2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[archibaldcrane]

Let's be honest. Hillary is only polling well because she's a female candidate. Not because she's a good candidate.

Sure, she's miles ahead of Palin. I really am not convinced she'd make a good president.

...what?

She's polling well because she has astronomical name recognition and her positions are mainstream in her party, the vast majority of whom have already endorsed her. Those things also make her a great candidate.

[archibaldcrane]

She literally has the single most dominant position of any candidate from either party since WWII this far away from the first primary

But yes, tell me more about how she's not a good candidate.

[Tyche]

and is basically a republican in disguise.

I get being huge Bernie fans is like the "in" thing right now so shitting on Hillary is almost a necessity, but this comment is absurd. Im not gonna go through all the reasons, but simply refer you here. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/

Not socialist =\= republican. I think the far left of the interwebs sometimes get this twisted.

[Tyche]

People who don't think she's a good candidate are people who think candidate and president are synonymous. She's easily the best democratic candidate right now. Whether you think she'd make the best president is a complete separate opinion. I think Elizabeth Warren would be a much better president, but I don't think she's a better candidate. Hillary is a great candidate for all the reasons archi mentioned. Does that mean she'll make a good president? No.

[BaneTheBrawler]

And doesnt that speak volumes about the way this country works.

[zoobernut]

I think the main reason why Bernie is appealing right now and Clinton less so for a lot of people is that for those people wealth inequality and income gaps and the stagnation of wages in this country are the top important issue. While Clinton is very liberal in many areas which is great the impression she gives is that the economic health of the middle isn't that important to her. Whether or not that is true I don't know but she certainly gives off that corporate interest vibe.

Bernie doing well is a great thing because it shows her that topic is important to a lot of people and I hope that she can incorporate those discussions into her campaign. Maybe she will pick Bernie as a running mate if he is willing to do that I think it would end up pretty strong.

[Tyche]

And doesnt that speak volumes about the way this country works.

Welcome to a country with a democratic election? Candidacy matters. I don't really see it as a negative as much as it's just the reality of the situation. People make poor candidates for a variety of reasons. Obscurity, lack of foreign policy, religious affiliation, etc. The person with the best ideas that would seemingly make the best president can be some atheist governor of Rhode Island (that's an example, I have no idea who the RI governor is, hence, obscurity), but they'll never get elected. This not a good candidate.

[BaneTheBrawler]

lol democratic

[D44kpunk]

so the majority of people here agree hillary would make a terrible president? that's refreshing

[archibaldcrane]

I have little reason to believe that. My only real fear with her is being too hawkish on foreign policy. Otherwise I think she's building a good policy platform, she'll have total backing from Democrats in congress and will be tough as nails against Republican intransigence.

[Tyche]

I don't think she will make a terrible president, but I don't have expectations that she will be as successful as her husband either. If she's able to advance the ACA and replace supreme court justices as they retire and not send us to war, I'll consider it a success. I'm sure she'll push for some kind of hallmark legislation too. Maybe on education. And I'm OK with that.

[Marootsoobutsu]

And doesnt that speak volumes about the way this country works.

Not really. It speaks volumes about the way politics works. You see it at every stage of elections: the high school president is the most popular who wants the job (most of the time), not necessarily the best leader. Even in non-two-party systems, the best candidate wins the prime minister spot-- the person who is able to build the largest coalition.

Getting elected, and running an executive, are two very, very different things.

Hillary could probably do both. She's a phenomenal politician-- she knows how the game is played. The question for the left isn't "Can she win" (she could), and it isn't "Is she liberal?" (she is). The question is whether her brand of liberal matches yours. She IS hawkish, and she does support big business more than most on the left really like.

But honestly? She'll further the liberal perspective much more than Bernie will. It probably won't be a lot-- but it will happen. Bill did much the same. Because they understand that Republicans are not, by and large, mouth-breathing, smooth-brained idiots incapable of finding the sun in the cloudless noon-sky. They tend to be well educated (and before you protest-- whites tend to be more educated, whites tend to be the majority of the middle and lower-upper classes, and both are areas with high education). They tend to be middle-management and business owners, as well as high-powered execs. You may not like it, but Republicans are a significant portion of this country, and you do substantially better by persuasion-by-degree when it comes to Conservatives (Republican or otherwise), than Conversion-By-Fiat.

And Hillary gets that. She is in step with her party, but she also helps keep her party in a comfortable range for independents. She probably understands that-- and I know this is horrible to hear-- Republicans aren't actually wrong about everything, or even most things. She also understands that Democrats are right about things, and to her perspective probably most things. But most of all, she's pragmatic.

The Clintons political experience has been one of extraordinary pragmatism. Is this a fight we can win? If not, they drop it. Is the cost of winning this fight more than the benefits? If it is, they put it on the back burner until they can get a better return on the investment. Is this a concession that does not harm our larger goals? Then it's on the table. That's how politics works in America-- it's no where near the rapidness of turn-around of Europe or most parliamentary systems, but that's okay with a LOT of people. And honestly, it's probably for the best for everyone-- but especially when you're dealing with a population of the United States.

Rapid change-- even good change-- is traumatic on a system and can prove hindering-- you can see this in China, where their economic growth is so substantial it's actually proving more a problem for the country than a benefit now. California alone is comparable to the UK economically. Think about that for a moment, and really let it sink in: the US cannot be compared to any European nation; it's better compared to Europe as a whole or the EU-- and that's before you begin to include the extraordinarily more complex ethnic and racial diversity of the US, or the religious diversity that is far more intertwined than it is in Europe. Let alone Japan, or China. Russia begins to compare, but I'm not sure Russia really compares favorably to post-Jim-Crow America.

Hillary isn't the candidate Republicans want-- obviously, they'd prefer about any Republican to her. But she's a candidate Republican politicians can work with. And Good Lord do we need Congress to work with itself, and with the President, more than we need any particular policy changes. We need the political climate to return to a point of compromise. I would rather see the country move away from my ideals, together, than temporarily win my ideals if it is splitting the country further apart.

So Bernie can mobilize the left-- do you think he's going to score tons of conservative-leaning independents? Or even moderate independents? I am skeptical. Can Hillary? You bet.


Honestly, I do not like Hillary Clinton. She is far more liberal than I like, and a lot of people confuse her for Bill, who was much more conservative politically than she is. But she is absolutely and 100% the best candidate for either side of the aisle right now, and she is probably the best politician. I don't know how good an executive she'll be, but she has the tools to be a decent one, and her personality seems like one that is hell-bent on being the best President possible. She craves that more than she craves forcing people to accept her perspective.

That's a healthy thing-- and if you doubt it, switch her to a hyper-religious idealogue, and ask the question again. If they have to persuade you, then anything they persuade you on is probably actually so solid that it will change perspectives, and the change will be accepted. If they can't... then you don't want the change they are bringing. Backlashes happen when you force change, and backlashes create resentment.

[D44kpunk]

good luck homie, saying anything except that republicans are mouth breathing hicks is heresy in this thread.

rose-colored glasses all around, also if you like bernie you're a hipster. the dude is a young up and comer that has just recently changed his stances on things.

I don't think she will make a terrible president, but I don't have expectations that she will be as successful as her husband either. If she's able to advance the AFA and replace supreme court justices as they retire and not send us to war, I'll consider it a success. I'm sure she'll push for some kind of hallmark legislation too. Maybe on education. And I'm OK with that.

america, land of settling.

[Not Kuno]

I get being huge Bernie fans is like the "in" thing right now so shitting on Hillary is almost a necessity, but this comment is absurd. Im not gonna go through all the reasons, but simply refer you here. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/

Not socialist =\= republican. I think the far left of the interwebs sometimes get this twisted.

Let's see, it's no secret she's very hawkish. You have the clinton era of "war on drugs", she's pro TPP and Pipeline XL (ie anti-union, environment). Also stuff like big bank interest, pro Super Pacs, etc etc. Then again I feel even Obama is way too moderate/right so... yeah. I feel the democratic party has moved way too right, and that someone left like Sanders gets called a crazy unelectable person. And the right has jumped so far off the deep end which is why they're a complete mess right now.

Anyway, that's ignoring Hillary's other "untrustworthy" stuff like leaking Top Secret stuff on her "daughters wedding" email server.

so the majority of people here agree hillary would make a terrible president? that's refreshing

Im very obviously not a fan.

[Andalusian girls]

so the majority of people here agree hillary would make a terrible president? that's refreshing

i think she'd be far more competent than either Bush or Obama

to her electability, her favorability rating among Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents is 75% and she has hitherto raised $68 million to Sanders's $15 million, whereas at the end of the third quarter of 2007 she had outraised Obama by only $10 million. similarly at this point in 2007 she led her nearest challenger by about 17% in the polls whereas today she leads her nearest challenger by 36%. viewing her contest with Barack as analogous to the present day is specious, her position is far stronger than it was then and Obama was a political force of nature, easily the best campaigner since Reagan

she could well lose the general election if the Republicans run out their strongest candidates and maintain their fundraising advantage, say, a Bush-Rubio ticket locking down the most critical of swing states in Florida and assailing the Democratic advantage among Latinos, but her probability of winning the Democratic primaries has to be >90%

[Marootsoobutsu]

america, land of settling.

No. Politics, the art of compromise. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal: if you want to get what you want in a nation of 360M people, you have to either persuade, or sacrifice, or deal with incredibly bitter resentment.

If you view realizing that other people have different motives, perspectives, desires, and possibly-- just possibly-- insights than you and moving to incorporate, rather than dominate them as "settling", then, I guess? I mean, I'm pretty conservative, but I would rather understand (and possibly be persuaded by) folks on the left than dominate my will over them... and I thought that was the whole shtick of the modern liberal.

And, for what it's worth, I have been persuaded on several very major issues, largely by the BG community and other liberal forums I frequent: immigration reform, education as both a right and an obligation, oversight on banking, for example. There are other things as well, mostly smaller. I like to think I've gotten better at listening, and understanding where left-leaning folks are coming from-- some are utterly incomprehensible to me (Maz, and sometimes Archie), but for the most part, I get it more now.

But if folks aren't willing to entertain the conversation honestly-- and I'm not the best apologist for my perspective; I'd rather learn than persuade-- then you're frankly part of the bigger problem.

[Cantih]

It's not that she'd be a bad president, it's that she'd be the same president, business as usual, politics as usual.

Wanting Hilary as president is basically looking at the world around you, and saying "Yes, I want things to keep staying like this".
Maybe someone thinking that is coming from a place of okay, but most people are not in that place, whether they recognize it or not.

[D44kpunk]

settling in regards to not being able to find and vote for a candidate that fights for what you hold in high regard was more so what i was talking about, but i'm pretty against voting the ticket which is also an unpopular opinion here.

lately i've heard when people talk about going to vote they are voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" frankly i just think that's sad. thus my "settling" comment

[Tyrath]

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils for me is voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary and when he inevitably loses, settling for Hillary in the actual election because everyone the GOP is throwing at her is batshit crazy. It sucks, but if it comes down to Hillary vs GOP schmuck #53 I'd rather not risk her losing.

[Niiro]

Which is why sane countries have runoff elections.