2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Tyche]

Great, he's got momentum, but unless he peels off some super delegates, he's already starting in at least a 10 point hole, and given Clinton is an establishment democrat that is popular, able to run an election, and a proven fundraiser with lots of money, I'm assuming she will probably start out with closer to a 12 point lead in super delegates alone. Barring an epic campaign collapse by Clinton, sanders is probably going to have to secure at least 55% of the popular vote. But if he pulls a 10 point lead on Hillary, which is incredibly unlikely, he may peel off some super delegates that don't want to go against the public. But if the primary is close, the super delegates are going to go with Hillary. That's stating the obvious. States and delegates aren't winner take all. Just because Bernie wins a state doesn't means shit. Bernie getting close to Hillary isn't going to help his cause. He's going to have to win big. That's why prognosticators don't like his chances.

[notorious bum]

Some look at it as a sign of weakness that she's already courting super delegates this early in the game. One can't help but feel the ol' "election rigging" vibes anytime the super delegate subject comes up, but it's not completely insane to think Sanders can flip some of those elite crotch goblins.

I agree with what you're saying though. Let me revel in this rare taste of optimism for a bit and try to ignore the whole delegate debacle while I look forward to seeing these few debates (which is some bullshit) and that DC march coming up.

[Not Kuno]

I agree with what you're saying though. Let me revel in this rare taste of optimism for a bit and try to ignore the whole delegate debacle while I look forward to seeing these few debates (which is some bullshit) and that DC march coming up.

There's a reason Hillary is avoiding rallys or debates, anything that comes out of her mouth will just lower her deeper. Everything she says is so meticulously perfected and focus grouped that it just fake, superficial shit. She sinks like the Titanic anything goes off the rails. Just look at the last few times she spoke, she called Republicans terrorists, had an embarrassing meeting with BLM, and Im pretty sure she had protesters the other day calling her out on being pro-for profit prisons. Bernie is going to call her out on being pro TPP, pro Pipeline, pro Wallstreet, pro War, etc just like he did today CNN's State of the Union. He more or less eviscerated her.

[Serra]

First off, it's not a sign of weakness, read Tyche's point three posts up -- Hillary lost 2008 because of super delegates, of course she's going to court them this time around. Second, political parties are not democratic entities. Political parties exist to get their candidates elected. They have no obligation to let the public have any say in deciding which candidate they put forward.

[archibaldcrane]

I thought she looked pretty good at her BLM meeting.

[Aksannyi]

Somebody please photoshop a Black Mage hat on Hilary for reasons.

[Gredival]

Yeah, I have to wonder where these people are coming from saying Bernie will lose the general. Bernie has a LOT more ability to reach voters "across the aisle" than Hillary

You're talking about a country where the election deciders are moderates. Many of those consider LIBERAL to be a dirty word and you think that a candidate who is openly and unabashedly SOCIALIST can reach across the aisle?

It also does a great job at ignoring what Bernie is actually able to accomplish in multiple facets of running a grassroots campaign that even eclipses what we saw with Obama's. The Tea Party had major wealthy donors and plenty of dirty money fueling their fraudulent movement, it's a joke to even mention them as some sort of direct comparison to what is happening with Sanders' level of volunteering, mobilization, and use of social media alone.

Do you disagree that Bernie's campaign is fueled almost entirely by an energized grassroots base? That's what the evidence indicates.

Granted that Bernie energizing the left is probably has more effect on the election than a radical tea party candidate energizing the right due to the left's inherently larger non-voting problem. But the enthusiasm of the party's devout don't win you elections.

Obama's campaign of hope and change worked because he was able to win over moderates and get them to buy-in. Remember all the compromises Obama made to become moderate enough to be palatable to the general election voters (not that he was exceedingly liberal to begin with)? Those voters aren't going to buy what Bernie is selling.

Just look at the last few times she spoke, she called Republicans terrorists, had an embarrassing meeting with BLM

And what she said to BLM shows why she is ultimately the better politician and thus the better candidate. However "wrong" it is, governing and politics isn't about ideals, hopes, etc. It's about law and policy. It requires chits with people on the other side with diametrically opposed interests.

Bernie has kept his seat by being a consistent voice for certain principles and policies, which voters in his state appreciate. But he's never been any sort of influential power broker like Schumer. Because you don't get that level of influence being ideologically pure.

Im pretty sure she had protesters the other day calling her out on being pro-for profit prisons. Bernie is going to call her out on being pro TPP, pro Pipeline, pro Wallstreet, pro War, etc just like he did today CNN's State of the Union. He more or less eviscerated her.

Eviscerated from our perspective as liberal-minded progressives that appreciate the values he espouses. To most people, it was watching a crazy socialist.

In an ideal world, I would take Bernie over Hilary hands down. But in this world, where the vast majority of voters don't care about prison profiteering, the military industrial complex, or any other important issue that only self-identifying liberals consider an issue, he is unelectable.

Hilary has baggage, but it's all stuff the upper-middle class white voter can look past. Bernie's baggage is precisely what makes him popular -- his views.

The truth is Bernie is out-polling all GOP candidates, the last time I checked, when polled against each other. Hillary is much more likely to lose against a Jeb or Scott Walker, but that is stating the obvious.

Polls that replicate the popular vote, which are as irrelevant as the popular vote itself.

Bernie needs to carry states like North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia... Even Pennsylvania would be in play if he grabbed the nomination. The Dems don't have the basic numbers advantage in these states to win without winning the majority of self-identifying moderates.

And in this country, given that Obama is considered liberal, moderate is pretty right leaning.

[Ksandra]

Bernie coming after Obama hurts him a lot as well. Too many people don't trust hope-and-change-style rhetoric after they were disillusioned by Obama (I don't agree with that sentiment, but people would be ignorant to not realize so many feel that way.) I expect voters are going to look for candidates that seem to have answers vs. ideals.

I agree with a lot of what Bernie had to say. More so than Hillary. But if he gets the dem nomination that hands the repubs the presidency.


Unless, somehow Trump magically gets the repub nomination. Then idkwtfmurica.

[Quicklet]

The difference between Bernie and Obama is that Bernie has been saying this stuff for decades and has a track record to back it up. Honestly, Bernie's success in the polls is a great argument for why Warren should have run, but for whatever reason she's not interested this cycle.

Short of a catastrophe, Democrats could nominate Jim Webb or Lincoln Chafee and still have the odds to win in 2016. The Republican field is just that weak for 2016.

[Gredival]

The difference between Bernie and Obama is that Bernie has been saying this stuff for decades and has a track record to back it up. Honestly, Bernie's success in the polls is a great argument for why Warren should have run, but for whatever reason she's not interested this cycle.

Bernie has been consistent in his fight for truly legitimate causes. But that doesn't matter. Many of the things he fights for, like prison reform, are things that the election deciders (upper-middle class white "moderates") could not care less about.

Ksandra's point is that Obama ran on a platform of changing Washington, and he couldn't deliver. So the next time someone is selling themselves on changing Washington, the voters aren't going to buy it. Granted the Bernie wants to change Washington a different way than Obama did (by actually being liberal vs trying to work with an obstructionist GOP), but that's not the point. The point is that people think that Bush 43 and Bill Clinton presided over more a "functional" Washington than Obama did.

[Tyche]

There's a reason Hillary is avoiding rallys or debates, anything that comes out of her mouth will just lower her deeper. Everything she says is so meticulously perfected and focus grouped that it just fake, superficial shit. She sinks like the Titanic anything goes off the rails. Just look at the last few times she spoke, she called Republicans terrorists, had an embarrassing meeting with BLM, and Im pretty sure she had protesters the other day calling her out on being pro-for profit prisons. Bernie is going to call her out on being pro TPP, pro Pipeline, pro Wallstreet, pro War, etc just like he did today CNN's State of the Union. He more or less eviscerated her.

Your opinion of Hillary is absolutely misguided. You act as if she's some robot incapable of having a thought of her own. She's done this before. She beat Obama in a popular vote for god sakes. If you think she's going to have a "titanic" like collapse from menial shit like a BLM meeting or a few protestors, you've drank entirely too much koolaid. I get that Bernie is the cool hip thing right now, but he's got you so drunk that you forgot how to politic.

[Quicklet]

I'm sure Republicans threatening a shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding will endear them to the voters as the stewards of functioning government. Granted, we're still a few months out so maybe the leadership will figure out a way to keep their members in line, but if they haven't been able to figure it out before now, I don't know what's going to change.

[Gredival]

I'm sure Republicans threatening a shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding will endear them to the voters as the stewards of functioning government. Granted, we're still a few months out so maybe the leadership will figure out a way to keep their members in line, but if they haven't been able to figure it out before now, I don't know what's going to change.

Six years of complete obstructionism and nonfunctional government got them the House and Senate back and has allowed them to completely destroy the Democrats on a state level

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3jSpdW0zd

So no, I honestly don't think it's a problem given the current structure of political landscape.

The way the elephants play politics really make the Dems look like jackasses. And refusing to play the game the same way is what gets the Dems slaughtered and outmaneuvered constantly. Nominating Bernie would be the epitome of this.

[Quicklet]

I disagree. For all the advantages Hillary might have in the general, Bernie comes off as more genuine and less scripted. I think there are a lot of moderates out there who are turned off by Hillary but would see an appeal in Bernie once they saw him on the debate stage.

[Sho]

Six years of complete obstructionism and nonfunctional government got them the House and Senate back and has allowed them to completely destroy the Democrats on a state level

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3jSpdW0zd

So no, I honestly don't think it's a problem given the current structure of political landscape.

The way the elephants play politics really make the Dems look like jackasses. And refusing to play the game the same way is what gets the Dems slaughtered and outmaneuvered constantly. Nominating Bernie would be the epitome of this.

GOP took the House and Senate because the Dems didn't rally behind their own president and fell to Tea Party bullshit, starting with the Blue Dogs. Obama attempted to work with the GOP, to which he was made to look weak in his party, whilst getting absolutely no traction with the Republicans.

The political field has one once again change or it will be more of the same, no matter who takes POTUS. For the change to be good, everyone has to move towards the center. There hasn't been bipartisanship since Eisenhower/Kennedy tbh.

[Gredival]

If you are worried about a candidate that voters can connect with, then by all means support Biden. If he jumps into the ring, I'm moving immediately to him.

[Sho]

If you are worried about a candidate that voters can connect with, then by all means support Biden. If he jumps into the ring, I'm moving immediately to him.

Same here.

[Tyche]

The GOP took the house, not because dems didn't rally behind Obama or because of obstructionism, but by gerrymandering the fuck out of districts.

[Acevalefor]

The GOP took the house, not because dems didn't rally behind Obama or because of obstructionism, but by gerrymandering the fuck out of districts.

Came here to post that link.

[Gredival]

How did they take control of the map on the state level to do that? The article I posted acknowledges the effect of gerrymandering, but the gerrymandering required the GOP to play a better game at the local level.

Some of the party’s national erosion may well have been inevitable ... That 2010 election gave Republicans in nine states control over redistricting, which gave them more seats in the U.S. House and state legislatures four years later.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3jSpdW0zd

But the fact is that the GOP took over both houses of the legislature on a platform of "We stopped Barrack Obama from accomplishing anything" and "We will continue to obstruct Obama from accomplishing anything." Being obstructionist isn't a death-knell.

Also another good take-away -- the losses on the local front affect the national front.

“We are fooling ourselves,” says one well-placed Democratic operative, “if we think we can advance a progressive agenda in Washington, if half the Congress and half the states are controlled by a Republican Party enthusiastically working to undo every trace of progressive policy.”