POTUS Election thread

[Husar]

Why are you so sure?

He has grown from a no-name senator to a guy who can challenge Clinton. He has a very enthusiastic base and republican attacks can't change that. They just prove his point. He would also be the one to gain from a higher voter turnout, so the more attention in the media, the more likely he is to profit.

Bernie has shown he is quite capable. If he mobilizes the youth, there's gonna be no stopping him.

I wish it were so and I'd definitely vote for him if I could, but I suppose Hillary is going to get the democratic nomination because we can't have actual change and noone really wants that.
The only thing that really matters in politics is that trickle up never changes.

[Sarmatian]

Win or lose, Sanders has shown that young people especially want a significant change and that they are tired with the two factions of the "Business party" battling it out.

[Husar]

Win or lose, Sanders has shown that young people especially want a significant change and that they are tired with the two factions of the "Business party" battling it out.

You can count me among them.

[Hooahguy]

He has grown from a no-name senator to a guy who can challenge Clinton. He has a very enthusiastic base and republican attacks can't change that. They just prove his point. He would also be the one to gain from a higher voter turnout, so the more attention in the media, the more likely he is to profit.

His base is mostly independent white people who are also young. Ive been to a Bernie rally, and that was the vast majority of people there. Hardly a real base. A true base wouldnt say "if Bernie doesnt get the nomination then Im not going to vote" they say "well she isnt ideal but we risk losing everything if we dont turn out for Hillary." Sanders supporters, of the kind that I have encountered in the wild, reek of "hey this guy is offering me free stuff, lets vote for him!" They dont actually care about left-wing values, they just orbit around Planet Bernie. In my honest opinion they are walking into a GOP trap. By purposely not really attacking Bernie, the GOP is giving Sanders a false sense of security that he can actually win. Then they pounce and he will get wrecked since he has a lot of skeletons in his closet that are ripe to see sunlight. At least Hillary has been weathering their attacks for decades, she knows how to handle it. Im not convinced that Bernie does. He just goes back to the tired trope that anyone who opposes him is obviously in the hands of the banks and whatnot, seemingly not understanding that a large portion of the country are outright opposed to him ideologically. There will be no "revolution" that sweeps the country as Bernie envisions, putting in congressmen who agree with Bernie because there are simply too many people who dont agree with him on a fundamental level.

Bernie has shown he is quite capable. If he mobilizes the youth, there's gonna be no stopping him.

The youth vote is notoriously unreliable. Not saying they should be discounted but you cant rely on them.

I wish it were so and I'd definitely vote for him if I could, but I suppose Hillary is going to get the democratic nomination because we can't have actual change and noone really wants that.
The only thing that really matters in politics is that trickle up never changes.

You do realize that Sanders and Clinton match up rather closely when it comes to issues right? Their main difference is that Bernie wants to tear everything down and build from scratch while Hillary wants to build on what Obama has done so far.

[Sarmatian]

His base is mostly independent white people who are also young. Ive been to a Bernie rally, and that was the vast majority of people there. Hardly a real base. A true base wouldnt say "if Bernie doesnt get the nomination then Im not going to vote" they say "well she isnt ideal but we risk losing everything if we dont turn out for Hillary."

That just means that Bernie is reaching out to those who don't vote in the elections in general. They see Hillary as "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Sanders supporters, of the kind that I have encountered in the wild, reek of "hey this guy is offering me free stuff, lets vote for him!" They dont actually care about left-wing values, they just orbit around Planet Bernie. In my honest opinion they are walking into a GOP trap.

The Big Short joke aside, I still believe Clinton will win the nomination. But, if Sanders wins, I wouldn't discount him so easily. He is experienced and he knows what he is up against as he's been fighting them for a very long time.

By purposely not really attacking Bernie, the GOP is giving Sanders a false sense of security that he can actually win. Then they pounce and he will get wrecked since he has a lot of skeletons in his closet that are ripe to see sunlight. At least Hillary has been weathering their attacks for decades, she knows how to handle it. Im not convinced that Bernie does.

I don't really think Sanders isn't aware of possible avenues of attack.

He just goes back to the tired trope that anyone who opposes him is obviously in the hands of the banks and whatnot, seemingly not understanding that a large portion of the country are outright opposed to him ideologically. There will be no "revolution" that sweeps the country as Bernie envisions, putting in congressmen who agree with Bernie because there are simply too many people who dont agree with him on a fundamental level.

Possibly.

The youth vote is notoriously unreliable. Not saying they should be discounted but you cant rely on them.

They are also very powerful when energized. That's how Milosevic lost the elections. In the first round no less, because the young went out to vote. Even if Sanders loses, he has shown just how disgruntled the young people in America are, and that they want real change. They don't care who's in charge of the system, they want to change the system. What happens when a younger, charismatic politician start doing the same in 4, 8, 12 or 16 years.

You do realize that Sanders and Clinton match up rather closely when it comes to issues right? Their main difference is that Bernie wants to tear everything down and build from scratch while Hillary wants to build on what Obama has done so far.

Actually, I'm seeing Clinton as same old, same old. Sanders is the first one who is calling the system rigged.

[Hooahguy]

That just means that Bernie is reaching out to those who don't vote in the elections in general. They see Hillary as "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

So he is appealing to people who have no actual grasp of how politics work. Gotcha.

But, if Sanders wins, I wouldn't discount him so easily. He is experienced and he knows what he is up against as he's been fighting them for a very long time.

Hardly. If they managed to turn Kerry, who is a legit war hero, into a lying coward in 2004, imagine what they will do to Bernie.

I don't really think Sanders isn't aware of possible avenues of attack.

Maybe, but are his supporters?

They are also very powerful when energized. That's how Milosevic lost the elections. In the first round no less, because the young went out to vote. Even if Sanders loses, he has shown just how disgruntled the young people in America are, and that they want real change. They don't care who's in charge of the system, they want to change the system. What happens when a younger, charismatic politician start doing the same in 4, 8, 12 or 16 years.

So it would be a repeat of 2008? Not really the same conditions now as it was in 2008.

Actually, I'm seeing Clinton as same old, same old. Sanders is the first one who is calling the system rigged.

Ok.

Hes hardly the first, and wont be the last. Again, with Clinton I'm seeing a continuation of Obama. With Sanders I see someone who wants to change the whole system. Looking at things realistically, who do you think has more of a chance of effecting change? I want change, I really do. I would love to see Bernie's ideas put into action. I just do not think that the US is ready for those changes and trying to move too quickly risks losing all the progress that has been made over the past eight years.

[Husar]

You do realize that Sanders and Clinton match up rather closely when it comes to issues right? Their main difference is that Bernie wants to tear everything down and build from scratch while Hillary wants to build on what Obama has done so far.

Yes, the difference is that Hillary wants to continue on the path of working with the system, which means continuing to have tax loopholes, tax exemptions and other niceties that rich people can easily get and poor people can't. While Bernie thinks that continuing down this path is not really going to change anything other than details. I had good hopes with Obama, but as we have seen hope and change meant changing some details and leaving the core problem (trickle up) intact. I'm not saying that Hillary or Obama did not improve some things, I'm just wondering whether that is enough. It's very possible that Bernie couldn't change much more, but that doesn't change that I think he has a point and I'd still vote for him just to make that point instead of always going for the tired "electability compromise" that just perpetuates the basic problems.

[Hooahguy]

I agree that much more change is needed, but considering how split the country is, its better to go with the option of making gradual change to sow the seeds of bigger change later on. Too many people voted in Obama expecting things to change overnight and got burned. There is no reason why Sanders will be any different.

[Montmorency]

Sanders, if nominated, would be caught flat-footed in trying to elaborate a plank to a wider population than his current "base"; the Republican core are talking about entirely different things, so he would have to expand his own plank, reorient the parameters of the Republican debate to his own ground, and then throttle them left and right, pun intended.

A Sanders nomination would only have a chance against a Trump nomination - but this is 2016, not 1936 or sommit

[Sarmatian]

So he is appealing to people who have no actual grasp of how politics work. Gotcha.

Why do you assume people who don't vote have no grasp of politics? Does that mean that those who vote do have a grasp? How many votes would Trump get if nominated?

People can have a good grasp of politics, and precisely because of that, they can be disillusioned and refuse to cast their votes, because they feel there's no real choice.

Hardly. If they managed to turn Kerry, who is a legit war hero, into a lying coward in 2004, imagine what they will do to Bernie.

IIRC, Kerry won more votes than Bush.

Maybe, but are his supporters?

Well, the main line of attack against him by the GOP is basically the reason why his supporters have chosen him. And he appears to be gaining support not so much by cutting into Hilary's base, but by getting new voters.

I feel he'll prove much more resilient than many expect. Yes, in the end, he'll probably lose the nomination to Clinton, but she will have to put all her effort into it.

So it would be a repeat of 2008? Not really the same conditions now as it was in 2008.

Arguably, they are worse.

Ok.

Hes hardly the first, and wont be the last.

I haven't heard any other candidate refer to themselves as socialists. Maybe really far back.

Again, with Clinton I'm seeing a continuation of Obama. With Sanders I see someone who wants to change the whole system.

Even if we assume that Clinton isn't in the pockets of Wall Street and big corporations, surely, at this point, you must see that system is the reason Obama failed.

Looking at things realistically, who do you think has more of a chance of effecting change? I want change, I really do. I would love to see Bernie's ideas put into action. I just do not think that the US is ready for those changes and trying to move too quickly risks losing all the progress that has been made over the past eight years.

To change the system you have to fight against it, not work with it. That is the main difference between Hillary and Bernie in my view.
He may fail, but if I were American, I certainly wouldn't let the fear of failure stop me from trying.

[Hooahguy]

Why do you assume people who don't vote have no grasp of politics? Does that mean that those who vote do have a grasp? How many votes would Trump get if nominated?

People can have a good grasp of politics, and precisely because of that, they can be disillusioned and refuse to cast their votes, because they feel there's no real choice.

Because I have talked to those people and they assume that Hillary is the devil, Bernie is god, and he will obviously win in November because "feel the berrrrnnnn!" The vast majority have never voted in their lives and are being enticed by his promises of free stuff.

IIRC, Kerry won more votes than Bush.

Nope you are thinking of Gore in 2000.

Well, the main line of attack against him by the GOP is basically the reason why his supporters have chosen him. And he appears to be gaining support not so much by cutting into Hilary's base, but by getting new voters.

I feel he'll prove much more resilient than many expect. Yes, in the end, he'll probably lose the nomination to Clinton, but she will have to put all her effort into it.

The GOP has barely attacked him. I have yet to see or hear an attack ad against Bernie sponsored by GOP groups being played on the radio or TV. Im sure they are out there but almost all of them are being focused against Hillary. Again, if the GOP managed to trash Kerry on his war record, imagine what they will do with Bernie, who has no such record. In addition, the groups who do most of the local fighting are PACs and whatnot. Bernie has none, as he proudly claims. As such, he has no real way to combat all the fires that the GOP groups will set around the country. He could accept the help of the Democrat PACs, but that would go against one of the tenets of his campaign. Hes kinda backed himself into a corner here.

Arguably, they are worse.

Not what I meant. In 2008 there was a bad recession, two unpopular wars, and a very unpopular president. Now, 8 years after Obama the democrats are fighting an uphill battle.

I haven't heard any other candidate refer to themselves as socialists. Maybe really far back.

Obama was saying the system is rigged too. Maybe not quite as loudly, but the voices for change have been around forever.

Even if we assume that Clinton isn't in the pockets of Wall Street and big corporations, surely, at this point, you must see that system is the reason Obama failed.

But what does that even mean? Almost all the politicians take money from Wall Street and big corporations. Even Obama, and he pushed for very strict regulations against Wall Street and businesses. I want a president who looks favorably on Wall Street/big corporations just as much as small business and the like. Wall Street and co. is a big part of the economy and someone who demonizes them as much as Bernie has is not such a great thing in my opinion.

To change the system you have to fight against it, not work with it. That is the main difference between Hillary and Bernie in my view.
He may fail, but if I were American, I certainly wouldn't let the fear of failure stop me from trying.

Except that failure in this case means a reversal of everything Obama has accomplished. Obamacare is just a veto away from being removed, and considering that a number of SCOTUS justices are rather old, the next president might be picking new ones as well and I would rather have Hillary picking them over Rubio or god forbid Cruz.

[Husar]

I agree that much more change is needed, but considering how split the country is, its better to go with the option of making gradual change to sow the seeds of bigger change later on. Too many people voted in Obama expecting things to change overnight and got burned. There is no reason why Sanders will be any different.

You have to strive for the unattainable to get somewhere in the first place.
Also it can't hurt to make a point with your vote, even if you do not get exactly what you want, you show a lot of people that you want it.

A Sanders nomination would only have a chance against a Trump nomination - but this is 2016, not 1936 or sommit

History always repeats itself.

[Hooahguy]

You have to strive for the unattainable to get somewhere in the first place.
Also it can't hurt to make a point with your vote, even if you do not get exactly what you want, you show a lot of people that you want it.

I would agree, but there is so much at stake this election. If Bernie does get the nomination I will certainly vote for him, but I will not be like those faux-progressives who wont vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

[Greyblades]

I would rather have Hillary picking them over Rubio or god forbid Cruz.

What about trump?

[Montmorency]

What about trump?

He will delegate absolutely great people to pick them for him.

[Greyblades]

I know thats supposed to be a jab, but I cant help but feel that leaving the important choice to whatever random schmuck trump ropes into doing his job for him would probably be a step up to whoever the other candidates choose.

[Hooahguy]

So Trump crushed in New Hampshire as did Bernie. A bit surprised about Trump, not at all about Sanders. The real test for Sanders will be Super Tuesday.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Good analysis Hooah, just one minor quibble:

Sanders supporters, of the kind that I have encountered in the wild, reek of "hey this guy is offering me free stuff, lets vote for him!"

Pretty much every voter who prioritizes the economy (as opposed to social values or foreign policy) uses this as a guideline. Which candidate is it going to be easiest for me to make/keep money? Sanders just chooses to hammer that point home harder than most.

[Sarmatian]

Pretty much every voter who prioritizes the economy (as opposed to social values or foreign policy) uses this as a guideline. Which candidate is it going to be easiest for me to make/keep money? Sanders just chooses to hammer that point home harder than most.

Isn't this basically how everything works? The reason why big corporation invest in politicians, particularly republicans?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Exactly, for the most part, unless (as previously mentioned) voters de-emphasize it over social issues and/or foreign policy. I think Hooah's knocking Sanders for it mostly because he's delivering the same message but with a couple of key differences:

1) It's less subtle
2) It's going through different channels than usual

[Sarmatian]

Exactly, for the most part, unless (as previously mentioned) voters de-emphasize it over social issues and/or foreign policy. I think Hooah's knocking Sanders for it mostly because he's delivering the same message but with a couple of key differences:

1) It's less subtle
2) It's going through different channels than usual

I wouldn't say it is the same.

Since the system isn't in the balance, but heavily skewed towards one side, harsher rhetoric is easily more justifiable in one case than in the other.

[Sarmatian]

A question about the nomination process - Bernie won some 150 000 votes, about 60% and Hillary won 90 000, or about 38% or something like that. Yet, an article I read stated they both got 15 delegates each. How is that possible? Is that a mistake?

[GeneralHankerchief]

A question about the nomination process - Bernie won some 150 000 votes, about 60% and Hillary won 90 000, or about 38% or something like that. Yet, an article I read stated they both got 15 delegates each. How is that possible? Is that a mistake?

Not by design, but it's probably a mistake in principle (not going there though).

Basically the Democrats have an additional wrinkle to their nomination process called "superdelegates" - essentially elected officials and other party hotshots, who are not bound by the results of the primaries and are allowed to support whoever they damn well please. So even though Sanders won big in the New Hampshire primary, most of the state's superdelegates have pledged themselves to Clinton - with I think two remaining undecided at this point.

A big hurdle Obama had to deal with in 2008 was overcoming Clinton's at-one-time heavy advantage in terms of superdelegates, and Sanders is going to have the exact same problem.

[Sarmatian]

Basically the Democrats have an additional wrinkle to their nomination process called "superdelegates" - essentially elected officials and other party hotshots, who are not bound by the results of the primaries and are allowed to support whoever they damn well please.

Well, that is rude.

How many jumped ship and went over to Obama by the time of the convention in 2008?

[Greyblades]

[Greyblades]

Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia is dead.

The senate republicans have declared the will not approve anyone Obama picks.

The stakes for this election have now been set.

[Husar]

I think that's absurd, to leave such a position open for a year. Just as absurd as picking only party-puppets for the position.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia is dead.

The senate republicans have declared the will not approve anyone Obama picks.

The stakes for this election have now been set.

The GOP is taking a big gamble with this declaration as there is essentially no room for maneuver. Obama being where he is in his term will almost certainly nominate a moderate (while obviously still leaning liberal but you know what I mean) in order to ease along passage. If Clinton or Sanders end up winning the general the chances are extremely high that they - especially Sanders - will not be as conciliatory towards the Republicans with their nominee.

Basically an odd twist on the Prisoner's Dilemma. Take the 100% chance of a minor punishment, or go for broke and risk it all.

[Greyblades]

Obama took part in 2006 filibuster of Bush supreme court nomination, says it was 'symbolic'

The White House said Wednesday that President Obama “regrets” his filibuster as a senator in 2006 against Republican Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, as Democrats and liberal activists gear up to pressure Senate Republicans to allow a vote on Mr. Obama’s eventual nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Mr. Obama’s vote a decade ago to block Justice Alito was “symbolic,” while current Republican opposition to Mr. Obama filling the vacancy is “reflexive” and unfair, said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I've been following the issue of judicial confirmations since 2005 and for a time even interned for a lobbyist group that specialized in that area (I'm still on their mailing list). Ignore all the bullshit, it's 100% down to ideology. Both sides. If they're in power then they sing the tune of getting them confirmed and how the other party has no right to block qualified nominees in the name of politics. If they're not in power then they'll block away until deals get made. Then they'll ignore the deals the next time the issue becomes salient again. Once control switches, both sides do a complete 180 and then blast the other side's hypocrisy while conveniently ignoring their own. Lather rinse repeat.