The 2016 US American Election Thread

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, but I never said that it was a close call or whatever. I never felt the Bern.

I am just saying that his populist appeal managed to influence the Clinton camp. Nothing controversial there.

It got into Clintons speeches but likely doesn't make it into legislation. The anti TPP stance was likely a practical move based on her future republican opponent rather than a response to Bernie.

And I think increased minimum wage was always there but not the $15 minimum everywhere(which doesn't make sense)

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by GGG

He didn't come close to winning. His primary loss was one of the most lopsided ever. He just forgot to quit when he lost on Super Tuesday.

If was also an unfair primary.
For instance, voters in NY had to be registered as Democrats for years to be eligible to vote in the primary, which is an odd focus when the state is solid blue. It was a focus to keep independants, which were overwhelmingly Bernie supporters, from having their votes counted.

There is also the Victory Fund and other collusion with the DNC, like securing every single superdelegate before anyone else was in the race.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

It got into Clintons speeches but likely doesn't make it into legislation. The anti TPP stance was likely a practical move based on her future republican opponent rather than a response to Bernie.

And I think increased minimum wage was always there but not the $15 minimum everywhere(which doesn't make sense)

Sure, we'll see. I mean if a lot of her economic populism doesn't make it into legislation, then it will only exacerbate the problem that I am talking about.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Gozer

If was also an unfair primary.
For instance, voters in NY had to be registered as Democrats for years to be eligible to vote in the primary, which is an odd focus when the state is solid blue. It was a focus to keep independants, which were overwhelmingly Bernie supporters, from having their votes counted.

There is also the Victory Fund and other collusion with the DNC, like securing every single superdelegate before anyone else was in the race.

And caucuses exist keeping everyone out who isn't a hard core supporter.

[ResAlien]

Bit of a devil's advocate here but if Bernie wanted to run as a Democrat shouldn't he be beholden to the Democrat's rules? You don't get to switch teams and then complain about the way the game is played.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Republicans could not do that, and they paid the price for a fully populist candidate.

I agree with all of your post, and want to expand on this.

The GOP decided, after 2012 and the beating Romney took, to change their rules to make the path-to-victory really easy for the early frontrunner.
Just FYI for folks that don't follow this stuff as closely as I.

[FlamesAddiction]

I also wonder how much of this is on how badly G.W. Bush ran things into the ground. A lot of people lost trust in mainstream Republicans enough that they want an anti-establishment candidate. Then after 8 years of a democrat president and the likely case of at least 4 more, they are desperate enough to believe in someone as bad as Trump.

I actually don't think Trump is anti-establishment, but that is the angle he is trying to sell and some people seem to be buying it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Bit of a devil's advocate here but if Bernie wanted to run as a Democrat shouldn't he be beholden to the Democrat's rules? You don't get to switch teams and then complain about the way the game is played.

We are finding out ever more frequently that if you play the game right, then the rules never apply to you (see Clintons).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sure, we'll see. I mean if a lot of her economic populism doesn't make it into legislation, then it will only exacerbate the problem that I am talking about.

I don't disagree with you in general that the elitism in the Democratic Party will lead to populist candidates. My argument would be that they are not close to winning because of the structure of the democratic primary process.

-- not winner take all
-- Superdelagates although reduced to Congressmen and governers is still about 200 delagates.
-- More open primaries. In this case you had independants come out for Bernie. I would argue that was a rejection of Hillary rather than a support of Bernie populism amount independants.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

We are finding out ever more frequently that if you play the game right, then the rules never apply to you (see Clintons).

That ignores what I'm saying. Bernie was an independent who chose to hitch his horse to the Democrat cart and then got miffed at how things are done. Can't have it both ways. He could have run as an independent and done as he liked but he chose the Democratic party and you get the good with the bad.

The rules apply to Clinton as well, she's just better at this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think so. They're benefiting from Trump a lot, and will probably get even more cache out of him for the next couple of cycles.

They're benefiting from the GOP's inability to grow as a party more than anything. They are extremely well positioned to be the dominant party for a while. Demographics don't lie, Dems are winning all the biggest growing demos and have been for several elections now.

[photon]

Newest scandal from Wikileaks hacked Podesta emails is out. Nasty Podesta was apparently offered millions of dollars from a Nigerian prince. So corrupt. Sad!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Bit of a devil's advocate here but if Bernie wanted to run as a Democrat shouldn't he be beholden to the Democrat's rules? You don't get to switch teams and then complain about the way the game is played.

Reasonable argument, to a point.

If I come join your poker game, then I need to follow your rules. If one of the rules is "host gets 6 cards" then that's still cheating and you're not honest.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I also wonder how much of this is on how badly G.W. Bush ran things into the ground. A lot of people lost trust in mainstream Republicans enough that they want an anti-establishment candidate. Then after 8 years of a democrat president and the likely case of at least 4 more, they are desperate enough to believe in someone as bad as Trump.

I actually don't think Trump is anti-establishment, but that is the angle he is trying to sell and some people seem to be buying it.

Maybe except a strong majority of Americans (including many Republican voters) approve of Barack Obama, and would prefer him to either candidate.

Remember that HRC supported much of the Bush Doctrine, and has disagreed with Obama's more diplomatic/dovish approach to foreign policy.

The 2008/2009 financial crisis was the result of policies enacted and enforced by her husband, and the response was what any leader would have done - both for political and economic exigency.

[station]

Got a page behind here writing this but...

Anti-vaxx exists on the right because of religion. It exists on the left because of mistrust of authority as well as a general pessimistic world view that everything man-made is harmful.

Anti-climate change belief exists on the right as a reaction to environmental activism and the desire to preserve the economic conditions of the industrial era. It doesn't exist on the left because of the pessimistic world view mentioned above. They'll say it's because of the science but that's bs. Many people on the left who believe climate change is real have other non-scientific positions like anti-gmo.

And all of it comes from a lack of education and failure to understand that science is not a belief system. You can't choose to believe in science or not! It's a method used to discover the truth of ideas.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

They're benefiting from the GOP's inability to grow as a party more than anything. They are extremely well positioned to be the dominant party for a while. Demographics don't lie, Dems are winning all the biggest growing demos and have been for several elections now.

Maybe, maybe.

It is a strange election. Going back over the past 50 years, the GOP has proven to be the more adaptable political machine.

One thing the movement benefits from is a strong intellectual base that even though incredibly alienated has continued to analyze and discuss the "what's next."

This is something that I have always found far more agreeable in conservatism than on the left - which is the constant struggle to find out what is true, and actually balance a variety of perspectives.

Most of the left continues to be influenced by the Hegelian dream of political utopia with no compromise.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Reasonable argument, to a point.

If I come join your poker game, then I need to follow your rules. If one of the rules is "host gets 6 cards" then that's still cheating and you're not honest.

But I'm not the only poker game in town, you chose to join mine because you thought it gave you the best chance to win.

I don't buy the rigged against Bernie narrative that has been created. He lost as fairly as one can in politics. Sure we can argue that politics aren't fair but I thought everyone understood that here. You want fair? Join a softball league.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

But I'm not the only poker game in town, you chose to join mine because you thought it gave you the best chance to win.

I don't buy the rigged against Bernie narrative that has been created. He lost as fairly as one can in politics. Sure we can argue that politics aren't fair but I thought everyone understood that here. You want fair? Join a softball league.

Bernie is a confessed socialist. He's not going to join the Republican Party, and as someone with fairly real ambitions, he's not going to run for the Commies.

Political parties can be changed, redirected etc... by an influential minority.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by GGG

And caucuses exist keeping everyone out who isn't a hard core supporter.

Glenn Thrush does a podcast for Politico called Off Message.
He was in a diner on the evening of a local caucus and chatted up the server. She tells Glenn that she is a hardcore supporter, but can't vote because she would have to skip a full shift of work. No one working at the diner could caucus.
It really turned him (and me) against caucuses as undemocratic.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

Maybe, maybe.

It is a strange election. Going back over the past 50 years, the GOP has proven to be the more adaptable political machine.

One thing the movement benefits from is a strong intellectual base that even though incredibly alienated has continued to analyze and discuss the "what's next."

This is something that I have always found far more agreeable in conservatism than on the left - which is the constant struggle to find out what is true, and actually balance a variety of perspectives.

Most of the left continues to be influenced by the Hegelian dream of political utopia with no compromise.

50 years ago is.....50 years ago. The GOP has not adapted since 1980, and if not for hanging chads would be looking at their 7th consecutive general election loss. That sounds like extremely poor adaptability to me.