2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Fiye]

The problem is there's no party that is going to take place of the GOP. Its not like how the whigs were already getting absorbed by the republicans.

The republicans will live to see another healthy election.

[Gredival]

I agree that the GOP is somewhere along the stages of death as a viable national political party. The question is what happens after November whether or not Trump loses. Right now there's no indication that they're going to moderate at all, and voters haven't punished them for failing to do so.

I think the last two Presidential cycles were the voters repudiating them.

The problem is that on a more local level, they have higher levels of shielding due to geographic isolation. And when you adopt a scorched earth obstructionism tactic that the deep red base will support, you might not get anything done but you can sure gum up the machine for your opponent.

Which is why we come back to the need for liberals to give more support for Dems across the country voting in midterms and supporting lack luster candidates even if it's just to get the elephants out. Evan Bayh might be a Chamber of Commerce lobbyist, but his light shade of blue will be better than the dark red you'd otherwise get out of Indiana.

[Quicklet]

I think if you made that argument pre-2014, I would agree, but Democrats performed badly in 2014 with no real excuses -- Republicans did not pay a price for the government shutdown or for taking the country to the financial brink of disaster with the debt ceiling.

I understand your point about midterms, but I think some of that is on a failure of messaging from Democrats to hold Republicans accountable for their obstructionism. You're barely even seeing any messaging on the failure to provide hearings to Garland for SCOTUS. I mean maybe the polarization is so bad now that those kinds of arguments don't matter, but it just seems like the Democratic brand needs some improvement in terms of public perception.

[Gredival]

I think if you made that argument pre-2014, I would agree, but Democrats performed badly in 2014 with no real excuses -- Republicans did not pay a price for the government shutdown or for taking the country to the financial brink of disaster with the debt ceiling.

I understand your point about midterms, but I think some of that is on a failure of messaging from Democrats to hold Republicans accountable for their obstructionism.

This is what I mean by the "scorched earth obstructionism tactic that the deep red base will support" bit. Unfortunately geography insulates a lot of Congress for this; most GOP incumbents are safe in their red districts/states. While the party has no hope of expanding their voter base, all it has to do to hold onto their current (dwindling) group is promise to muck everything up for the Democrats. It's honestly surprising that they continue to last doing this, but time will catch up with them as demographics shift.

You're barely even seeing any messaging on the failure to provide hearings to Garland for SCOTUS. I mean maybe the polarization is so bad now that those kinds of arguments don't matter, but it just seems like the Democratic brand needs some improvement in terms of public perception.

It's up to the candidate whether that's an effective message to take. Patty Judge is running on Garland obstructionism in Iowa, but she's behind vs. Grassley (the head of the judiciary committee to boot). Tammy Duckworth is running on Garland in Illinois and she's ahead (but Kirk was cooked anyway probably).

And there are more Democrats than Republicans in the country, it's just Dem turn-out is terrible. It's better in Presidential years, but it doesn't rival GOP voters who are more likely to vote due to all the red meat culture war bait they get thrown. It wouldn't be a contest if our voter turnout was better; most unregistered (or perpetually disillusioned) voters and sometimes voters would be Democratic.

The thing is that all the talk about how the system is broken etc. just makes them stay home. They want to see change, but they need to vote in overwhelming numbers for the Dems to have the numbers to affect it. So we get stuck in a cycle. That's why I repeatedly say the solution is for liberals to vote. Light blue is always better that red.

[Fondue]

Pepe is a meme of peace. Just because an extremely small minority of Pepes are wearing Nazi uniforms does not mean that the vast majority of Pepes aren't peaceful, loving frogs. I want to urge all Americans to refrain from making Pepephobic comments and harboring Pepehobic feelings. It is now, more then ever, that we need to show Pepe that Americans are a peaceful and tolerant people.

[Day]

Perhaps someone can help me understand how a 3rd party candidate will ever be viable if the general consensus is that people must always vote for one of the 2 major parties, because 3rd party isn't viable. It's really close to fear mongering in a way, and I wonder how many votes are lost due to this line of thinking that is so deeply embedded on both sides of the aisle. It seems like a cycle that will never ever be broken if we continue to say this every election year. Perhaps you guys have some insight on how we as a country could ever break out of this 2 party cycle?

Personally I think folks should vote for who and what they believe in and let the chips fall. Idealistic yes but at least wed have an actual accurate finger on what values the people in our country really care about instead of counting votes out of fear the same as the ones who actually align with someone's policies.

[kuronosan]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...al-health-plan




YES! This is what i want! This is want i want badly, especially since i work in the care industry and interact with those who have mental health issues on a daily bases. This! Is what will translate into votes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...about-science/

This one is alright, while touching on a major issue of science and education she doesn't give us anything specific. If i recall this was part of the deal that Bernie had with Hillary to gain his support. I hope to all that is holy that she follows through.

To answer your questions
Did you miss her unveiling her mental health plan?
Yes i missed the mental health plan, i do not know why its not plastered all over the news stations. Not going to happen unless democrats rule the house though.
answering questions about her views on science?
No i did not miss her plans for science and education but that was during one of her speeches after Bernie endorsed her.

She is obviously the better choice when it comes to healthcare. On the other issue we have two candidates making roughly the same promises on funding the Sciences and education, who do you trust more to keep there word(not me, the undecided voters)?

Edit: Had to look up the meaning of this word. Consortia

Also to this question: How about you just say what you want to hear from her?

I did an edit on the above on what i wanted while you were responding.

It's not plastered because this country is still trying to get you to believe mental illness is a choice.

Her health policies alone are enough for me to say never Trump.

Anyone who protest votes for the likes of Stein or Johnson does so at the risk of making health care in this country dangerously worse.

[Roranora]

We claim the right to not tolerate the intolerant.

[Day]

Anyone who protest votes for the likes of Stein or Johnson does so at the risk of making health care in this country dangerously worse.

Is kinda exactly what im talking about. I mean it could be said that voting for Hillary or Trump is doing so at the risk of making certain things worse as well. Money in politics comes to mind immediately and i cant think of an item much more dangerous.

[Fondue]

@day proportional representation would be a start

Then I can finally vote for the true pepe party

[Gryffes]

So trumps within touching distance in CO, WI, MI and NH.

That PA firewall for clinton isn't looking too effective right now.

[Eurell]

Perhaps someone can help me understand how a 3rd party candidate will ever be viable if the general consensus is that people must always vote for one of the 2 major parties, because 3rd party isn't viable. It's really close to fear mongering in a way, and I wonder how many votes are lost due to this line of thinking that is so deeply embedded on both sides of the aisle. It seems like a cycle that will never ever be broken if we continue to say this every election year. Perhaps you guys have some insight on how we as a country could ever break out of this 2 party cycle?

Personally I think folks should vote for who and what they believe in and let the chips fall. Idealistic yes but at least wed have an actual accurate finger on what values the people in our country really care about instead of counting votes out of fear the same as the ones who actually align with someone's policies.

Vote them in locally? Get some Green and Lib Senators or something before we just put one in charge of the country.

Also, the whole thing were if someone doesn't get enough electoral votes, congress gets to choose the president. That would have to change.

[Day]

I may be wrong but doesn't the same 2 party issue exist locally as well? I know some independents get elected but still seems mostly 2 party for the same reasons to me.

[Rooney]

Perhaps someone can help me understand how a 3rd party candidate will ever be viable if the general consensus is that people must always vote for one of the 2 major parties, because 3rd party isn't viable. It's really close to fear mongering in a way, and I wonder how many votes are lost due to this line of thinking that is so deeply embedded on both sides of the aisle. It seems like a cycle that will never ever be broken if we continue to say this every election year. Perhaps you guys have some insight on how we as a country could ever break out of this 2 party cycle?

Personally I think folks should vote for who and what they believe in and let the chips fall. Idealistic yes but at least wed have an actual accurate finger on what values the people in our country really care about instead of counting votes out of fear the same as the ones who actually align with someone's policies.

The biggest issue is that our system is winner take all. You must get 50% +1 vote to win, there is no proportional representation. We either have runoffs until someone gets 50%+ or in the case of president, the house of reps decides. So unless your candidate can hit 50%+ support, they are a wasted vote with the possibility of siphoning support off of the major party candidate that best matches your views (i.e. Nader in Florida in 2000).

Unless the party that best matches your ideals is controlling the house of reps, voting third party for president is at best a wasted vote and at worst equivalent to voting for the opposite party.

Edit: and yes the problem exists at the local level as well. Without proportional representation, politics will naturally gravitate toward a two party system. Someone made an excellent post explaining it back in the primary thread if someone feels like looking it up.

[Drai]

I had suggested in the previous thread that America might benefit from an electoral system more similar to Canadas, unfortunately that would require entire decades worth of change under progressive leadership without congress cockblocking, you and I will be long dead before America is even close to that kind of change.

All you can do is vote for the candidate most likely to reach that end goal

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not quite as down on 3rd party candidates in general as Gred is.

However, I am very down on Johnson and Stein. The problem is that they aren't trying to win. When I say that I mean that they aren't taking policy positions that are nearly popular enough to win among the general electorate, they don't have nearly the requisite funding, and Stein at least doesn't have any relevant experience with governance.

If we were talking about Ross Perot, who at least had popular policy positions and money, or Michael Bloomberg, who arguably would have all 3, that could be a different story.

[Fiye]

Plus the republicans got the house of reps kind of locked in thanks to the 2010 election.

Essentially a vote for for not Hillary is a vote for Donald Trump.

[Salodin]

Confused how during primaries everyone laughed cause millenials were irrelevant and not enough to win the nomination, but now that were in the general it's all their fault.

I thought these kids were too busy playing vidya to be relevant. Whats gonna happen if hilldog loses and the youth turnout is as historically bad as it usually is?

[Krandor]

It'll be pepe's fault for memeing the children into the arms of Emperor Trump.

[Gryffes]