2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Gredival]

But hey, I'm sure nothing can go wrong when the only political party left standing is one that picks its presumptive nominee before the first ballot is cast.

Let me point you back to the post you ignored. Because remember I'm the guy that doesn't let anything go.

You seem to think that establishment candidates are not liberal and don't agree with the progressive agenda. For some of them that might be true, but the vast majority resist the left as an election strategy because they can't afford to be seen as radicals by their constituents. Case in point is Obama (see being for gay marriage, then against it, then for it as polls changed and his voting demographic changed). Very likely Hillary herself is a lot more progressive than she lets on, but her whole strategy is to appeal to the older moderates.

But if there's no competition there's no reason for Democrats have to veer to the center to stay electable, and they would be able to get more progressive while remaining viable.

[notorious bum]

How much pivoting to the right is going to convince these complacent derps that Clinton doesn't have a progressive bone in her body? Today is June 19th, boys, she's just getting warmed up lol

As for the "meh, Dems are fine with their corrupt electoral process as long as there is a Republican party." I suppose you couldn't give a fuck about what Matt Taibbi wrote on alienating their voters and shitting all over their chances with capturing the massive block of independent voters.

[Carth]

The DNC will change its rules if and only if the DNC wants to change its rules and, quite frankly, I don't think they should. Superdelegates are a reasonable method for ensuring some semblance of professional oversight in the nomination process. I guarantee you the Republican party would be in significantly better shape right now if they had a similar system in place to keep undesirables like Trump from hijacking the process (which is 100% a real concern in a two-party system where everyone right of Obama gets lumped into one big tent).

I understand all of that, but the DNC is seen as a party that fights for the people. It begs the question as to why bother taking in feedback from the general population if they aren't going to use it. If anything they seem to be resisting the progressive movement, especially after the debacle in Nevada.

You seem to think that establishment candidates are not liberal and don't agree with the progressive agenda. For some of them that might be true, but the vast majority resist the left as an election strategy because they can't afford to be seen as radicals by their constituents. Case in point is Obama (see being for gay marriage, then against it, then for it as polls changed and his voting demographic changed). Very likely Hillary herself is a lot more progressive than she lets on, but her whole strategy is to appeal to the older moderates.

I heard this a good amount but this literally only worked during the Bill Clinton years. After that we got eight years of Bush which everyone agrees were terrible years and Obama got nominated by being on the left of Hillary. Also, the general population are a lot more progressive than they were back in the 90's. What's seen as radical is seen as common sense nowadays. Running to the right which opposes these progressive values is a terrible strategy.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, I mean Bernie crushed Hillary with his common sense radical platform, and that was in the Democratic primary - clearly there's going to be even more people receptive to that message in the general!

[archibaldcrane]

Seriously though, she's running against Trump. This is not going to be a battle over platforms, even less so than usual.

[notorious bum]

Seriously though, she's running against Trump. This is not going to be a battle over platforms, even less so than usual.

Facts.

[Carth]

Yeah, I mean Bernie crushed Hillary with his common sense radical platform, and that was in the Democratic primary - clearly there's going to be even more people receptive to that message in the general!

I'd attribute that to Sanders' lack of explanation on how he can get that done. He's only really explained in further detail on nightly shows.

I'm gonna go ahead and drop this video. It's between two reporters that are progressives. One's voting for Hillary and the other is not. I haven't really seen any post that delves into what progressives are discussing amongst themselves.

[Byrthnoth]

Yeah, the seeming unviability of Sander's platform was a major turnoff for me. I never saw him explain how he would get his tax plan through congress or address whether he would move forward with his host of social program initiatives if he was unable to do so.

[Krandor]

Trump dropped a beautiful nugget today

"Well I think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country," the presumptive GOP nominee said in a phone interview with CBS' "Face the Nation. "Other countries do it, you look at Israel and you look at others, they do it and they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling but we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads."

"It's not the worst thing to do," he added.

[kisada]

every time i think he can't get any worse, he says something even more terrible.

it's the gift that keeps on giving

[Byrthnoth]

Whoa guys, is Trump not PC enough for you?!

Have you ever thought about how important profiling could be as a central component to a discrimi... policing strategy?

[Blubbartron]

I've made the exact same argument as Trump when talking about airports. The TSA is bullshit security theater. Israel has safer airports that are much more consumer friendly (to everyone who doesn't look like he wants to blow up the joint, which is the overwhelming majority of people) because they employ profiling intelligently.

[Greatguardian]

I understand all of that, but the DNC is seen as a party that fights for the people. It begs the question as to why bother taking in feedback from the general population if they aren't going to use it. If anything they seem to be resisting the progressive movement, especially after the debacle in Nevada.

Fighting for the people and being subject to every whim of the people are two completely different things. For the record, the Democratic primary process is 85% "Will of the people" and only 15% "We're professionals providing a modicum of oversight because we know the process and we know the big picture." All things considered, that's a more democratic ratio than I'd personally use. As a teacher, 49% of the vote in my classroom is the will of the people and 51% is me because frankly I know better.

[Gredival]

I heard this a good amount but this literally only worked during the Bill Clinton years. After that we got eight years of Bush which everyone agrees were terrible years and Obama got nominated by being on the left of Hillary. Also, the general population are a lot more progressive than they were back in the 90's. What's seen as radical is seen as common sense nowadays. Running to the right which opposes these progressive values is a terrible strategy.

Yeah and Hillary is running to the left of Obama this time around, which is a reflection of the fact she has internalized the population's progressive shift.

The relevant argument here is whether Bernie or Hillary better represents winnable politics among the moderate swing state voters. And the fact that Hillary won in a primary which favors his extreme left politics, I highly doubt the answer there is Bernie.

I'd attribute that to Sanders' lack of explanation on how he can get that done. He's only really explained in further detail on nightly shows.

He tried to do this in the NY Daily News interview and multiple other interviews. It's just a complete trash explanation that relies on vague "political revolution" fiat.

The fact is that "left" in the US is more like "center-right" in the EU because the % of crazy right here is higher. You have to account for them when you take the mean, because they influence the rest of the population (remember somehow the same state that sent Russ Feingold to the Senate also sent Walker to the governor's mansion).

[archibaldcrane]

Not just Russ Feingold, liberal lesbian Tammy Baldwin is also a Wisconsin Senator.

[notorious bum]

Yeah and Hillary is running to the left of Obama this time around, which is a reflection of the fact she has internalized the population's progressive shift.

The relevant argument here is whether Bernie or Hillary better represents winnable politics among the moderate swing state voters. And the fact that Hillary won in a primary which favors his extreme left politics, I highly doubt the answer there is Bernie.



He tried to do this in the NY Daily News interview and multiple other interviews. It's just a complete trash explanation that relies on vague "political revolution" fiat.

The fact is that "left" in the US is more like "center-right" in the EU because the % of crazy right here is higher. You have to account for them when you take the mean, because they influence the rest of the population (remember somehow the same state that sent Russ Feingold to the Senate also sent Walker to the governor's mansion).

While there is no doubt that the "political revolution" that Bernie has branded is patently false, I don't know why you are sourcing one of the biggest "gotcha journalism" interviews of this election, even after Juan Gonzales put them on blast.

[archibaldcrane]

"How?" - gotcha journalism

[notorious bum]

I find it laughable that this was the big moment where Bernie bungled his policy platform, where as Hilldog gets away with making centrist-flavored conjecture, that is just as vague or incomprehensible, with no real challenge at all. Well, that is if you never read anything written by journalists who haven't co-signed The Inevitable.

[archibaldcrane]

Lol

[notorious bum]

I clicked the "Lol", but it didn't lead me to Vox.com, something's wrong.