The General American Politics Thread

[TailsTellsTales]

It is over Sanders won votes of Michigan and Clinton won Mississippi and sadly they will still say Clinton is going to win even though she has only win big in the south. When she wins anywhere else, it has always been very close. Otherwise he wins much larger share. It looks like Trump has won Michigan and Mississippi and Cruz has won Idaho. I have to admit Trump is very good at playing the media like a violin. Hawaii is the only one left vote.

[Patticus]

If Hillary's going up against Trump in November - let's face it, Sanders is still quite the long shot - then this ought to be an enormous, blaring warning sign to her campaign. Trump is going to do well against her in the Rust Belt states; Sanders has shown that she is vulnerable there even among Democrats, whom the Trump campaign could conceivably try to steal (remember the blue collar Reagan Democrats?). She needs an answer to this problem yesterday, or more are going to fall in with the Sanders campaign and everything's going to look like New Hampshire, magnified and expanded.

Sanders' margins against Trump look pretty food in current polling, but after a summer of anti-Sanders ad blitzes? It might not be a pretty picture. If Sanders were on the ticket as her VP, which won't be a thing unless he really hounds her all the way to the convention (essentially proving himself worthy), just by putting him there she'd be distancing herself from the negative impact of the trade deals she's always supported via his place on the ticket and snap up the invaluable support of the young, the white and the blue collar voters - a shield in the north for the election.

I worry that a Sanders nomination would lead to widespread apathy among African American voters in particular, but given how effective both candidates are with different sections of the electorate, I think they might make a very effective duo, should it come down to that. I still think she's much more likely to pick a young, strong, male, minority candidate - but I think the smart move here might be to pick Sanders for the ticket for the first term, then a new young minority man for the second term run. That chap could then run for president in 2024 with a good base of support among the party faithful - unforeseen insurgent candidates notwithstanding.

[Tornado]

If Sander calls it quits (why would he after Super Tuesday when the media narrative from the start was that he had no hope against Hilary?), I don't think there's any automatic chance she would even get an endorsement from him. And I think there's practically zero chance that he'd cozy up with her enough to be on her administration. To do so he would be going against pretty much all of his political views already, and he would be doing so to help her get elected when she represents an awful lot of things he is against. For Hilary to suggest it would be the exact kind of political savvy move that people who support Bernie specifically hate Hilary Clinton for always doing, and for Bernie to go along with it would just make people who have supported him feel betrayed.

 

 

I don't want to go so far as say that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would make more people vote against Hilary than if she just tried to ride it out, but I can't imagine she's going to haul in all of those voters who only are paying attention to politics because Sanders is running.

[Patticus]

I only threw out the idea of a Clinton/Sanders ticket because their loyal audiences are so different - Sanders has the youth vote, the white vote and an edge as far as blue collar workers go, as well as the more liberal voters. Clinton has the older and minority voters firmly in her camp, as well as a swathe of blue collar workers and the more conservative, religious wing of the party. Theoretically, despite their major ideological differences, the two candidates should make a good fit going forward - tickets are supposed to tick as many boxes as possible, after all, the VP filling in where the P is weak, and Sanders' strong areas seem to be Hillary's weak points. If only they could paper over said differences for a term... and it would only be a term - the second term run would necessitate young blood to reinvigorate the ticket.

Realistically speaking, Hillary will choose a young, probably male minority candidate with good credentials - a Julian Castro type, or similar. She needs someone who can woo the blue collar voters from the rust belt and beyond, someone who energizes young voters in the ways she seems so incapable of, somebody who will make the more progressive and less religious wing of the party get up and vote once Sanders eventually bows out.

If the fight carries on all the way to the convention, as Team Sanders hopes, he'll probably be offered a role on a committee overseeing the minimum wage changes, or something to do with ending Citizens United. No cabinet post (although it'd be hilarious if they gave him the Treasury Secretary position), but the most likely outcome will simply be (provided he garners enough delegates) influencing the Democratic platform. Getting the ball rolling for real progressive change in a liberalizing America not quite ready for it - just as happened in 1948.

[Burnt Ash]

Bernie Sanders is coming to my school tomorrow for a rally and naturally I cannot attend it because schedule conflicts 

[nintega137]

So this isn't "inherently and directly" related to the current political environment at this very moment, but it is something of interest that I wanted a few opinions on.

http://jtfoxxblog.com/2013/08/the-truth-about-rich-people-the-media-will-never-tell-you/

[SenEDDtor Missile]

3 minutes ago, nintega137 said:

So this isn't "inherently and directly" related to the current political environment at this very moment, but it is something of interest that I wanted a few opinions on.

http://jtfoxxblog.com/2013/08/the-truth-about-rich-people-the-media-will-never-tell-you/

The cynic in me says bullshit. The novice philosophy class taker in me frankly wants to know why this is the case.

[Tornado]

Which part?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

49 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Which part?

If you're answering to me, I mean the cynic in me calls bullshit about how rich people supposedly want others to be wealthy or that it requires hard work and isn't just the result of deception, blackmail, extortion and bribery. The novice philosophy class taker part of me however wants to see some some evidence/arguments.

[Patticus]

On 3/1/2016 at 1:01 PM, Tailikku said:

#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain

Someone, somewhere, did...

https://twitter.com/DeepDrump
 

Meanwhile, in Chicago, thousands of protesters showed up at a Trump rally, forcing its postponement and igniting violent clashes with Trump supporters:

 



Trouble commences at about the 49 minute mark, after the announcement of the postponement: 

I can't see this, or any possible trend of confronting Trump rallies with mass protests, damaging him at all. Hell, if anything it'll give him the ideal excuse to justify the violence against protesters he so often eggs on. It might only be a matter of time before someone gets killed at one of these things.

Edit: A Trump rally in St. Louis earlier today also saw violence:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html

[Tornado]

On 3/11/2016 at 10:13 PM, SenEDtor Missile said:

If you're answering to me, I mean the cynic in me calls bullshit about how rich people supposedly want others to be wealthy or that it requires hard work and isn't just the result of deception, blackmail, extortion and bribery. The novice philosophy class taker part of me however wants to see some some evidence/arguments.

It doesn't benefit rich people in the long term for people in this country to be poor. Other countries, certainly. They can exploit the poor people from Mexico or China or whatever all day long; but even if the rich person in question is something like a slumlord or whatever, poor people in the US are a drain on the economy in general. The problem is that there is a disconnect between whether or not whatever company the rich people happen to run can support acting on that. Especially if it pertains to manufacturing, which up until the 1970s was always the easiest example of the hard work = success idea.

[Patticus]

Trump has won Florida. Rubio has suspended his campaign, but he'll be back, of that we can be sure. Kasich looking strong in Ohio.

Clinton is the projected winner of Florida and North Carolina. Nothing on the states Sanders had hoped to be competitive in.

[Johnny Boy]

So I guess it's gonna be Clinton vs Trump at this point.

[Patticus]

Clinton is the projected winner in Ohio. Fuck sake, Ohio, really? Come on. At last she lost my home Clinton County to Sanders. It's the little victories...

Sanders is looking competitive in Illinois and Missouri, but without Ohio...

[Treacher]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14333

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/710884889797722112

Question: Is "With fingers crossed, the old rabbit's foot out of the box in the attic, I will be sacrificing a chicken in the backyard to Moloch" A common expression? Perhaps an outdated metaphor?..

Also with the way things are turning out,: http://archive.is/KjoaE

I'm expecting a big riot within 1 or 2 months.

[Tani Coyote]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/08/media/bruce-springsteen-north-carolina-show-canceled/index.html

Bruce Springsteen has cancelled his performance in NC in response to the anti-transgender bathroom law.

At the rate things are going with these anti-LGBT laws and subsequent boycotts by the business community, the whole South is going to be turned into the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

I can't say this would be a bad thing. Playing nice with Southern politicians has never ended well for us.

The South's political establishment has done nothing but infect us with one social disease after another since this nation's founding. They gave us racialized welfare. They gave us dominionism. They gave us the police state. They gave us fiscal conservatism and the sociopathic society that inevitably follows a debunked ideology. The list goes on.

If the South is willing to play nice, we shall absolutely welcome them into the American family. But if they continue down this wrongful path, corrective action is necessary. There's nothing like the prospect of financial ruin to change one's tone, right?

[Patticus]

The weird thing is, outside of a small but vocal minority of bigoted citizens, the only people in the south who really get their panties in a knot about the LGBTQ community, are conservative politicians. Almost everyone else pretty much doesn't give a rats ass one way or another - they either don't care at all, or they view matters like immigration, abortion, the economy, national security etc as being far more important issues, over and above general bigotry. Yet still we have these hordes of conservative politicians really pushing this nonsensical narrative that they need to defend their religion or protect people going to the bathroom or whatever - pretty much trying like hell to maintain their right to dehumanize, disenfranchise and be massive dicks toward a particular group.

Hopefully, the economic pressure will become so overwhelming that it becomes a fiscal necessity to drop that crap like a hot potato. Maybe then they'll start dealing with the real issues, like why half the south seems to be mired in intractable poverty, despite years of conservative economic policy.

 

Wyoming, with only a paltry 14 delegates at stake, will vote today. Sanders is likely to win it, and though it won't change the electoral maths, it will allow him to say he has won 8 of the last 9 contests, and give his campaign vital momentum moving forward.

If he can't win the big boy states like Pennsylvania and New York, though, it's pretty much over. I think that Clinton has been getting so testy with him lately because he's really trying to threaten her on what she sees as her home turf - she can't stand that he won't just back down. If she can't win decisively in New York etc, or if she actually manages to lose, the Democratic race will be completely upended once again, and we'll be staring down the barrel of a contested convention. I can't see her losing the big states, though. It's still her nomination to lose - and it's up to Sanders to decide how to proceed if/when those big states fall away from him. I'm hoping he'll go for a minority report at the convention, influence the party platform and the future of the country that way.

[shdowhunt60]

Leaving this here, because this whole thing is fucking hilarious.

[-Robin-]

And with that blowout in Indiana, Ted Cruz has finally suspended his campaign. 

I guarantee he will be back in 2020 though. A virus like him does not simply go away so easily.

Can't wait to see the super religious right and Glenn Beck and David Barton throw a fit tonight and tomorrow though.

[Patticus]

Cruz's concession speech was piled high with Reagan references and quotes, and the "shining city on a hill" line from back in 1976, when Reagan failed to best Ford at the party convention, four years before he won the nomination and the presidency. Cruz will be back, he's already positioning himself to do so, albeit with a few odd moments along the way...

 

[-Robin-]

And now Kasich has dropped, finally.

[Tornado]

You mean they took the time to print all of those Cruz/Fiorina placards for the four days or whatever Fiorina was involved?

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Best luck to Tump I guess. I wonder who is running for the liberal side?

[Patticus]

6 hours ago, Sonikku Mikyeong said:

Best luck to Tump I guess. I wonder who is running for the liberal side?

Hillary Clinton, barring any unforeseen catastrophes, like an indictment by the FBI, or death, will be the nominee.

Sanders is on course to influence the Democratic party platform at the convention, but his road goes no further than that. His campaign as awoken a sleeping progressive dragon, and unless Clinton can come up with a grand project to inspire the left-leaning faithful, she might win the election but lose the country in the process - becoming to Obama what George H.W. Bush was to Reagan. A one-term successor.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/17/fine_give_the_gop_four_years_the_liberal_case_for_either_bernie_sanders_or_electing_a_republican_president/

I hate this for making sense.

The basic argument is that there hasn't been a four-term party hold on the White House since the age of the Democrat-Republicans.

Given the high likelihood of retiring/dying justices from 2021 to 2029, as well as the fact the 2020 election will have a reshuffling of House and electoral college seats, winning 2020 would be more crucial to any party agenda. Allowing an idiot like Trump to run things for two to four years (pending what midterm voters do) would sink the GOP and enable Democrats to take the White House, House and Senate for a lucrative 8 years. That coattail effect is worth considering.

As much as I hate the idea of a Trump Presidency, we needed Hoover to make us elect FDR. Bush's incompetence, likewise, helped push us towards Obama.

On the other hand, this article is almost 4 months old, and now things have changed. Bernie will easily be one of the most powerful Democrats in the aftermath of this election, so could pull a Clinton Presidency further left.

At the same time, Clinton's chances of being a one-termer are high. I'd rather take a small disaster from 2017 to 2021, then a massive disaster from 2021 to 2029.

On the other hand, I think we need to end Clinton's eligibility to make real progress. If she doesn't win this election, you know she'll peek her head back in next time. Until she's no longer eligible, she's going to be a bulwark against progressivism in the Party.

Perhaps the ideal outcome is a one-term Trump Presidency with a Democrat House/Senate. Let them obstruct his shit for a change, and watch everyone pin the blame on him.