2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[AidenCarby]

Bane has a one-time pass from me so that I can make one last post in this thread before I'm done with it for good.

I talked to Archie and decided that, barring any horrible treatment and flopping, I'm casting my vote for Hillary ONLY if Bernie loses the primary and ONLY if she doesn't fuck up health care and income inequality worse. I'll devote my time to focusing on getting people to vote in a democratic Congress and fight the battle another day if it comes to it.

I'll end this by saying I despise Hillary deeply from a character perspective, but I've read her voting record and even though she's full of shit when it comes to what side of the social justice sword she falls on historically, her voting record does indeed speak for itself.

If she takes us to war, I'm voting against her 4 years from now and the rest of you can just deal with it. For now, she hasn't earned my vote in the slightest but as a first year med student I can't ignore the 100,000,000+ people affected by whatever idiotic plan Trump will have in place.

It can't be either Bernie or Bust. If Hillary loses the general, it's her own fault but she will assuredly blame real progressives and that will set the movement back even further. The key to fixing this is getting a productive Congress.

I've said my peace. Now back to the shitfest that is this thread and the high-horse morality meters it carries with it.

Sorry Bane. Done here now. Stress is gone.

Fixed

[Cantih]

After Mitt's 47% disaster?
It was a paid motivational speech. Get. Over. It.

Then the transcripts, should be a non-issue and released already. Yet. They. Aren't.
And the situation has gone on too long for a - delay, wait for brouhaha, release that shows nothing, "So what was all this fuss about?" - tactic.
It wasn't just Romney's 47% that hit him, it's that he held back a decade of tax returns too, when his father had done better and released his, it just looked fucking awful.

And given that Hillary has already gone on record being against Citizens United, and given that she will appoint a liberal justice, can you explain how defeating Citizens United is NOT more realistically accomplished with her than Bernie?

Because Sanders would also appoint a liberal justice, but with Clinton I'd expect the issue to be a back-burner issue than a front-burner with Sanders. While neither will have much luck with a GOP obstructive legislature, Sanders on the bully pulpit is going to have much better public pressure on these matters than Clinton would. (See also, rally turnouts for each candidate).
And while you love your slow incremental change, the changes in the world are accelerating faster than they have in the past, that old government pace is not going to keep up. We need impetus to do the shit that needs to be done sooner, and Sanders is going to deliver that more effectively than Clinton would.

Both candidates would appoint a liberal justice, both won't have much luck with Congress. So when you keep trying to use those two points, it's a non starter. Your usual pivot from there is that well Sanders is unelectable. This is not the case, he is giving Clinton a challenge that is far more competitive than what we're seeing on the GOP side, and doing it with a clean non-CU funded campaign, giving a case it's not so dumb to do. You can go on and on about that he won't win the primary, but at this point you can't call him "unelectable", he's a valid candidate, he's electable even if he doesn't actually get elected.

And as for the general, you keep pohpohing matchup polls, and going on about independents and the center. So remember that Sanders IS an independant, just running as a democrat to prevent a Perot, and in states that had open primaries he did better (yes, he still lost a number of them, but percentage wise he did better than in the closed primaries he lost). Is it an unreasonable conclusion that shows he can get that support?

Finally, on your "hold your nose and vote for Clinton".
In her last primary, I did not support Dianne Feinstein. But when her challenger lost, and November came around, I held my nose and voted for her. I'm certainly not going to vote GOP, third party, or write in on election day. But having done it before, I can not effectively convey how bone deep unpleasant the act was, and still feels to this day.
But many people do it, and you have the risk of your "babby naive" Sanders supporters waking away from the November vote if he isn't the nominee. So the flip to your case is that if Clinton isn't the nominee, you hold onto that Sanders support, and her supporters hold their nose vote blue again like they ultimately did with Obama. You get a better base going into the general. So, wanna keep pushing that one?

[BerenTebogo]

Are you trying to imply Clinton voters would not vote for Bern in general if he won the nom?

[Cantih]

No, I'm saying they would vote for Sanders in the general.

Clinton has a chance of losing the Sanders support.
Sanders has less of a chance losing the Clinton support.
So in a "hold your nose" vote argument, it could be possible to make a case for Sanders being the nominee to come out of the convention with more November voters.

[BerenTebogo]

No, I'm saying they would vote for Sanders in the general.

Clinton has a chance of losing the Sanders support.
Sanders has less of a chance losing the Clinton support.
So in a "hold your nose" vote argument, it could be possible to make a case for Sanders being the nominee to come out of the convention with more November voters.

That's sort of a similar rational to why you would give a kid who is throwing a tantrum in a grocery store a candy bar instead of explaining to them, to whatever degree, that such behavior is not tolerated.

Personally, I don't want to encourage the bernie or bust mentality in any way. I think it is abhorrent selfishness that should be smacked directly in the face with a rolled up newspaper.

Edit: that said, I would vote Sanders in the general. I will also continue to scold bern or busters though, because they are children.

[Cantih]

I won't deny that, but it's a cold play-the-game numbers idea, no good or bad involved.
I mean, isn't that what Gred wants?

[BerenTebogo]

I won't deny that, but it's a cold play-the-game numbers idea, no good or bad involved.
I mean, isn't that what Gred wants?

It is, but it also depends strictly on the numbers that the bern or buster movement can put up.

If hilldog can win without them, which many models seem to show, then fuck 'em.

Also if models show that moderates will abandon Bern in favor of Trump (for whatever reason) more than they would abandon Hilldog, then also fuck 'em. Socialist old white man scares a lot of people who waver between R & D, especially older ones.

Right now I don't know of any models based on actual math that show bern or busters amounting to a large enough % to matter as of current. Could that change as Trump goes full force into Hillary? Maybe. But as of right now I'm not aware of any.

Edit: and before we start posting HuffPo articles or whatever, statistically the Bern demographics are the ones who turn out to vote in lowest number going back a long way. Yes in recent years that has started to change but not to any amount that actually moves the bar. Bern is something like 70% of Hill's vote totals, and the BoB movement cannot reasonable make up more than single digit, if even integer digits, of that %.

[Headspace]

Dems gonna have real trouble in November when insurance rates spike


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tarage]

So this is what it's like to be politically homeless. When can I apply for food stamps?

[Byrthnoth]

So this is what it's like to be politically homeless. When can I apply for food stamps?

If you're a disenfranchised republican, it's allowed for the irony value.

If you're a berniebro, no.

[Tyche]

Fixed

Let me tell you the difference between medical school and just about any other professional program. When you walk into medical school, they greet you and say "Hello Doctor, welcome Doctor, you are the future of humanity", then they have this massive white coat ceremony where they bless you with the oils of the seven, and by the time you finish the first pathophysiology course, you're head is the size of fucking Jupiter. Medical School makes egos.

Go to nursing school, some tiny 75 year old lady that's been in healthcare for half a century is sitting at a tiny wooden desk, she looks at you and the first thing you hear on the first day is "BE QUIET!...YOU KNOW, HALF OF YOU ARE PROBABLY GONNA FAIL". And half will.

[Gredival]

Then the transcripts, should be a non-issue and released already. Yet. They. Aren't.
And the situation has gone on too long for a - delay, wait for brouhaha, release that shows nothing, "So what was all this fuss about?" - tactic.

Remember Obama and the birth certificate? How long did he wait?

Sometimes there's an issue of pride in not dignifying stupidity.

It wasn't just Romney's 47% that hit him, it's that he held back a decade of tax returns too, when his father had done better and released his, it just looked fucking awful.

And that's not the point at all. The point is that given the fallout for saying something stupid for absolutely no gain, why on Earth would HRC say anything remotely close to controversial? Unless you really believe that both Goldman Sachs and HRC would decide the best place for her to say potentially incriminating things is in a paid speech in front of a bunch of rank and file employees instead of a closed door meeting with high level executives?

This is taking "The absence of evidence is evidence of absence" to a whole new level.

Because Sanders would also appoint a liberal justice, but with Clinton I'd expect the issue to be a back-burner issue than a front-burner with Sanders. While neither will have much luck with a GOP obstructive legislature, Sanders on the bully pulpit is going to have much better public pressure on these matters than Clinton would. (See also, rally turnouts for each candidate).

Except...

1) Bernie had a worse shot in the general;
2) Primaries are over, Bernie lost, your options now are to support Hillary or support Trump (including implicitly by not voting or voting for someone besides HRC).

So again, at this moment in time (as well as at the start of the primaries) if you REALLY actually cared about doing something regarding Citizens United, you will sit down and vote the party line.

Oh and how come Bernie's record turn-out at rallies hasn't translated to record turn-out at the polls?

And while you love your slow incremental change, the changes in the world are accelerating faster than they have in the past, that old government pace is not going to keep up. We need impetus to do the shit that needs to be done sooner, and Sanders is going to deliver that more effectively than Clinton would.

I've already discussed at length why this isn't true, and you've already conceded one reason why (obstructionist GOP legislature).

No one is arguing the way the system works is good. But it's there. You can't change it anyway except through it. So you work within it, or you refuse to because you hate it and you let the hundreds of thousands that depend on a functioning government bern down with it. There is no fiat around that.

Both candidates would appoint a liberal justice, both won't have much luck with Congress. So when you keep trying to use those two points, it's a non starter. Your usual pivot from there is that well Sanders is unelectable. This is not the case, he is giving Clinton a challenge that is far more competitive than what we're seeing on the GOP side, and doing it with a clean non-CU funded campaign, giving a case it's not so dumb to do. You can go on and on about that he won't win the primary, but at this point you can't call him "unelectable", he's a valid candidate, he's electable even if he doesn't actually get elected.

And you ignore one of the central points in the pivot: electability in the primary is very different from electability in the general.

And you also ignored my oft-repeated counter-points to how Bernie is funding his own campaign "cleanly"

1. There IS a super-PAC supporting Bernie and while he doesn't necessarily like his super-PAC the same way Hillary loves her own, the rules of campaign finance mean both campaigns have completely equal amounts of communication and cooperation with their respective PAC.

2. Bernie generates money for himself, but none for anyone else. (And before we bring up that article about how none of Hillary's downticket money is going to downticket races, I've already pointed out three times now that the money is going back to the DNC which will fund downticket races that it chooses and prioritizes... because that's it's job, to figure out what's important to win and how that money is best allocated to do so.)

So as I pointed out before, no one actually answers any of what I say. In fact, nothing I say could ever change your mind. So why should I be holding hands rather than merely berating? Hell I could be copy pasting my EXACT posts from weeks/months ago and I'd bet that not only will they be completely relevant, no one will notice

(P.S. I've already done it, that's how I know)

And as for the general, you keep pohpohing matchup polls, and going on about independents and the center. So remember that Sanders IS an independant, just running as a democrat to prevent a Perot, and in states that had open primaries he did better (yes, he still lost a number of them, but percentage wise he did better than in the closed primaries he lost). Is it an unreasonable conclusion that shows he can get that support?

Yes because the swing-state independent voter is a centrist moderate.

That's not what Sanders is. Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, but since there's no official party for them he is marked as an Independent. He is far to the left of the generic Democrat. The independents he brings to the polls are equally to the left of the general Democrat. People who are registered Green, or refuse to register Democratic because it's too mainstream (i.e. the legion of hipsters that resemble Bum)

The independent necessary to win the election is the type of person that lives in Wisconsin and voted for Scott Walker but also voted for Russ Feingold. This person is NOT going to be inspired by Sanders, they are going to be scared shitless of the "crazy socialist."

Finally, on your "hold your nose and vote for Clinton".
In her last primary, I did not support Dianne Feinstein. But when her challenger lost, and November came around, I held my nose and voted for her. I'm certainly not going to vote GOP, third party, or write in on election day. But having done it before, I can not effectively convey how bone deep unpleasant the act was, and still feels to this day.
But many people do it, and you have the risk of your "babby naive" Sanders supporters waking away from the November vote if he isn't the nominee. So the flip to your case is that if Clinton isn't the nominee, you hold onto that Sanders support, and her supporters hold their nose vote blue again like they ultimately did with Obama. You get a better base going into the general. So, wanna keep pushing that one?

I'm not sure what the ask here is?

If you're positing it's a better strategy to go with Sanders because Clinton's supporters are smarter and will tow the party line, the answer is no because of the points I just made above regarding the moderates (which have been repeated 20x in this thread).

You never sacrifice appeal to the center to unify your fringe. Look at what happened to all the Tea Party Senate candidates - Angle, Akin, McDonnell. Those were all winnable races for the GOP, but the Tea Partiers got clobbered, even during the low Democrat turn-out midterms, because they totally alienated the center. It's the classic case of what happens when the primary blinders are on.

[AidenCarby]

Let me tell you the difference between medical school and just about any other professional program. When you walk into medical school, they greet you and say "Hello Doctor, welcome Doctor, you are the future of humanity", then they have this massive white coat ceremony where they bless you with the oils of the seven, and by the time you finish the first pathophysiology course, you're head is the size of fucking Jupiter. Medical School makes egos.

Go to nursing school, some tiny 75 year old lady that's been in healthcare for half a century is sitting at a tiny wooden desk, she looks at you and the first thing you hear on the first day is "BE QUIET!...YOU KNOW, HALF OF YOU ARE PROBABLY GONNA FAIL". And half will.

I just...lol

[Tarage]

If you're a disenfranchised republican, it's allowed for the irony value.

If you're a berniebro, no.

Been disenfranchised for quite some time. Then again I guess I'm not a typical republican in that I don't actually give a fuck what you do behind closed doors so long as everyone is a consenting human adult. The argument against gay marriage and trans folks using their bathroom of choice is retarded. And don't get me started on Christian fundies.

I didn't really have high hopes for a candidate I could support out of this current batch. Mostly just hoping for the least evil least insane.

Instead we got the most. Not like my vote even mattered in the general, as I am awash in a sea of blue berniebros. Still, it's disheartening knowing that I have no one to vote for, and that the party I align with the most also seems to house the most bigoted racist sexist bumfuck retards I could possibly imagine...

[Andalusian girls]

at least we have Ryan

[archibaldcrane]

Cruz is the most evil, this isn't really in dispute. Especially if you care about gays and trans people and hate Christian fundies. Trump can't hold a candle to the Zodiac in that arena.

[Andalusian girls]

but Cruz never engaged in near the same public displays of bigotry and misogyny, never countenanced the specter of violence to further his political aims, and speaks about fucking his daughter far less

a close call

[notorious bum]

I know on FB. And I know another on FB who is a marxist and wasn't even gonna vote Bernie but instead Jill Stein -_-

He posts shit like this

Hate to break it to you, but he's not a BernieBro.

[archibaldcrane]

but Cruz never engaged in near the same public displays of bigotry and misogyny, never countenanced the specter of violence to further his political aims, and speaks about fucking his daughter far less

a close call

Other than the daughter fucking, he probably did, it's just that he wasn't getting 24/7 nonstop news coverage for it. He's shit on Muslims plenty and shits on LGBT people way more than Trump.

[notorious bum]

Other than the daughter fucking, he probably did, it's just that he wasn't getting 24/7 nonstop news coverage for it. He's shit on Muslims plenty and shits on LGBT people way more than Trump.

Nobody was listening to Ted Cruz before or during his presidential campaign lol