2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Greatguardian]

Trump is the equivalent of what Bernie could have been if the DNC wasn't disciplined about remaining moderate and mainstream.

Now let's be fair. He's an ideologue who's uninterested in compromise and thinks winning the vocal fringe vote makes him invincible. Little does he realize that literally everyone in the center or on the other side of the aisle find the prospect of him having power utterly terrifying.

Sounds a lot more like Cruz than Trump to me. Though, to his credit, he's generally standing behind Clinton at this point. At least, he's all for defeating Trump, he just neglects to remind voters that third party candidates are wasted votes. That's still a step up from Cruz's "vote your conscience" on the good-soldier-o-meter.

[Qeomash]

She's still running, the Wasserman vs Canova primary is August 30th. If she's not in the house, she will glide into a cushy position at the Clinton White House. Which she might get even if she wins her House seat.

[Gredival]

Can't even say that the DNC didn't tell everyone else not to run. And they forcefully shutdown the other 2 that actually did run.

Anyone that the DNC wouldn't have minded running chose to sit out of their own volition. Let's not forget that Hillary's approval ratings were at near-historic highs; people only really hate her when she's running for office.

Your last sentence is basically status quo for life. Keep the people that currently have power in power for life with zero consequences of their actions. It's like we pride ourselves on creating a higher level of citizens in the states. Politicians, the rich, athletes, cops. They do something? Meh fuck it.

As I've said before, we move left as the (voting) population's natural drift left allows us to. You don't overreach, because it's outright counter-productive,

I'm still here. I just got tired of responding to you since we fundamentally disagree on certain points.

Fundamental principle disagreement is fine. But numerous people have opted to simply not respond to a post because they can't argue back only to come back in 2-3 pages when said posts are no longer recent and try to pretend it never happened.

See:

https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/12...94#post6671494
https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/12...=1#post6693307

Sure bud, can't imagine why 3 people stopped responding to you.

See above, because I carved up their shitty grassroots revolution logic and since they couldn't even begin to post a coherent rebuttal so they pulled their best Homer into the bushes impression.

[thetruepandagod]

Lul, how many times are people going to fall for this? Been hearing about how Hillary will surely be arrested for 25 years.

Spoiler: show

[Day]

See above, because I carved up their shitty grassroots revolution logic and since they couldn't even begin to post a coherent rebuttal so they pulled their best Homer into the bushes impression.

Yeah you sure showed em!

[Gredival]

Still, it never ceases to get a laugh out of me how people can just hand-wave shit like "derr they have a right to collude because this and a real good candidate would have overcome that like Obama".

Nobody would have overcome that amount of collusion, and even then nobody will ever be as gifted a speaker as Obama was for a long time.

I'm the first person here that will own up to the DNC trying to influence the game (because I'll more than happily justify it) but you really think that Hillary's entire margin of victory was nothing more than the DNC?

Sorry but the parties don't have that much power, as much as I wish they did. If so, the RNC could have stopped Trump for their wonderboy Jeb.

[Day]

You dont understand man, DNC is a private process.

[Krandor]

Let's not forget that Hillary's approval ratings were at near-historic highs; people only really hate her when she's running for office.

Everything goes great until she opens her mouth and spews forth more lies.

We're on what, 230+ days without her giving a press conference?

[Gredival]

Yeah you sure showed em!

[Day]

lol

[Qeomash]

I'm the first person here that will own up to the DNC trying to influence the game (because I'll more than happily justify it)

And I'm of the opinion that it's unjustifiable. The party is meant to facilitate selecting candidates for the general election via primary election. It is not meant to be a process of picking for the party members. The party members are the ones who get to decide who wins, not the person the party is tipping the scales for.

but you really think that Hillary's entire margin of victory was nothing more than the DNC?

Honestly, no. I admit, Bernie lost. He might've/probably lost had it been a fair fight. Or he would've won. We can only postulate at this point. My postulations without any backup is that Sanders simply wasn't covered enough in the media early on for him to have a chance against a known name. The evening news has a large impact on older voters, and the news hardly covered Sanders when compared against Clinton. The few times I caught prime time coverage of the election this past summer it was always some variation of "Trump said something stupid, is this the death toll for his campaign? Republican challenger #2 made stops in [upcoming state] ahead of the primary. Hillary Clinton stopped over in [other upcoming state] to visit [iconic state location] ahead of their primary." NPR was much the same, with the rare addition of "Sanders won this state, let's see what Clinton's campaign has to say."

That is what lost Sanders the election. Lack of exposure and name recognition coupled with voters who only knew it was "Clinton and some other old guy" running.

[Kincard]

If the assertion is that Sanders is unpopular enough that he would've lost anyway, then why do said manipulation and risk losing confidence?

[Day]

I think the overall point is that pretty much anyone could have won the primary if put through that DNC machine. I guess that should be fairly obvious as status quo, but it's quite disgusting to see glimpses behind the curtain. IMO of course.

[Gredival]

If the assertion is that Sanders is unpopular enough that he would've lost anyway, then why do said manipulation and risk losing confidence?

Because a quick knock-out is preferable to a prolonged battle that uses up extremely valuable money and also causes her to tack to the left instead of remaining in the swing vote ripe center

[Tyche]

And I'm of the opinion that it's unjustifiable. The party is meant to facilitate selecting candidates for the general election via primary election. It is not meant to be a process of picking for the party members. The party members are the ones who get to decide who wins, not the person the party is tipping the scales for.



Honestly, no. I admit, Bernie lost. He might've/probably lost had it been a fair fight. Or he would've won. We can only postulate at this point. My postulations without any backup is that Sanders simply wasn't covered enough in the media early on for him to have a chance against a known name. The evening news has a large impact on older voters, and the news hardly covered Sanders when compared against Clinton. The few times I caught prime time coverage of the election this past summer it was always some variation of "Trump said something stupid, is this the death toll for his campaign? Republican challenger #2 made stops in [upcoming state] ahead of the primary. Hillary Clinton stopped over in [other upcoming state] to visit [iconic state location] ahead of their primary." NPR was much the same, with the rare addition of "Sanders won this state, let's see what Clinton's campaign has to say."

That is what lost Sanders the election. Lack of exposure and name recognition coupled with voters who only knew it was "Clinton and some other old guy" running.

Black people. Sanders wasn't winning even with early exposure. Bernie is still an old white male.

Also, why do it? Bernie's rhetoric. At least that's what I get from the emails

[Kincard]

I mean, I get the pragmatism, I just don't care for the whole hog rejection of idealism Gredival gives off sometimes.

[Qeomash]

The reality I see is, Clinton (or Sanders) will lose in 2020 to any half competent Republican. No party has held the White House for four consecutive terms since the 50s.

[Krandor]

I don't see either candidate running for re-election in 2020 tbh

[archibaldcrane]

I think the overall point is that pretty much anyone could have won the primary if put through that DNC machine.

Especially Hillary

Unless she's running against Obama

I suppose we didn't have to look very hard to refute this exact point

[Day]

Obama was a baller