serious. If you guys honestly think there's no chance of that happening, I'll vote for her and encourage others to do the same.

[thetruepandagod]

If you can't have your based Bernie in office doing the Lord's work, come to team Trump and burn it all down for everyone. Show them the error of their ways with fire and brimstone.

[Gredival]

She really has become a divisive figure in her own right, though. And generally just unlikable.

That's something I find funny about all these "Hillary isn't genuine" lines of attack. She's nothing but genuine on the campaign trail; she's obviously supremely uncomfortable campaigning and being a politician unlike Bill. She's so bad at faking it she needs professional advice on faking it.

[Niiro]

She's a politician that's not very good at hiding the fact that she's a politician.

And no one likes politicians.

[Marootsoobutsu]

If you're telling me, and candidate checkers are telling me, that her platform is like Bernie's only "more realistic", then no my problem isn't with her platform from a progressive sense. It's that I don't trust she'll shy away from shitty policies based on her past judgments.

TPP, Citizens United, all of that is important. How do I know she doesn't change her tone once elected and passes all the horrid things she supported before Sanders came into the race?

I'm dead serious. If you guys honestly think there's no chance of that happening, I'll vote for her and encourage others to do the same.

Honestly? Like, I'm not a Hillary supporter-- she's conservative on (some) of the things I'm moderate on, and liberal on basically everything I'm conservative on. But her political career has been a steady march to the left. Perhaps more authoritarian in some ways than libertarian, but on conservative/liberal, she's been pushing solidly left her whole adult life. She hasn't been a flip-flopper in the sense of going back and forth... she's been a "flip-flopper" in the sense that she's grown more progressive as she's been politically allowed to, and she's only been as conservative as has been required to attain office.

*IF* she wins, you'll probably see a moderately liberal first 4 years, with the hope of a hyper-liberal, "I don't need to hold anything back" second term.

[notorious bum]

For the record, I don't care about homeopathic bullshit, Jill Stein's stances on the most critical flaws of our domestic and foreign policies are what matters. Supporting Libertarian party is worse than sitting in Starbucks everyday listening to white neoliberals bitch about late uber drivers and the homeless begging on their corners.

[archibaldcrane]

Isn't the complete impossibility of Jill Stein becoming president what matters?

[Sho]

Hilary will have gone full Socialist by 2020.

[ringthree]

I don't feel as bad myself -- he ran the race he wanted to, and took as many shots at Hilary as he could. We'll probably look at Bernie's race years from now in retrospect being flawed only in the fact that he let Clinton get under his skin, instead of co-existing with her and speaking more of his time attacking the GOP across the isle as the "real" Big Money interests.

He simply didn't have early enough name-ID to put up a front against Clinton, I think. If not this, he definitely did not diversify his message enough to touch upon the older (minority) electorate.

With that said, he has run an amazing race and it will be a campaign to research alongside Trump's campaign by candidates for 2020 and 2024. Alongside 2008 it'll likely be viewed as the most mobilizing of the youth vote in contemporary times.

This misses the point really.

The problem is not approach or Clinton name-recognition.

It's that his policies and politics turn off a large chunk of rational thinking democrats.

I think that is the problem that the berner's really miss. And why they don't understand why he is losing.

[ringthree]

There's a measure of unfairness to this statement though. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. Say I really, really believed in voting for Republicans this election cycle. Does that make me a bad person? Are we really that polarized? For example, say Anda is a Republican (not sure if he is or not) and he refuses to vote for Cruz. That's a win?

If I vote for Hillary, which I likely will anyway, it should be because I want a continuation and improvement of our current situation. Not because there's a chance it could get worse. That's a HORRIBLE reason to vote for Hillary and is the main reason I think most are voting for her. It baffles me that these are the best candidates we can muster up and each is inherently flawed from the gate:

Trump: Anti-establishment Dem in GOP clothing, not suited for office.
Cruz: Anti-athiestic nut who no one likes, not suited for office.
Kasich: Looks good on paper, horrible in practice. Nope.
Hillary: Compulsive pathological liar and victimizing criminal. "Best" option.
Sanders: Great ideas, great record, and great energy. Broken record.

This entire cycle is fucking retarded.

To my credit, it's not about not voting for Hillary if "my candidate" doesn't win. Bernie best espouses my views. Hillary is the next best option. It's simply logical to vote for her.

Unfortunately, it feels like that moment when you know throwing a grenade into a building will kill innocent children but OBL is inside and you can't afford to fuck it up.

Claiming to be an independent and voting for Bernie is the political equivalent of being a hipster.

[Kanriel]

That's all that there is to it. Take the kick to the nuts and hope a shining figure of a candidate shows up in 2020.

If Hillary wins there's no chance at a "real progressive" until 2024. That's my issue with supporting a Hillary presidency. It's also become fairly rare to have a party repeat as President anyway, after 16 years of potentially mediocre-at-best presidents will the electorate go for another Democrat? All the issues Bernie's raised are serious things, and I don't see them getting solved by Hillary, not only because I don't think she is that serious about solving them, but I don't think enough people are excited to give her a congress that will do so. Bernie has the enthusiasm, and I see almost none for Hillary. So if Hillary gets voted in for 2016, she'll continue through 2024, and then we have to hope there's a new Bernie ready by then, but aside from maybe the Governor of Minnesota I don't know anyone who is possibly progressive enough for my tastes in the up and running. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard too?

Also I know this is old as fuck in this thread, but Hillary isn't exactly pro-Nuclear. So getting on Bernie for not being a fan isn't changing much with Hillary.

[Gredival]

If Hillary wins there's no chance at a "real progressive" until 2024. That's my issue with supporting a Hillary presidency. It's also become fairly rare to have a party repeat as President anyway, after 16 years of potentially mediocre-at-best presidents will the electorate go for another Democrat? All the issues Bernie's raised are serious things, and I don't see them getting solved by Hillary, not only because I don't think she is that serious about solving them, but I don't think enough people are excited to give her a congress that will do so. Bernie has the enthusiasm, and I see almost none for Hillary. So if Hillary gets voted in for 2016, she'll continue through 2024, and then we have to hope there's a new Bernie ready by then, but aside from maybe the Governor of Minnesota I don't know anyone who is possibly progressive enough for my tastes in the up and running. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard too?

Also I know this is old as fuck in this thread, but Hillary isn't exactly pro-Nuclear. So getting on Bernie for not being a fan isn't changing much with Hillary.

So what you want to bet on a) the Democrats actually nominating someone you like b) that person actually being able to win in 2020 against incumbency to overcome 4 years of Ted Cruz of Trump dragging us through the dirt AND letting SCOTUS keep Scalia's seat in the hard right column?

You must be horrible in Vegas.

Also the people enthusiastic for Bernie aren't going to deliver him Congress LOL

[Kanriel]

So what you want to bet on a) the Democrats actually nominating someone you like b) that person actually being able to win in 2020 against incumbency to overcome 4 years of Ted Cruz of Trump dragging us through the dirt AND letting SCOTUS keep Scalia's seat in the hard right column?

You must be horrible in Vegas.

Also the people enthusiastic for Bernie aren't going to deliver him Congress LOL

Cruz nor Trump are popular. 4 years of shit all getting done and taking them out would be possible, yes. Is the Senate really poised to hold that seat open for 9 more months?

They absolutely would, Bernie has a lot of support from people that typically don't vote. If you added party-line Dems he'd destroy the R's.

[AoE]

Side note just found out my of my old shipmates is going to run for Washington Secretary of state as a libertarian. He's previously ran for State representative and seemed to do pretty well

I wouldn't say throwing away vote more like incremental gain

What's his name? Sounds familiar.

[Byrthnoth]

Despite making defensible political decisions for her entire political career, Hillary fails the "would you have a beer with this politician" test for a lot of people. Personally, I'd have a beer with her because she probably has some bananas stories to tell due to her life being basically as exciting as possible.

[Gredival]

Cruz nor Trump are popular. 4 years of shit all getting done and taking them out would be possible, yes. Is the Senate really poised to hold that seat open for 9 more months?

They absolutely would, Bernie has a lot of support from people that typically don't vote. If you added party-line Dems he'd destroy the R's.

1. An R can do a lot more damage in four years, esp. with a GOP Congress, than a D can make progress. That's the nature of the beast: one step forward, two steps back. Which is why it's essential to minimize the amount of GOP terms.

2. Yes, Obama nominated a moderate because he knew the GOP would absolutely stone-wall no matter what so he made his pick based on what does the most political brand damage.

3. And that support wasn't even enough to deliver him a primary victory where the battlefield is rigged to overrepresent his strengths; that support still has him lagging behind Obama's campaign in turn-out. There is no way the Bernie bros. flip the house or deliver a 60-majority in the Senate, and you're absolutely insane if you think that's up for debate.

[kuronosan]

Claiming to be an independent and voting for Bernie is the political equivalent of being a hipster.

No, it isn't. Take your shit elsewhere, Brad.

[Kanriel]

1. An R can do a lot more damage in four years, esp. with a GOP Congress, than a D can make progress. That's the nature of the beast: one step forward, two steps back. Which is why it's essential to minimize the amount of GOP terms.

2. Yes, Obama nominated a moderate because he knew the GOP would absolutely stone-wall no matter what so he made his pick based on what does the most political brand damage.

3. And that support wasn't even enough to deliver him a primary victory where the battlefield is rigged to overrepresent his strengths; that support still has him lagging behind Obama's campaign in turn-out. There is no way the Bernie bros. flip the house or deliver a 60-majority in the Senate, and you're absolutely insane if you think that's up for debate.

The major damage from the Bush years came with B. Clinton as president (glass steagull) and bipartisan support (Iraq war, Patriot Act). Bush even had a full R congress for a few years, but that wasn't the huge things that messed things up.

Bernie is appealing to independents, the New York primary was stacked heavily against his campaign (not saying this was on purpose or anything). An absurdly early deadline to change party affiliation and then it being a closed primary. Bernie has the internet support, he has the huge crowds, he has the most vocal supporters. I'm not going to claim he absolutely could deliver a D congress. But he's got a HELL of a better shot than Hillary does.