Election 2016

[Pseudo Stupidity]

The way Frank puts it anyone in the US should be trying to leave the US right now. The Rs are terrifying but even the worst Dems are not that bad. The worst dems just suck plutocrat cock so hard they'll compromise on workers' rights and other things to save giant corporations money.

Speaking of which, wasn't Hillary on the board of directors for Wal-Mart while they fucked up unions?

[Username17]

If you think Clinton is willing to sell you out - and on many issues she is - why do you think it's weird that the Democrats in the moderate and conservative wings of the party would be willing to sell you out more? A president who begins on better terms with the party establishment is less likely to have senate defections. Because FUCKING OBVIOUSLY. We actually have a measurement of how good terms a Democratic presidential candidate is with the party establishment - declared super delegates. A measure that Hillary exceeds Bernie by 449 to 20 last I checked. Given that ridiculous disparity, what possible argument do you have that Clinton won't be better at reigning in party defectors from allowing more rounds of 'welfare reform'?

The stakes for the next couple of elections are really high. The Republicans have gone full Nazi and suggested making registries of Semitic people while bluntly refusing to do their constitutionally mandated jobs. Their agenda needs to be stopped, and that means that people advocating a smaller tent purer leftism are as delusional as Ted Cruz's claim that he can win the presidency without moderate appeal.

But, and this is important, that's only true in the general election and beyond. In the general election we have to support blue dog traitor Democrats because at least they'll let Hillary's court nominations have hearings. Right now we can and should be having a conversation in the nation about how awesome single payer healthcare would be and what concrete stwps towards that can actually happen. Honestly, right now the most plausible route being floated is to do public option buy-in programs and subsequently have the public option from blue states allow buy-in from people living in red states. That's a convoluted and rinkidink way of expanding healthcare access to people in Mississippi, but it crucially bypasses the intransigent legislatures of the red states. And right now, that is what you need to do.

-Username17

[MGuy]

So you're saying that a good deal of democrats would be willing to set their own party on fire if we the people don't elect who they want us to elect? Do you think that these dem traitors are so intolerant of Bernie that they would let that spark an open civil war within the party when the Reps are clearly out for blood instead of doing the something more sane like going about their usual day regardless of who the president is?

[erik]

Ugh. Is it so hard to believe that people voicing their support for someone will back that person harder than an independent running on your party ticket?

[...You Lost Me]

Ugh. Is it so hard to believe that people voicing their support for someone will back that person harder than an independent running on your party ticket?

Apparently? I think the desire to frame the argument in a favorable way in order to garner internet points is overpowering actual reasoning.

[Kaelik]

Ugh. Is it so hard to believe that people voicing their support for someone will back that person harder than an independent running on your party ticket?

Apparently? I think the desire to frame the argument in a favorable way in order to garner internet points is overpowering actual reasoning.

It's hard to believe they will band together with Republicans to override presidential vetoes to fuck the country in direct contradiction to their stated policy preferences of "More Status Quo Pls."

[MGuy]

Ugh. Is it so hard to believe that people voicing their support for someone will back that person harder than an independent running on your party ticket?

Apparently? I think the desire to frame the argument in a favorable way in order to garner internet points is overpowering actual reasoning.

Overpowering indeed. I don't think it's insane to assume that the establishment will continue doing whatever it is they really want even if Sanders is president. Not supporting their own candidate who is mostly on your side ( as Frank keeps pointing out) and in doing so giving people who actually oppose you a lot seems insane and I don't think it's likely.

[hyzmarca]

So you're saying that a good deal of democrats would be willing to set their own party on fire if we the people don't elect who they want us to elect? Do you think that these dem traitors are so intolerant of Bernie that they would let that spark an open civil war within the party when the Reps are clearly out for blood instead of doing the something more sane like going about their usual day regardless of who the president is?

You're really oversimplifying Washington politics. The two parties aren't monolithic blocks, and there is a lot of horse trading going on. If you can't horse trade, both inside and outside of party lines, you're fucked. Overriding vetos is hard, but a President who veto-spams constantly is never going to get anything accomplished. Sometimes you have to make an agreement to not veto the rape pregnant women bill in order to pass the feed starving children bill. And there are plenty of democrats who would to override a veto on the rape pregnant women bill if they could get a rider that brought several billion dollars of federal money into their Districts.

[Grek]

If Bernie is elected, I fully expect the Democrats to take that as a sign to support Bernie's first big symbolic reform in order to cash in on the popularity of socialist reforms, just like they did with Obamacare. Its not about what you personally believe at that point, its about sticking it to the Republicans and establishing your political chops as a congressman who "cares about the people" and "wants a functioning government again".

[Mask_De_H]

What is it about politics that brings out the hyperbole and posturing in people? Shit, man; none of you are running for office.

[Occluded Sun]

The way Frank puts it anyone in the US should be trying to leave the US right now.

That's compelling evidence that Frank's opinions should be taken with several grains of salt.

[MGuy]

So you're saying that a good deal of democrats would be willing to set their own party on fire if we the people don't elect who they want us to elect? Do you think that these dem traitors are so intolerant of Bernie that they would let that spark an open civil war within the party when the Reps are clearly out for blood instead of doing the something more sane like going about their usual day regardless of who the president is?

You're really oversimplifying Washington politics. The two parties aren't monolithic blocks, and there is a lot of horse trading going on. If you can't horse trade, both inside and outside of party lines, you're fucked. Overriding vetos is hard, but a President who veto-spams constantly is never going to get anything accomplished. Sometimes you have to make an agreement to not veto the rape pregnant women bill in order to pass the feed starving children bill. And there are plenty of democrats who would to override a veto on the rape pregnant women bill if they could get a rider that brought several billion dollars of federal money into their Districts.

I'm not considering Bernie to necessarily be a veto spammer. I expect congress to largely keep chugging along. When Obama got in and the Dems had almost everything they needed to do whatever they wanted I saw very little happen. I don't think that congress would collapse in on itself just because Bernie became the lesser of two evils instead of Hillary. Bernie doesn't magically lose the support of the party and whatever resources it can muster just because he's not Hillary. I see no reason to believe that suddenly the Dems would jeopardize what they have if he ends up being electable enough to go the distance. I understand that Hillary is the establishment pick. Frank has been repeating it ad nauseam and no one had opposed it. The thing I oppose is the idea that the party would fuck itself if he wins.

[Mechalich]

The democratic party has a number of Senators in very vulnerable states who are up for re-election in 2018: Bill Nelson of Florida, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Jon Tester of Montana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. These six act as a major break on any progressive legislation in the near term - getting any liberal bill through the senate involves personally securing the commitment from each one. It is not inconceivable that one of them could switch parties if they felt Sanders was unwilling to play ball or was simply giving their seat away. Heitkamp and Manchin are particularly vulnerable due to ongoing issues in the energy industry that are having major impacts on the economies of their respective states.

[PhoneLobster]

The thing I oppose is the idea that the party would fuck itself if he wins.

Again, I can only point at the UK.

[Username17]

We got Obamacare, but we didn't get the public option. We didn't get the public option because we couldn't get the votes for it. Because noted asshole traitor Lieberman and also several actual Democrats would not vote for it. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has been in charge of both houses of congress for a while now and can't pass a budget. Boehner negotiated a budget deal that Paul Ryan was supposed to pass last month and it isn't going anywhere because the Republicans can't find enough votes for any version of the budget no matter how moderate or extreme.

It's simply factually true that neither party can count on all of their members to vote the right way on important bills of critical interest to potential voters around the country. However, there are some issues where party members can be expected to vote in lock step or near lock step. The Republicans voted for all sixty plus attempts to repeal Obamacare in whole or in part. Democrats voted for Obama's court appointments and so on.

The really dangerous thing is that there are issues where the Republicans could expect lockstep support and the Democrats might not be able to get lockstep opposition. And if that happens, you have chances to enact Republican wishlist items right through a presidential veto. Or more sinisterly, might be able to get Republican wishlist items into must-sign bills that a Democratic president would have to sign anyway. Remember that Sanders voted YEA to the farm bill that cut food aid to children. He did it because without a farm bill, much of America's agriculture and food distribution would collapse, and a farm bill with some evil Republican wishlist items is still better than nothing.

The bottom line is that for at least the next six years and probably longer, Democratic party discipline is flat more important than Democratic aspirations. Right now we are having the Democratic primary, where it is necessary and appropriate to talk about blue sky communist and green aspirations. I think it's totally rad that Sanders is running a close second and Chafee and Webb got nowhere. That says the party is moving in the right direction. But when the convention comes around, it's party unity, party unity, party unity. And then you just have to fucking accept that seventy percent of Democrats are to the right of Hillary Clinton and they are going to get their way sometimes.

[name_here]

Some people have decided to give Ted Cruz an object lesson in the fact that there's such a thing as a conspiracy theory too stupid to deny

[Username17]

While Super Tuesday is shaping up to be a route for The Donald, I just found out that Colorado's Republican delegation isn't bound by the caucus results at all. There's a Republican Caucus, and then the results are either honored or not by party bosses. The Democratic Caucus isn't like that but holy shit.

Anyway, it's South Carolina Democratic Primary day. It's widely expected to be a route for Clinton on simple demographics. However, if Sanders loses by less than 20 points, he would have beaten his demographic target and have genuinely good news. Even if he loses by 21 or 22 points, that would be within statistical noise of him being on demographic target to be getting half the overall vote. The media is probably going to call it a big win no matter what,and the Bernie Bros are going to point to polls from back in June or something when people were thinking that it was going to be Clinton v Biden to show how much ground has been made. But the bottom line is that 23+ points for Hillary is a "real" win, 18 points or less is a Bernie win, and everything in between is basically a tie.

-Username17

[Schleiermacher]

That's the opposite of the way I'm used to seeing people use "rout" - but are you saying that you thnk the general election will be Clinton vs. Trump?

I know it's strictly speaking too early to say that just on the basis of Super Tuesday, but if Trump wins most or all of the states he will have such a commanding lead that I can't see how anyone can catch up to him -especially since there's little reason to think his support will suddenly evaporate in later states, in that case.

(How can such an obvious maniac have such broad support?)

[Ancient History]

(How can such an obvious maniac have such broad support?)

All he needs is to be the least-disagreeable option. The "Anyone-But-Trump" vote is still being split between Rubio, Cruz, Undecided, Kasich, and Carson (more or less in that order).

Anyway, at this point the goal of the not-Trump candidates is to try and deny Trump a supermajority on the first vote - which would lead to a brokered convention.

[Parthenon]

(How can such an obvious maniac have such broad support?)

The way I look at it is that Trump is about a third insane bigotry and insulting detractors to get his name know, a third making up random bullshit so that it isn't obvious that he has no actual plan, and the most important third being on point and accurate criticism of the current political system and his overly simplistic and terrible suggestion of how to fix it.

Because he's right when he points out that there is too much money in politics and how all the other republican candidates are from an almost monarchy, are terrible candidates, or are so deep in other people's pockets that they have no say.

He's right when he points out that Clinton is just as reliant on big corporations, to the point that she went to his wedding.

He's right when he points out that previous governments, even if it was republicans, have fucked over the country to make it easy for corporations, such as medicare not being able to negotiate prices.

And so on. He is like Sanders in saying that the current system is shitty but unlike Sanders actually having a plan and desirable goals, Trump's plan is to put him in charge and he'll magically make America great again.

Sanders says that theres too much money so he'll take only small donations and be guided by the people, while Trump says that theres too much money so he'll be in charge since he has enough money to not be guided by donations.

If Sanders was running as Republican instead of Trump he'd probably have similar numbers to Trump just for the basic message that the current system is fucked and a candidate is needed which isn't funded by corporations and oligarchs.

[name_here]

That's the opposite of the way I'm used to seeing people use "rout" - but are you saying that you thnk the general election will be Clinton vs. Trump?

That does seem to be where things are headed. The Republican establishment completely fucked up playing puppetmaster and don't have their ducks in a row for properly opposing him on Super Tuesday, and it's not looking very likely they'll be able to make up lost ground. They'll be looking for a brokered convention at best, I'm thinking.

[MGuy]

That's the opposite of the way I'm used to seeing people use "rout" - but are you saying that you thnk the general election will be Clinton vs. Trump?

That does seem to be where things are headed. The Republican establishment completely fucked up playing puppetmaster and don't have their ducks in a row for properly opposing him on Super Tuesday, and it's not looking very likely they'll be able to make up lost ground. They'll be looking for a brokered convention at best, I'm thinking.

Underestimated the Trump they did. I'm genuinely surprised myself that he's doing so well. I REALLY would've thought that they'd have shut him down by now but the hilarity continues.

[Ancient History]

Underestimated the Trump they did. I'm genuinely surprised myself that he's doing so well. I REALLY would've thought that they'd have shut him down by now but the hilarity continues.

Trump is symptomatic of how little control the Republicans have of their own process. It's not that they don't want to shut him down, they cannot. It's why the 2012 GOP primary was a clown car, and it's why the 2016 GOP primary is a clown car. The GOP has no effective means of declaring a candidate is bullshit and not actually allowed to run.

[name_here]

I do remember 2012, but it wasn't until at least September that I actually thought Trump himself would still be relevant come Iowa, I figured he'd have a lot of support for a month or two and then he'd somehow disappoint his supporters and they'd find someone else, like the various people who were not Romney last time around. Then I figured it was at least reasonably likely that the GOP leadership would be able to arrange matters so he'd lose, but they have totally fucked up at that. They've still got multiple establishment candidates, and the leading one is kind of a fuckup.

[Maj]

The Republican fiasco just demonstrates how much their whiny political philosophy is crap. Seventeen candidates threw themselves into the clown car for fame and fortune. With each person in it for themselves, we've watched the whole thing just devolve into puddle of shit. And Trump's campaign just puts the nail in the coffin: the media won't shut up about him, even though ignoring him is the one way to stop him, because it's money in their pockets - he makes good ratings.

They are literally demonstrating how their kind of politics will cause everything to implode.