Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

That said, I don't think Trump's path is clear now. With Rubio dropping out and his team telling supporters to back Cruz, there could be a significant shift in support for Cruz, while I don't think that Trump will get many of the Rubio supporters. At the same time, the establishment lost their only horse left in the race. After trying and failing to make Cruz kiss their ring (not literally), they have the choice to either back him or back Trump. Now we're seeing much more support from the establishment republicans who don't want Cruz in office, but who see him as the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, my most conservative friend on Facebook has been very high on Rubio, and he's not switched to Cruz.  He's been saying "Never Trump" at the end of every post so he's going with the best path to that.  I can't imagine he'd go Hillary, but we'll see what happens if Trump gets it.

I still like Kasich.  Think he'd be a good choice.  If Trump was reasonable, I think he'd be a great VP too.  He has the experience to help Trump along, but Kasich said he'd never join a Trump ticket.  Kasich could help the GOP win Ohio, which would be a key state.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

As for the republicans not humoring Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice... I don't think it's unusual or unexpected. There was just a line in an episode of House of Cards about voting in a Justice during an election, as though it was unthinkable. And that would have been filmed long before it was a real life issue this year.

It's definitely unusual.  It is almost unprecedented, in fact, for the senate to not hold hearings on a nominee.  It last happened in 1844 after president John Tyler was renounced by the Whigs and both parties were determined to undermine him.  Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in an election year.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Confirmed in an election year, but the process started much earlier than that, and Kennedy came about after another nominee was rejected. And that was after a Planned retirement, not a sudden death.

We are eight months from the election. Eleven from inauguration day. The Republicans aren't going to approve Obama's nom. There is no reason for them to. They could put on a show, but wouldn't that be wasting everyone's time?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Confirmed in an election year, but the process started much earlier than that, and Kennedy came about after another nominee was rejected. And that was after a Planned retirement, not a sudden death.

We are eight months from the election. Eleven from inauguration day. The Republicans aren't going to approve Obama's nom. There is no reason for them to. They could put on a show, but wouldn't that be wasting everyone's time?

The reason they might approve would be fear of losing the senate and ending up with someone much further to the left or Donald Trump being president and nominating ghod knows who.  He was pro-choice for a long time before expediently changing when he decided to run.  Wait until next year and they might be in the minority looking at someone like Pam Karlan as the nominee.

Polls suggest most people want the senate to do their job and vote on Obama's nominee.  Dragging their feet is going to hurt in November.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

A republican senate isn't going to confirm a very liberal nominee. Even if they went through the whole process and only rejected him in the end, people would complain that they're not doing their job, because that's what the liberal politicians are saying. They will continue to say it unless Garland is confirmed, especially since it's an election year and it makes for a good stump speech.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Is Garland "very liberal?"  I thought I read (very briefly) that he's pretty moderate.  Is he not?

I think they should just go ahead and put on the show.  I don't think it's a waste of time.  Not anymore than anything else the Senate does.  If they reject him, that's cool.  The next president will handle it.

But, again, if Trump is president, the spot might never get filled smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

A republican senate isn't going to confirm a very liberal nominee. Even if they went through the whole process and only rejected him in the end, people would complain that they're not doing their job, because that's what the liberal politicians are saying. They will continue to say it unless Garland is confirmed, especially since it's an election year and it makes for a good stump speech.

Garland certainly isn't very liberal.  When the GOP loses the senate and the presidency they'll be wishing they had confirmed him when they had the chance.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Jimmy Carter ran the White House the same way he ran his peanut farm.  It didn't work out well.

He's history's greatest monster!

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Garland certainly isn't very liberal.  When the GOP loses the senate and the presidency they'll be wishing they had confirmed him when they had the chance.

Yeah I'd rather take a choice from Obama than Hillary.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Garland certainly isn't very liberal.  When the GOP loses the senate and the presidency they'll be wishing they had confirmed him when they had the chance.

Yeah I'd rather take a choice from Obama than Hillary.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a lame duck confirmation in December if Hillary wins the election, especially if the Demos win the senate.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I really don't know much about him. I've heard a lot from both sides and I haven't really had time to do much research this week. But the fact remains, there is really no incentive for the republicans to approve him. There is a very solid chance that a republican will be President by this time next year. You can say that Hillary has a lot of support, but she hasn't even begun to be held accountable for her actions in the public eye and neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz would allow her to slip by without throwing those actions in her face. Romney or McCain probably would have, but they're not around (yet).

Hillary's campaign doesn't have the energy of Obama's. She isn't going to make non-voters get out and vote. She isn't going to convert republicans. I'm not convinced that she will solidify her own party. I don't think democrat voter turnout will be impressive, just because she's a rich old white lady who acts like a rich old white lady. And on top of that, it would be super easy to make campaign ads featuring Hillary in a spinoff of Orange is the New Black.

Trump is a disaster. Don't get me wrong about that. I don't like him. I don't want him. I don't know if I'd bother to vote if he's the nominee. But his supporters are riled up and energized. He is a rich old white man who talks like a rich old white man, but he uses enough bad language and shocking threats to attract the angry voters.

Having these two in the race is embarrassing.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Hillary's campaign doesn't have the energy of Obama's. She isn't going to make non-voters get out and vote. She isn't going to convert republicans. I'm not convinced that she will solidify her own party. I don't think democrat voter turnout will be impressive, just because she's a rich old white lady who acts like a rich old white lady.

Yeah, I agree with this.  Except if Trump is the Republican nominee.  In that case, I think voter turnout (on both sides) would be huge.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, but Trump would build a wall around every voting booth to keep democrats out.

I really don't think that Trump will be the nominee. But that could be desperate hope talking.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The number one concern for GOP is what a Trump ticket will do to their Senate, House, and Governor candidates appearing on the November ballot.  If he drags them all down, it's a complete disaster.  He can win Presidency and fight them night and day as the current President has been.  They don't care, Washington GOP cares most about controlling the money aka Congress.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Question - does Trump owe a lot of his success to the fact that Hillary is the Democratic candidate?  I think enough people dislike her that most people might even see him as the lesser of two evils.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I'm sure that Hillary is part of the reason. Trump can be whatever people want him to be. He has expressed just about every belief out there at one point or another. Democrats can like him because he says a lot of Democrat things. Republicans can like him because he says a lot of Republican things.

The only thing that is needed for someone to like Trump is a lack of real research.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Question - does Trump owe a lot of his success to the fact that Hillary is the Democratic candidate?  I think enough people dislike her that most people might even see him as the lesser of two evils.

I don't see how that makes him preferable to Kasich or Rubio or Jeb.  None of them are Hillary Clinton either.  Trump is actually closer to being Clinton than any of them are.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

My brother recently started working for a conservative talk radio station that opened in our area, so I've been listening to it.  I think it was Lars Larson who gave a good idea what the average Trump voter is thinking.

Lars stated that the Trump voter honestly doesn't care about most of what Trump says; instead they are looking at two things as their expectation.  They want the wall at the Mexico border built, and they want the Trade deals to change (which are blamed with costing American jobs).  Trump has owned these issues during the campaign, and his people believe he is the only one running who hasn't had a chance to try to address them.

The American people are used to being conned; it's an accepted form of American politics and the expected motivation of all candidates.  But many people have reached the point where they no longer feel like they are being conned - they instead feel like they've been kicked in the stomach and robbed.  There is a difference.

People have to be thrown a bone every once in awhile; and in this election, the wall has turned out to be the bone for many people.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The wall is simply hilarious to me.  Obama has been a deporting machine.  This is a red meat issue that frankly is almost irrelevant to America's problems.  The trade deals are a sore spot for a LOT of people, both conservative and liberal.  Firstly, 99% of people don't even know what's in them.  Nor do they truly know what affect they've had, good or bad.  They just assume they are heinous.  Okay, but Trump literally cannot fix them.  To pull out of a massive trade deal would be economic anarchy, the markets would shit the bed.  Like Obamacare, he would have to replace them with something.  And that something would need to pass Congress.  He cannot unilaterally do these things, which again, is something people don't realize. 

I can definitely envision Trump proclaiming he'll fix climate change in November, I see it now.  He'll say anything.  I just read an article about how mystified (and appalled) GOP leadership is when they've found out who are advising Trump on foreign policy.  Some are people they've never ever heard of.  Others are psychos who are at home on the Alex Jones type of conspiracy internet radio/video.  This is what scares me the most with Trump.  Who is this guy going to appoint to run the country????

I do sense that people are pissed, and that's natural.  Their ire should be directed on the CEO culture that has destroyed unions, closed down jobs, pillaged retirement funds, blocked universal healthcare, poisoned people, and bankrupted the infrastructure of the nation.  Many of these officials are Republican governors who now back Trump.  Chris Christie, Rick Scott, etc.  This is so absurd because while Trump is parading around government spending (on infrastructure, social security, military), he's being backed by those who have turned state governments into a complete wreck.  At least Kasich can tout that his state's house is mostly in order.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump wants to replace Obamacare with universal coverage.  Unlike the establishment Republicans, he realizes that the rank & file GOP voters also want that.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well there are a number of things at hand.  There are racist folks in the south who want to get a white supremacist (and whether he is or not, that's how he's seen) in the White House after eight years of Obama.  There are white Democrats who feel marginalized by their own party (who they feel don't care about them as much as they care about the minority vote - that the party assumes they'll vote and don't court them anymore).  There are pockets (like Union officials) that usually vote democrat but like some of Trump's rhetoric.  And there's the fact that Trump is seen as an outsider and not covered in the slime that Washington politicians are.

Add all that up, and you see his power.  But, again, there are democrats who will never vote for Hillary Clinton.  She's seen as untrustworthy by the majority of the country.  It reminds me of 2004 - Bush was despised in a lot of the same ways that Trump is despised.  Was also called Hitler.  And yet the Democrats decided to throw in a candidate that was so underwhelming that Bush beat him.

Hillary is going to have Bernie supporters that either stay home on Election Day or go to Trump, especially if that race continues to get dirty.  She's going to have people who will not vote for her because she's untrustworthy.  Trump is a controversial figure, but I'd argue that Hillary is almost as controversial.  She's being buoyed by her husband's success, and she's thriving off her husband's name.  But Hillary herself is very unlikable nationally.

With another ISIS attack today, she's gonna take another hit.  She's seen as weak on national security, and whether that's true or not, Trump would make her look weak on national security.  Attack will mean Benghazi.  He'll hammer her on the emails and the indictment.  And she'll either have to fight back, or she'll have to play the victim.  And I don't know if either of those strategies would work for her.  And it literally wouldn't matter if what he says is true because Americans don't see to care.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I would disagree that republicans want universal healthcare. Conservatives and libertarians want the government involved in as little of their lives as possible. Putting the government in charge of healthcare is exactly what they don't want.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I would disagree that republicans want universal healthcare. Conservatives and libertarians want the government involved in as little of their lives as possible. Putting the government in charge of healthcare is exactly what they don't want.

Libertarians have no influence in the GOP.

Many of the rank & file Republican voters have no problem with government programs as long as they're able to benefit from them.  They don't like welfare and food stamps and similar programs because it's only available to some of the people, the one's they see as lazy.  They love medicare and social security, which is how you get to them carrying signs saying "keep the government out of my medicare" and the like.  That seems silly on its face, but what they're really saying is "don't politicize my health".  If universal health care was put up for referendum it would pass overwhelmingly with majorities of both parties.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I know some libertarians, and they tend to vote along the republican/conservative side in major elections because their own candidates don't usually make it far. Libertarians and conservatives have a lot in common, though there are significant differences.

I have to disagree with your comment about ordinary republicans supporting large government programs. While this may be true for the more moderate/liberal republicans, it's not true of the majority. The republican voters tend to be pretty conservative. Conservative values are about less big government control over our personal lives. You paint this as only being interested in what helps them, and no interest in helping others. That's not the case.

The programs that you're talking about are programs that people pay into with every paycheck. The government takes that money from the people, and the people do have an interest in getting it back. However, if you listen to a lot of republicans, they also talk about restructuring those programs to give individuals more control over their own money and taking the federal government out of it.

Universal healthcare is a failing policy. It has been proven time and time again to reduce the quality of care, while driving taxes through the roof. That is the standard viewpoint of the average republican in this country. If it weren't, every republican candidate out there would be running on a platform of passing universal healthcare, but it's not as simple as "everyone gets taken care of" and republicans tend to know that. Someone is going to have to pay for it. Who? We're already in enough debt. And once you're in the business of approving or not approving medical procedures, you're in the business of turning down those who aren't seen as a worthy investment. Conservatives do not like a big government approach to life. They want more local controls of health, schools, and most other things. Your theory that most republicans support universal healthcare goes against the very fabric of republican (and definitely conservative) ideals.

Look at the standard republican/conservative point of view... they are about reducing government, not growing it. (of course, there are some republicans who support programs that would grow government, but that is not where the party's voter base is coming from)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I've seen Republicans in charge at the federal level.  They don't reduce the size or scope of government.  Bush had majorities in the house and senate for the first six years of his presidency.  Not a single cabinet department got a budget cut.  In fact, they all got huge increases.  The Department of Energy, which they supposedly want to eliminate, had its budget doubled under Bush.

I'm not in favor of universal health care, but I recognize that it is inevitable.  We'll go that way for the same reason every other civilized country already has, it saves money.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

That is why the Republican party is seeing such a huge internal backlash now. The politicians aren't in line with the voters. That is why the two front-runners are considered anti-establishment.

I disagree that we just have to throw up our hands and give in to universal healthcare. I don't see it as inevitable. If we learn the lesson of those countries who have universal healthcare now, we won't go anywhere near it.  There is still plenty of time to avoid that iceberg... But it will take work, since the media rarely discusses the downside of universal healthcare, and most voters don't know anything beyond "Free!" (Not that even this part is true)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

The wall is simply hilarious to me.  Obama has been a deporting machine.

To understand the psychology on the situation, you have to shrink it down.   Imagine reading in your local paper that police are arresting record numbers of burglars in your city; do you say to yourself, "The law seems to have a handle on this; I guess I don't really need to lock my doors or pay for that security system anymore."

If you're honest with yourself, there is something inside you that gives you a sense of security having a door on your dwelling that you can close and lock.  The door isn't going to stop anyone that really wants to get inside; they can pick the lock or even just kick the door in, yet you still have a solid door that you can lock.

Most people want something solid that they can see and touch; statistics don't make the average person feel safe.  And we're beyond a fence doing the trick too; that's like saying only put a screen door on your home.  Fear rarely equals reason.  It's just human nature.

As for the trade deals, it can change; but what many can't accept or don't understand is that it will be very painful to change.  Is Trump selling it that way?  Of course not; no one would buy it.  Personally, I don't believe Trump ever thought he would be this successful.  I believe Trump's plan was to make a reasonable showing , say what people wanted to hear and then live the rest of his life off million dollar speaking fees at various events.  This whole thing has gotten away from him, and he's just holding on.

Trump loves running for President; when he becomes President, he isn't going to be as enthused.  It could easily turn into a Ulysses S Grant scenario where you have a President who doesn't really care and let's others run it.  Some would argue that's been the Obama philosophy too, but I believe he has had many pet issues he has pushed as personal goals.

78 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-04-15 14:13:38)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Oh man....I watched the whole CNN Brooklyn Democratic Debate.  Barf barf barf.  Hillary Clinton is so slimy that I felt like I needed to take a shower.  The woman cozies up to Obama because she knows that he's really popular with African Americans, while her husband has been very critical of him so she can also court the vote that doesn't like him.  She routinely changes her opinion on guns or trade or immigration or crime depending on what audience she's in.  She panders to the Brooklyn audience as if she's one of them.  She acts like she earned both her job as a US senator and the secretary of state job because of her work ethic, not her last name.  It's insulting.

Every time I see her, all I think of is Frank Underwood.  Not only were the Underwoods based on the Clintons, but I feel like she's embracing that.  She's a southern Democrat who tries and smooth-talk people while secretly stabbing them in the back.  And it's so glaringly obvious to me that I have to wonder if she's resorted to some sort of black magic to trick people into not seeing it.  She wants to pretend like she's the spiritual successor to Barack Obama when she has much more in common with cartoonishly evil politicians like Tywin Lannister.

At this point, I don't care who beats her.  If it's Bernie, cool.  If it's Cruz, fine.  Hell, if it's Trump....I bet that guy gets impeached before he can do any real harm.  But when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.  I'd love it if she just had to spend the rest of her life pandering to the big banks at $225,000 a pop, talking about how she would've made them so much more money if the American people had just given her what she was owed.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Interesting that there is nobody jumping to disagree. smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I just don't know who you're going to vote for if...

when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.

...is a deal breaker.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I don't have an opinion of Hillary Clinton yet. I'm doing my research. I did write her as a one-term US President running for mayor of San Francisco in the fhird SLIDERS REBORN script, but that was a random detail of alt-history. Also, Slider_Quinn21 feels I have been rather hard on him lately over his opinions of Rey and Ben Affleck as Batman which I've (jokingly) characterized as hatred towards women and old people, so even if I disagreed with him (and I currently lack the knowledge to concur or dissent), I would probably sleep on it for a few weeks.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

I just don't know who you're going to vote for if...

when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.

...is a deal breaker.

True.  But I think we can agree that there's a difference between your typical politician and the laundry list of scandals that the Clintons have left in their wake.  If anyone can give me a reason to vote for her that doesn't involve "well, everyone else is also awful, and I think she's less awful", I promise to reconsider.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Also, Slider_Quinn21 feels I have been rather hard on him lately over his opinions of Rey and Ben Affleck as Batman which I've (jokingly) characterized as hatred towards women and old people, so even if I disagreed with him (and I currently lack the knowledge to concur or dissent), I would probably sleep on it for a few weeks.

I've tried being extra nice to old people to try and make up for my apparent internet hatred of them smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

http://www.wsj.com/articles/both-partie … 1460898001

I'm not alone.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

I just don't know who you're going to vote for if...

when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.

...is a deal breaker.

True.  But I think we can agree that there's a difference between your typical politician and the laundry list of scandals that the Clintons have left in their wake.  If anyone can give me a reason to vote for her that doesn't involve "well, everyone else is also awful, and I think she's less awful", I promise to reconsider.

So you'll vote for someone who's more awful instead?  Or are you looking at smaller party candidates?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

So you'll vote for someone who's more awful instead?  Or are you looking at smaller party candidates?

At this point, all the candidates are really bad.  What's funny is that I used to complain about candidates like John Kerry or Al Gore or even Mitt Romney or John McCain.  I think all of them would be much better than any of these people.

One reason why I think Bernie might be the best case scenario is because he's too old to run for a second term.  If Trump loses, he's done.  If Hillary loses, she's done.  Both of them would've gotten too close, and it'd just be over.  Cruz would be done.  Jeb and Rubio were basically embarrassed to the point where they can't seriously run again.  Same with most of the Democrats that ran.  A Bernie presidency means that a 2020 election would basically be an entirely new field. 

Which, after decades of Bushes and Clintons, would be so very refreshing.

If it's Trump vs. Clinton, I'll vote 3rd party.  I live in a red state so my vote won't matter anyway.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Hillary won big last night, and in her speech, she tried to court Bernie supporters.  But then one of her campaign advisors tweeted that Bernie needs to drop out because his campaign is "destructive."

What's funny is that Hillary clearly has the nomination locked up - it's almost impossible for Bernie to win....even at a contested convention, the Democrats would vote her in because it's "her turn" - but Bernie controls the general election.  What happens if Bernie is so turned off by the vitriol of the Clinton campaign that he doesn't endorse her?  What happens if he softly endorses her and the 1/3 (and growing) of his supporters flat-out refuse to vote Hillary?

Now I've seen the argument that "Democrats won't let Trump win just to spite Hillary" but there are two problems with that.  First, a lot of Bernie supporters aren't Democrats.  Young people don't give a crap about parties - they care about issues.  And so it's going to be hard to use party rhetoric to get Bernie people in line.  Second, I saw something really interesting on Twitter last night when I was searching #NeverHillary.  Several Bernie people were responding to "Well, you're going to vote Hillary to avoid Trump" with "Maybe this country deserves Trump."

Bernie folks seem tired of getting jerked around by the Democrats.  This election was rigged for Hillary before it even started, and they're tired of feeling like the deck is stacked against them.  So I wouldn't be surprised if they do vote against the Democrats - either by voting 3rd party, not voting at all, or, yes, voting Republican. 

If I'm the RNC, I'm doing everything I can to court the Bernie voters.  I'm not sure exactly how they can do that (Bernie is to the left of Hillary), but there are some issues that Trump can use (trade, unions, the Iraq War, actually) to court them.

I think Hillary's people are assuming that the Bernie vote will get in line.  Her surrogates keep saying that she did it for Obama.  The difference is that her people are hardcore establishment Democrats who, of course, fell in line.  Unfortunately for Hillary, I don't think Bernie folks care about Democrats enough to do that after the way they've been treated.  Because they certainly don't care about her enough.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The Bernie Bros will come around just like the PUMAs did eight years ago.  Clinton didn't drop out until Obama had the nomination locked up, in June.  Why she would expect any different from Sanders is puzzling.

Sanders needs to stay in just in case Clinton gets indicted (which is unlikely, but not impossible).

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Hillary hopefully won't get indicted until a new President is in office. Obama would just wave his magic wand and pardon her.

Regardless of whether Bernie supporters will or will not go for Hillary, the Democratic party is weaker than it was four or eight years ago. Obama was more of a pop culture movement than a candidate. People voted for him because he had a cool poster and Oprah liked him. Hillary is too corrupt and too well known to get away with it. She isn't energizing their party at all.

As for Trump... I have no idea who is voting for him or why. I may need to self medicate my way through the next few years if he is elected.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump is making a mockery of the process. He is appealing to the ugliness of America. The xenophobia, the mysoginist, the racism. Its a mad house.
that being said, I never thought the Trumpster had a chance of getting the nomination. I thought cooler heads would prevail and the RNC would find a way to torpedo his campaign. This has not happened.

Clinton is riding in on her popularity as First Lady and the fact that her husband was so beloved by many Dems.  However, I do not have faith in her and think she is not what she appears to be. She is simply a corporate lackey, in bed with the banks and super uber riche.
Many are fed up with the obstruction that dogger President Obama and many feel that Clinton can work with both sides of the aisle. While they fear that Sanders would face such obstruction and little or nothing would get done or ever change.

IMO, I think America needs the Bern but the DNC, Clinton machine is going to  do all it can to prevent that from happening

That's my two cents for what its worth...

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

The Bernie Bros will come around just like the PUMAs did eight years ago.

See, I don't know if they will.  There's a huge difference between the people that supported Hillary (older establishment Democrats) and the people who are supporting Bernie (younger independents).  The Hillary people knew that if they just got in line for Obama, she'd get the nomination in 2016.  They also supported the party more than just one candidate, and a lot of them were lifelong Democrats who would've voted for the blue candidate regardless.

A lot of Bernie supporters don't care about the Democratic party.  They're supporting a candidate, not a party.  And a lot of them see Hillary as the enemy.  I do agree that a lot of Bernie's people will probably support Hillary if Bernie endorses her, but a lot of them have already come out and said that they'd vote 3rd party even if Bernie tells them too.  There's even a great number of them that will write-in Bernie regardless of whether he runs.  They're young and they don't have any faith in the system.  Their candidate isn't going to get his turn if he doesn't win this election.  And they'd see it as Hillary forcing Bernie to endorse her moreso than anything.

If the Democratic party is able to rally in November, it'll be rallying against Trump....not for Hillary.  For all the stuff she says about being a uniter, she's almost as hated as Trump nationally.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, Jill Stein has already made a few moves on Twitter to get some of the Bernie supporters that Hillary is driving away.  It'll be interesting to see if she's able to pull enough votes to scare the Democrats.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well, Jill Stein has already made a few moves on Twitter to get some of the Bernie supporters that Hillary is driving away.  It'll be interesting to see if she's able to pull enough votes to scare the Democrats.

Stein was the Green Party nominee four years ago and got about 1/3 of 1% of the vote.  I doubt she'll do any better this time if she's the Green nominee again.

95 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-04-23 15:27:56)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Ralph Nader only got 685,128 votes (0.71% of the popular vote) in 1996.  In 2000, he got 2,882,955 votes (2.74%), including 97,488 in Florida.  The state that decided the election by 537 votes.

And if you didn't think Nader had an impact on 2000, Hillary's people are already calling Bernie the next Nader.  So if Stein can get the same jump that Nader got and steal away any of the Bernie people....it's going to be a problem for her.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Ralph Nader only got 685,128 votes (0.71% of the popular vote) in 1996.  In 2000, he got 2,882,955 votes (2.74%), including 97,488 in Florida.  The state that decided the election by 537 votes.

And if you didn't think Nader had an impact on 2000, Hillary's people are already calling Bernie the next Nader.  So if Stein can get the same jump that Nader got and steal away any of the Bernie people....it's going to be a problem for her.

This election isn't going to be that close.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Agree to disagree smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Another thing about Jill Stein the Greens, ballot access has been severely restricted since 2000.  Right now they're on the ballot in 18 states.  At best they'll get to 25 or 26.  Nader was on in 43.  Part of the reason we haven't had any serious competition for the older parties recently is that they've manipulated the laws to prevent it.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Yeah but look at the states that she'd definitely be on the ballot in.  Because the election always comes down to a state here and a state there.  If Nader was only on the ballot in one state (Florida), he still would've disrupted the 2000 election.

Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida were the closest states in 2012 - they're your "battleground states".  Jill Stein is already on the ballot in five of those, and every one but Indiana is a possibility in 2016.  But of the big battleground states (Colorado, Ohio, and Florida), she's there.  And it wouldn't take a crazy amount of votes to change things up.

For example, what if Kasich actually becomes the VP candidate for the Republican?  Heck, what if he somehow steals the nomination?  It wouldn't take much for the Republicans to win Ohio in that case.  Same with Colorado and Florida.  That alone gives the Republicans 262 votes (if you give them every state that McCain or Romney got).  So it'd just take the Republican flipping basically any state that Obama got, and the election is over.

I'm not saying that Stein is going to win any of those states or even do half as well as Nader did.  But if she steals a few thousand votes here or there in any of those battleground states, it's going to be a problem.  And that doesn't even include people who decide not to vote, people who write in Bernie (not sure which states allow that), or people who get flipped to Trump.

Hillary is probably going to win.  But even against Trump (which is a dream scenario for her), I think she's going to struggle to unify the party.  And I don't think she'd do well with Independents so the party is basically all she has.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The Democrats are more likely to be united than the Republicans are.  No matter who the Republican nominee is it will be someone most of the party voted against in the primaries.  Kasich even now has fewer votes and delegates than Marco Rubio.  He hasn't won anything but his home state against Trump and Cruz, what makes you think he can do so against Hillary Clinton?

There's also the possibility of a Trump proxy running if he doesn't get the nomination.  His supporters aren't going to get behind Cruz or Kasich or anyone else likely to come out of a contested convention.