101 replies to this topic

[Jasi]

For whatever it's worth, my communist friends are pretty sure revolution is on the horizon?

[Selena]

Whether you favor grandiose conspiracy theories or a more simplistic "perfect storm of awful people and systems" scenario, I think most people are feeling like some kind of revolution / major reform / major party schism is in our immediate future. I'm not sure how things will play out, but this election will likely be critical -- regardless of which candidate ultimately wins.

 

Hopefully not Civil War II: The South Strikes Back. They'll put the icebase assault mission in all the video games and then it'll eventually start to get tiresome.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Holy shit, Indiana actually did something right. We voted Bernie over Hillary. Although we also killed Cruz's campaign, which is both a good and bad thing.

[Selena]

With Cruz's exit, the Republican primary race is essentially over -- Kasich doesn't have a chance in hell. Barring any truly surprising events, Drumpf is the Republican nominee. This will also shift full media attention to the Democratic race, which may give Bernie a needed boost with California soon approaching.

 

I doubt Bernie will steamroll Hilldawg like he did in the PNW, but he may be able to win just enough. Or enough to force a brokered convention. Which seems to be his fallback strategy now. That should be interesting. I'm not sure how he'd fare in one of those. Post-election delegate shakeups have seen people bail on Hillary and support Bernie (like Nevada). Anything could happen.

 

 

 

The longer the race goes on, the idea of voting for Clinton becomes even more.... unpalatable to me. To use a nice word. The DNC is only making it worse. None of them seem to understand how pissed the voters are with DNC establishment. One correspondent on CNN even thought all this "new enthusiasm!" was a sign the party was doing well. Um.... no, it's a sign voters are angry with you. And then you have the horrendously awful DNC chair calling for more closed primaries, saying that "only Democrats should elect Democrats." Basically to get the independents to fuck off. Right before pleading with them to vote for Hillary in the general.

 

More and more people are encouraging Bernie to run as an independent. It may be possible, though it would be incredibly risky unless the establishment GOP runs their own third party anti-Drumpf candidate. Which they might. 

 

 

 

If nothing else, hopefully petition the parties to majorly change their rules after this fiasco is over.

[Fëanen]

For what it's worth, Bernie has said that if he did lose, he'd support Hillary. He's smart enough to know how ticket splitting works and how absolutely vital those supreme court seats are, especially since Scalia's seat has been basically frozen until the election, precedent be damned.

 

I sincerely hope there's primary election reform from both parties, especially a paring-down if not elimination of superdelegates and an abolition of caucuses. The whole thing is only quasi-democratic at best. I think a preferential voting scheme would be an improvement too, but at the very least all states should have proportional delegate assignment and none of that winner takes all nonsense. I cannot tell you how much I loathe any form of first past the post voting. Actually, I can, but CGP Grey says everything I have to say about the issue of election systems a whole lot better.

 

Also, the primary schedule should be different each election. I'm kinda sick of Iowa and New Hampshire getting the first bite at the apple every time.

[wisp]

Yeah, caucuses are not cutting it anymore, and superdelegates are just plainly undemocratic. I really hope to see those glaring issues fixed. 

Debbie Wass-er-name seriously needs to step down. And you're right; the thought of voting for Hillary is becoming more unpalatable to me too. I thought I'd be Bernie or Bust, then I softened and thought nah, we'll need to support whichever Dem gets nominated if we want to beat Drumpf. But new dirt is coming out on her, like how she's misusing funds for this campaign, appropriating funds she ostensibly raised "to support Democrats" and such. She's pretty much run out of donors and the fact that Bernie has done SO well financially with a vast majority of donations being very, very small should tell them something.

 

I have serious doubts that Hillary can win against Drumpf, and if she and the Democratic party don't recognize this fact and give the nomination to Bernie, then they're just proving the notion that they don't care about what's best for America and it's all about Hillary wanting that seat she's had her eye on her entire career. If they truly believe that Bernie would be a better leader than Drumpf and that a Drumpf presidency would be disastrous, then they should listen to the grassroots money and listen to the polls that are suggesting Drumpf can beat her. 

[Delphi]

My fear is that if Hillary gets the vote is that Drumpf will use his massive douchbaggary to eat her alive. Because for some reason people like that. *sigh*

Hillary seems like she'd choke when Drumpf comes after her like he's done with other candidates playing school yard bully. Bernie takes that kind of bullshit better. Just kind of goes "Lol whatever" and let's it roll off without giving Drumpf the hissy fit he wants.

I just really do not want Drumpf to win. He scares the ever living shit out of me. And I don't think Hillary has the chops to weather his needling without making a fool of herself and causing the American Idol race the presidential elections are becoming to look down on her because she's not...whatever Drumpf is.

I'd rally in my area with signs but people here actually like Drumpf. Not the rest of Utah but people in my redneck area. I'm afraid I'd get shot for expressing my opinion. I'll still speak out but not anywhere near clock towers...

[Selena]

 

My fear is that if Hillary gets the vote is that Drumpf will use his massive douchbaggary to eat her alive. Because for some reason people like that. *sigh*

 

Indeed. Despite supposedly having the support of older staunch Democrats, Clinton is not well liked by members of the left -- and is almost universally reviled by anyone who even leans slightly conservative. Couple that with all the growing animosity for establishment candidates, and Drumpf could very well win. 

 

Her debate tactics will not work against Drumpf. She tries to make her controversial positions sound good by fact dumping and citing examples of things that make her look good. She sounds very presidential on the debate stage. But she has a ton of skeletons in her closet that Drumpf will go after with the tenacity of a Terminator. He will absolutely drag her name through the dirt-beneath-the-dirt. And it could prove very effective. He blatantly ignores facts, makes up his own, and attacks character.

 

 

 

Sanders, at the very least, has a less controversial background and responds to sass with equal measures of sass. 

[Fëanen]

The good news is that at the moment most competent political scientists (ones who've called the last few elections with impressive accuracy) think that the electoral college heavily favors Clinton. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia gives this projected electoral map:

 

https://twitter.com/...680242052116480

 

We've got months to go and a lot can change, but realistically a lot of states like NY don't stand a chance of going red. I'd love a Sanders presidency as much as the next young liberal, but for all her failings Hillary still has some demographic advantages in a general election.

[Doctor Pogo]

It would make sense that Drumpf is such a divisive figure that whoever runs against him is a shoo-in. But if the other person is Hillary, then... that's a tough one.
 
I can tell you, around here most people I know may dislike Drumpf, or fear him, or are skeptical of him, but whatever their feelings about him might be, many of them HATE Hillary. Hate her violently and passionately. They think she ought to be in jail (and not for entirely unfounded reasons). They are against her not just because of political opposition, but because they believe that she is a criminal and probably a traitor. And not just conservatives - that includes probably about half the liberals I know. It blows my mind how much people around here hate her, it's unlike any politician I've ever seen, even her husband, even Obama. They would never vote for her, for any office, under any circumstances. I don't know how she's winning primaries outside of cheating - who is voting for her? I can't recall a single person among all my acquaintances who has said they voted for her (EDIT: found three!). I know who's voting for Drumpf - the angry blue-collar white folks on facebook are always talking about it, can't miss 'em, there are a lot. But who's voting for Hillary? Nobody's posting about her. Hardly anybody's talking about her. Not anything nice, anyway. Is there an entire segment of the population that I just somehow have never met and don't know about? Maybe it's because I don't have normal TV.

 
And then this happened:
 
I was writing this post, and out of curiosity I did a facebook search for Hillary Clinton, to see if any of my friends were posting about her and if I was missing something, and turns out I was. Sort of. I didn't see any friends posting positive things about her, but I did see a quite remarkable post by an old friend who is very conservative, supported Cruz, demonstrates at pro-life events, etc., who I usually disagree with on pretty much everything.
 
It was this post: https://www.facebook...37772632945931/
 
A share from Hillary Clinton! Containing a political ad that genuinely entertained me! With this accompanying text, written by my friend:
  

 

 
Every primary election cycle, candidates say mean and politically harmful things to each other that end up being used as ammo by the other side. But in this case, I don't see how Drumpf's opponents backtrack from the things they said while at the same time suggest that we all rally around the nominee. How can someone who claims that Drumpf is unprincipled, liberal, hateful, and sexist (just to name a few complaints) turn around and say "well, he's our only option against Hillary so let's vote for him"? It's this same logic that gets us terrible candidates every election cycle. Settling for mediocrity got us McCain and Romney. And now anger and apparently short-sightedness got us Drumpf. The man represents arguably everything his supporters claim they're angry about. It's like a doctor polluting your food and water causing you or your family to get sick, then rushing to your side claiming to have the antidote. The man was part of the problem.
 
 
 

There's plenty of folks just as upset with Clinton as many of us are with the apparent Republican nominee. Perhaps a third party candidate could have a viable chance this time. My stance on Drumpf has not changed. I refuse to accept responsibility for the path our country goes down by not giving Drumpf my vote. As I've said many times before, my values and principles matter to me and if someone is as opposed to them as he is, I don't see how you could take me seriously if I did vote for him. This isn't a pride thing. This isn't a sore loser thing. I just genuinely don't believe he is the right person for the job. Neither is Clinton or Sanders. But there's no way I'm going to just vote for someone because they have an "R" next to their name.

 
So maybe I'm seeing an angle here. But still, I did note that every other post turned up in my search was about Hillary being a criminal and traitor and wishing her a swift indictment.

Edited by Doctor Pogo, 04 May 2016 - 11:40 PM.

[Jasi]

I know a LOT of people who voted for Hillary. I even know older folks who do volunteer campaign work for her.

I don't know if maybe you were being facetious but there's no good reason to suggest that Hillary's nomination came from cheating. Facebook is not representative of the public at large, and your personal Facebook even less so! Hillary is very strongly supported by older democrats and by black voters, for example.

That said I definitely recognize the general trend you're talking about. The people I know who voted for Hillary are probably people who are generally less likely to make political FB posts though. Bernie supporters are louder, with good reason as they are fighting an uphill battle. Whereas Hillary's supporters have known this whole time that she was poised get the nomination.

[Oberon Storm]

I remember some coverage of the Iowa caucus that seemed to show some irregularities that favored Clinton. I don't believe Clinton herself or high level members of her campaign were responsible, but the people in charge at the places these irregularities occurred were Clinton precinct captains.

[Selena]

When you're rooting for the underdog candidate, you've got to be loud -- thus why we see more Bernie posts than Hilldawg posts on the facebook. Friends list demographics may have something to do with it, too. Bernie wins younger voters in landslide numbers while Hillary has support from staunch older Democrats. The older people who make posts like "I'm so sick of all this political talk haha facebook is meant to make me feel good!" are probably supporters of establishment politicians. And a lot of women are genuinely excited about the prospect of a female president.

 

Otherwise, you gotta remember that the majority of Americans could not give less of a shit about politics. They vote for whichever known candidate they dislike the least -- beyond that, they don't pay much attention. Only a fraction of my facebook friends actually post about politics; the rest are completely mum. 

 

Voting for a Clinton is like voting for a Kennedy. The name gets you instant attention, and sounding competent about policy makes you seem like the most qualified person to gently tweak the status quo without completely rocking the boat. You don't need to talk about her because of the name recognition. It's like a big name retail product. You don't have to advertise it. Everyone already knows it's there. If Hillary was not a former first lady -- and a very well known one at that -- I doubt she would have the pull that she does. She'd be more like Elizabeth Warren. Known, loved by some, but still someone who largely blends in with the rest of Congress unless you're someone who actually pays attention.

 

A lot of Democrats also don't think Sanders is a threat, so they probably feel no need to promote Clinton.

 

 

 

 

I am also sure that voting issues have played a major part in this primary, though it's mostly a symptom of a broken primary system. Some of it sounds deliberate and malicious, however. Like all the issues with "spontaneous electronic re-registration," where people suddenly found themselves listed as independents rather than democrats, thus blocking them from voting in a closed primary.

[Egann]

To be fair, Lena, I have a host of reasons to not post anything political on facebook.

1. On forums I am much freer to play devil's advocate or exaggerate my opinions. Egann is not exactly my IRL identity; he's a character I role play who shares similar opinions to me IRL, but he's by no means an exact clone.
2. Employers--especially publishers--in Atlanta and metropolitan cities are likely to be liberal in opinion and WILL comb my facebook as part of a job application. They will selectively discriminate against me if I put any political content on my facebook saying I'm conservative, unconsciously if not deliberately.
3. Facebook and Twitter are known to shadowban conservative outlets. Twitter especially. It is impossible for me, as a reasonably conservative opinion, to have a fair discussion on a platform . I was never particularly into Facebook or twitter, but since I found this out, I've been specifically boycotting them. There is no way I can't see this as an abuse of admin powers, regardless of what opinion they censor.

So I wouldn't call this "mum" so much as facebook is a terrible venue for politics for many reasons.

 

 

As to the race itself...I can't help but see this as the most racist and sexist generation for a long time. We basically elected Obama over the novelty of a black president, and now we're going to elect Hillary over the novelty of a vagina (Editor's note: Egann is still convinced Drumpf intends to take a knee and call her a Jack Thompson on national TV).

[Jasi]

I'm wasting my time responding to that highly trolly remark but here we go anyway. I'm procrastinating on research.

 

It'll be nice when it doesn't have to be novel to have a black/woman/something-else president, and then people can stop making that attack. Until then it's very transparent—this is the whole "oh I'm colorblind, I'm so enlightened" trope. Yeah it'd be nice if we could have a race where truly no one cared about the race or gender of the person running. But hello, welcome to the real world, people do care, a lot. There are a lot of people who really want a woman president, and a lot of people who really don't want a woman president. 

 

It's not sexist to want to see a woman president or racist to want to see a black president. That's a desire to work toward equality, a desire to get to the point where that's not a special thing. You seem to think you're already there—well, great. Most of the nation isn't, though. It's very ignorant to pretend that it's not the result of actual racism and sexism that every single one of our presidents before 2008 was a white man. And it's laughable to say "well YOU'RE the REAL RACIST for wanting to see a black president" because you've got the priorities backwards then. If you pretend that race/gender is a non-issue, you perpetuate the status quo, and sadly the status quo is one where society is racist/sexist. One effective way of challenging the status quo is to get someone who is not a white man elected to office.

[wisp]

 

As someone who generally votes for more liberal candidates, Obama had a lot of really appealing qualities that had nothing to do with his ancestral heritage. Being black was a plus as far as the single issue of challenging the status quo, and yes I was proud that we finally elected a president who was representative of that part of our society. So it was potentially one of many contributing factors, but if it were just about the novelty of electing a black person, then Herman Cain and and Ben Carson should've had a better run than they did. And it's disrespectful and dismissive of his platform and accomplishments to imply that the "novelty" of his skin tone was the main or only reason he was elected.

 

Likewise, if Hillary wins then it isn't going to be just because she's a woman. Otherwise we'd have seen a lot stronger of a performance from Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, and my personal favorite female presidential candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party. However, the way I see it, there are powerful, rich people who want to appear as if they're challenging the status quo socially (because that's what a lot of voters want) but who actually want the corporate bribery to remain as it is... so I can see why the DNC strategically wants to give us Hillary. She's a woman who is openly liberal on select issues, so she theoretically looks good to liberal-minded voters who want to continue our progress by having a president of a different gender, but she's apparently totally fine with the kind of corrupt, secret political-corporate dealings that keep us peasants in our place and discourage our politicians from making decisions that actually represent the will of voters and therefore is favored by big business. So I'm sure the establishment is trying to use her gender as an advantage. I just don't think it gives her that much of one.

 

I don't like her, and I may or may not vote for her if she is nominated over Bernie, but as a woman in politics she's had to fight an uphill battle the entire way just to become a serious contender for the presidency, and to boil her success down to "people are only voting for her because she's a woman" is equally shortsighted and disrespectful to claiming that Obama's win was all about race. Yes, there are some select voters who use her gender as one of their main reasons to vote for her, but certainly not the only reason, and her gender is probably more of a liability than a strength when you look at the overall picture.

 

Gross, now I've defended Hillary Clinton. XD

[Selena]

Honestly, a lot of Obama's appeal was that he wasn't Hillary.

 

A lot of Democrats have been iffy about Hillary for a long time. Can't speak for everyone, but for me, Hillary is the definition of a politician who talks at you or even down to you rather than with you. She has a very clear vision about what she wants to do, but sometimes that means overriding public opinion -- or otherwise acting haughty and dismissive when anyone happens to disagree with her actions. Bill is very preachy, too. The Clintons are very much a brand rather than just a family. And it shows in their attitudes. 

 

A lot of Obama's appeal wasn't simply that he was black. It's that he was more actively involved with his communities, actually related to people on a personal level, and had some key policies that were meant to limit some of the financial corruption that both parties had long tolerated. Same with Bernie's appeal. He's more down to earth, more involved, and not overly-entrenched in the political machine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, a lot of non-Democrats remained convinced that it was a novelty and that people were just "GOLLY GEE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN!" 

[SteveT]

Well, they couldn't hear his policies over his blackness.  How could they expect Democrats to?

[Egann]

I'm wasting my time responding to that highly trolly remark but here we go anyway. I'm procrastinating on research.

 

It'll be nice when it doesn't have to be novel to have a black/woman/something-else president, and then people can stop making that attack. Until then it's very transparent—this is the whole "oh I'm colorblind, I'm so enlightened" trope. Yeah it'd be nice if we could have a race where truly no one cared about the race or gender of the person running. But hello, welcome to the real world, people do care, a lot. There are a lot of people who really want a woman president, and a lot of people who really don't want a woman president. 

 

It's not sexist to want to see a woman president or racist to want to see a black president. That's a desire to work toward equality, a desire to get to the point where that's not a special thing. You seem to think you're already there—well, great. Most of the nation isn't, though. It's very ignorant to pretend that it's not the result of actual racism and sexism that every single one of our presidents before 2008 was a white man. And it's laughable to say "well YOU'RE the REAL RACIST for wanting to see a black president" because you've got the priorities backwards then. If you pretend that race/gender is a non-issue, you perpetuate the status quo, and sadly the status quo is one where society is racist/sexist. One effective way of challenging the status quo is to get someone who is not a white man elected to office.

 

 

 

As someone who generally votes for more liberal candidates, Obama had a lot of really appealing qualities that had nothing to do with his ancestral heritage. Being black was a plus as far as the single issue of challenging the status quo, and yes I was proud that we finally elected a president who was representative of that part of our society. So it was potentially one of many contributing factors, but if it were just about the novelty of electing a black person, then Herman Cain and and Ben Carson should've had a better run than they did. And it's disrespectful and dismissive of his platform and accomplishments to imply that the "novelty" of his skin tone was the main or only reason he was elected.

 

Likewise, if Hillary wins then it isn't going to be just because she's a woman. Otherwise we'd have seen a lot stronger of a performance from Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, and my personal favorite female presidential candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party. However, the way I see it, there are powerful, rich people who want to appear as if they're challenging the status quo socially (because that's what a lot of voters want) but who actually want the corporate bribery to remain as it is... so I can see why the DNC strategically wants to give us Hillary. She's a woman who is openly liberal on select issues, so she theoretically looks good to liberal-minded voters who want to continue our progress by having a president of a different gender, but she's apparently totally fine with the kind of corrupt, secret political-corporate dealings that keep us peasants in our place and discourage our politicians from making decisions that actually represent the will of voters and therefore is favored by big business. So I'm sure the establishment is trying to use her gender as an advantage. I just don't think it gives her that much of one.

 

I don't like her, and I may or may not vote for her if she is nominated over Bernie, but as a woman in politics she's had to fight an uphill battle the entire way just to become a serious contender for the presidency, and to boil her success down to "people are only voting for her because she's a woman" is equally shortsighted and disrespectful to claiming that Obama's win was all about race. Yes, there are some select voters who use her gender as one of their main reasons to vote for her, but certainly not the only reason, and her gender is probably more of a liability than a strength when you look at the overall picture.

 

Gross, now I've defended Hillary Clinton. XD

 

 

My point isn't necessarily about anyone personally on this thread so much as how the DNC regarded Obama. Let's remember a few talking points from the 2008 election.

 

Obama voted "present" on the Senate floor 129 times. To be fair, republican talking heads blew this way out of proportion; Obama used it to say "I don't know what the correct vote is, so I will abstain." It was not a vote out of abject incompetence.  However, presidential material should not have needed to do this.

 

Obama woefully misstated many the policies he espoused. For the sake of time, I'll only cover one; healthcare. Be repeatedly stated "like your policy? Keep it," despite numerous fact-checking think tanks debunking this as physically impossible. A lot of obamacare supporters dismissed this out of hand, especially after he won. The president also has fact-checkers, so he must be the one who's right.

 

Well, no. When Obamacare came around, about 10 million policy cancellations happened as the market adjusted to the new pressures. There's a sensible explanation, of course.

 

Congress runs on a seniority system. When he ran for presidency in 2008, he had not even finished one full term in the US Senate, meaning Obama was on the extreme bottom of the seniority totem pole. This is not a qualification for someone who designed the healthcare bill. This isn't even a qualification for a committee member. This is a qualification for someone who might have sat in on the discussion...once or twice. The other thing to note is that we were going to get healthcare regardless of who got elected--see Romneycare. This had been in the beltway percolator for a while.

 

It's also worth noting Obama's background is in constitutional law. The chance that he understood the economic implications of a 1,500 page healthcare bill is essentially zero. He was supporting, marketing it, and it wasn't his brain-child. He did it because the DNC said so. 

 

So what was Obama to the DNC? A weapon to mobilize the black vote. Obama had a record-breaking 90% bloc vote with blacks in 2008 and 2012 with record turnout from them, to boot. And quite a few analysts expect black turnout and solidarity to diminish this election year. [Source for both]. Almost no one will admit to voting for Obama just because he's black, but it's time to admit it was a big unconscious rationalization, especially for low information voters who would either vote for him or not vote at all.

 

I said this was probably the most racist generation for a long time. The way we voted was only half the reason why. The full reason is that the DNC regarded Obama as a useful idiot from the beginning, and the American people found the "first black president" label shiny enough to not realize a junior senator with only 2/3rds of a term's experience had no chance of knowing what he was doing.

[SteveT]

So what was Obama to the DNC? A weapon to mobilize the black vote. Obama had a record-breaking 90% bloc vote with blacks in 2008 and 2012 with record turnout from them, to boot.

 

To zoom in on two sentences and change the subject: this sort of mentality is exactly why we need compulsory voting for a democracy to function.  The strategy is never "have better policies than the other candidate."  It's "energize the base.  Candidates ignore moderates because they don't care that much anyway, and focus on the extremes of their parties.  After all, why focus on the people who probably won't vote when you can give the people who probably will vote more of a push.  Then it opens the door to negating a candidate's authority because "well, they only won because of X voting block and don't represent real Americans."  For Obama, it's black people.  For hypothetical Republican, it's evangelical Christians.

 

It's a bad system.  Votes shouldn't be in question, and candidates shouldn't have to play to the extremes.  We'll get better representation that way.

[Selena]

Regarding Obama's election, I think you'd benefit from paying more attention to what real-human-non-Congressional-people felt during that campaign. You're definitely analyzing his rise to the presidency from a post-election perspective. And definitely not from the perspective of an actual liberal voter during the '08 campaign.

 

 

Obama was this to liberals and the DNC: A surprise. 

 

Clinton was absolutely the front-runner when the primaries started. Much like this election, Hillary started off as the heir apparent -- the soon-to-be-anointed queen. All the superdelegates pledged to her at the start of the campaign. Meaning the DNC establishment wanted her to be president; not Obama. Obama was one of the many other B-string candidates running in the Dem primary that year. Nobody outside of Chicago knew who he was. He was outshined by both John Edwards and Joe Biden at first.

 

Obama was obviously always popular among African-Americans (although Clinton still had quite a bit of support). The reason he won over the rest of the entire Democratic party was that:

 

1) He wasn't Hillary

2) His impressive speeches and debate performances

3) Other candidates fucked up in various ways

4) He got goddamned Oprah to campaign for him; when you're on Oprah's favorite things list, you get attention!

 

Voters don't really give a shit if someone's been in the senate a long time before they become president. Look at Drumpf. He has zero political experience, and he's now the Republican nominee unless some shenanigans go down at the convention. When Obama built up momentum, he was able to edge out the front-runner. The DNC was largely fine with this. Especially after he made her Secretary of State. Because he was so inexperienced, though, that is probably why he eventually fell victim to establishment-itis. 

 

But remember: the DNC originally wanted Clinton to win that election. They just rolled with the voters when it was clear he'd win. They will kiss up to Sanders' ass if he wins, too. Although there is more animosity with him, as he's not actually a Democrat and they all know it.

[JRPomazon]

I personally don't think the DNC will ever really get on Sander's side, regardless of his successes in the months to come. They've tried so hard to destroy him that after a while I don't think they'd know how to do anything else.

[Egann]

 

So what was Obama to the DNC? A weapon to mobilize the black vote. Obama had a record-breaking 90% bloc vote with blacks in 2008 and 2012 with record turnout from them, to boot.

 

To zoom in on two sentences and change the subject: this sort of mentality is exactly why we need compulsory voting for a democracy to function.  The strategy is never "have better policies than the other candidate."  It's "energize the base.  Candidates ignore moderates because they don't care that much anyway, and focus on the extremes of their parties.  After all, why focus on the people who probably won't vote when you can give the people who probably will vote more of a push.  Then it opens the door to negating a candidate's authority because "well, they only won because of X voting block and don't represent real Americans."  For Obama, it's black people.  For hypothetical Republican, it's evangelical Christians.

 

It's a bad system.  Votes shouldn't be in question, and candidates shouldn't have to play to the extremes.  We'll get better representation that way.

 

 

Uh, no. While I agree that in theory compulsory voting is better, there is a very real practical problems when you apply it to our current system. Namely the First Past the Post voting (fancy word for majority win). 

 

The problem is that FPV strongly discourages voting third party. In Ralph Nader's case, it actually hurt the Democrat candidate's chances to win, so in practice your vote would be locked into a certain party forever, regardless of how much you like or dislike their candidate. The only way out is for your attitudes to do a complete 180 and for you to decide to vote Republican...which is not that likely. There's a misnomer that independents flip between parties between elections. This is an oversimplification; it's more accurate to say that a lot of people will either vote for one party or not vote at all. That measurement of voter apathy, as unpleasant as it is, is what prevents the US from degenerating into oligarchy.

 

I know our current setup is bad, but this is significantly worse.

 

There is a way out--the Single Transferable Vote. Youtuber CGP Grey explains it better than I could, but basically you rank candidates from favorite to least favorite, and as your choices get knocked out, your vote is transferred to the next candidate. This removes any risk for voting third party, and means compulsory voting will not lock you into voting for one party forever. It will also never be used in the United States; the Democrat and Republican parties lose a lot if they allow for third party candidates to have a chance, so an agency conflict locks it out forever.

 

Besides, my gut is that if you applied STV to voting, you would not need to make it compulsory because you can actually vote for what you believe.

 

 

Regarding Obama's election, I think you'd benefit from paying more attention to what real-human-non-Congressional-people felt during that campaign. You're definitely analyzing his rise to the presidency from a post-election perspective. And definitely not from the perspective of an actual liberal voter during the '08 campaign.

 

 

Obama was this to liberals and the DNC: A surprise. 

 

Clinton was absolutely the front-runner when the primaries started. Much like this election, Hillary started off as the heir apparent -- the soon-to-be-anointed queen. All the superdelegates pledged to her at the start of the campaign. Meaning the DNC establishment wanted her to be president; not Obama. Obama was one of the many other B-string candidates running in the Dem primary that year. Nobody outside of Chicago knew who he was. He was outshined by both John Edwards and Joe Biden at first.

 

Obama was obviously always popular among African-Americans (although Clinton still had quite a bit of support). The reason he won over the rest of the entire Democratic party was that:

 

1) He wasn't Hillary

2) His impressive speeches and debate performances

3) Other candidates fucked up in various ways

4) He got goddamned Oprah to campaign for him; when you're on Oprah's favorite things list, you get attention!

 

Voters don't really give a shit if someone's been in the senate a long time before they become president. Look at Drumpf. He has zero political experience, and he's now the Republican nominee unless some shenanigans go down at the convention. When Obama built up momentum, he was able to edge out the front-runner. The DNC was largely fine with this. Especially after he made her Secretary of State. Because he was so inexperienced, though, that is probably why he eventually fell victim to establishment-itis. 

 

But remember: the DNC originally wanted Clinton to win that election. They just rolled with the voters when it was clear he'd win. They will kiss up to Sanders' ass if he wins, too. Although there is more animosity with him, as he's not actually a Democrat and they all know it.

 

Partially true, but it would be more fair to say Obama was a surprise for voters. I honestly don't think too many people in the DNC were surprised. For exhibit A, my first post at Legends Alliance was a prediction that Obama would win the General. In February. Granted, they'd already been campaigning for, like, six months at that point, but that was barely into the actual caucuses.

 

If an 18 year old kid from Podunkville, Jawjuh could correctly call the election that early, I doubt the DNC was that surprised. Once Obama had established he had solid control of the black vote (also a group which saw Bill into office) the bloc voting comfortably saw him through the primaries. Hillary was the heir apparent, yes, but she's never been likable and didn't spend much effort to control the superdelegates. This is obviously a mistake she doesn't intend to repeat, as she now has an eyebrow-raising stranglehold on them.

 

Besides, Hillary Clinton is literally selling woman cards as donation rewards. I get that this is mostly in jest, but again it's a reinforcement of "I'm a woman and you'll vote for me because you're a woman," even if it's amusing.  

[Selena]

Like you said, they'd already been campaigning for six months. When I said "when the primaries started," I suppose I should have really said "when campaigning began." Most of the other Dem candidates had dropped out by the end of January, so it was already a two-horse race by February -- and people were about as enthusiastic for Hillary as they are right now.

 

Since both candidates were members of the party, superdelegates and high ranking party members were infinitely more willing to support an alternative candidate when Clinton's performance among voters left much to be desired. Obama's policies varied from Clinton's, but they were still within the DNC's "approved" messages. It's not surprising that there was more flexibility among party establishment than there is now. Many candidates who were staunchly anti-Clinton eagerly jumped onto Obama's bandwagon.

 

Some of Sanders' views do not mesh well with the DNC's, and he's actively said that he'll either undo or override some of their policies/accomplishments (ex: replace Obamacare with single-payer). As such, there's infinitely more push-back from the party leadership than there was in 2008. Fewer members of the party are willing to support him; no matter how well he does in various state elections. Couple that with all the favors Clinton surely cashed in for this election, and.... yeah. The DNC is now lockstep.

 

 

 

So, to say that Obama got into office because the party or the voters wanted the "novelty" of a black president is -- quite frankly -- a giant pile of bullshit. People thought it was a nice bonus, but it was his character and policies that won people over. So, I will again stress: We wanted Obama over Clinton because he had superior policies and personal character. If Clinton wins over voters, it won't solely be due to her gender, either. There are a lot of mainstream Democrats who legitimately think Sanders is too radical and will rock the boat straight into the ocean depths. Saying it has to do with either gender or race oversimplifies both elections.

 

It's almost like saying conservatives only want to vote for Drumpf because he's a billionaire who does the tough-guy act. 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that FPV strongly discourages voting third party. In Ralph Nader's case, it actually hurt the Democrat candidate's chances to win, so in practice your vote would be locked into a certain party forever, regardless of how much you like or dislike their candidate. The only way out is for your attitudes to do a complete 180 and for you to decide to vote Republican...which is not that likely. There's a misnomer that independents flip between parties between elections. This is an oversimplification; it's more accurate to say that a lot of people will either vote for one party or not vote at all. That measurement of voter apathy, as unpleasant as it is, is what prevents the US from degenerating into oligarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not really in favor of compulsory voting either*, but this argument doesn't really make sense. Voter apathy doesn't really prevent the rise of oligarchy. Often, it increases polarization and radicalism. These problems would remain even if 100% of the population was voting. The system is at fault, not the turnout. Switching to a preferential system would be better, but various other things would help. Voter apathy is present in the general, but crippling at state levels.

 

1) Primaries for senators/representatives. The incumbent party almost never runs an alternative candidate if one of their own is already in office. This accounts for all the stagnation in Congress. Bad representatives stay in power longer than they should because voters are unwilling to elect someone with views radically different from their own. The main challenges come from people without the party's stamp of approval. Increase competition in forever-red or forever-blue states, and things start loosening up. Congress is a bigger problem than the presidency. 

 

2) Open primaries during presidential runs. Let independents have more say in the primary process, and power ceases to be concentrated in the hands of an increasingly zealous and shrinking voter base. This is probably why the DNC chair is pushing for more closed primaries. Won't stop the two-party flaws once we hit the general, but will shake up the primaries to produce better candidates.

 

3) Make voting days a holiday to give people as much opportunity to vote as possible at physical locations.

 

4) Mail-in ballots. We have 80%+ participation up here during big elections because this system is infinitely more efficient (and still leaves a paper trail for the sake of error-checking). 

 

 

* I am a firm believer in "the quality of your democracy depends on your willingness to participate." Majority of people legitimately don't care about politics? Enjoy feudalism or totalitarianism. But I do believe we should make things easier for the people who do care but don't participate due to flaws in the system.

[Selena]

Bump:

 

 

 

I am growing increasingly concerned by the "Bernie or Bust" people. So many are saying they won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances -- some are even willing to vote for Drumpf. There's talk about a big "write Bernie in" campaign, even though some states don't allow that, which would result in invalidated ballots. 

 

The Republicans are moving to consolidate. That means, barring some unexpected dust up at the Republican convention, that there won't be a third party conservative candidate funded by the GOP. That means a liberal third party run is out of the question, as it would inevitably lead to a victory for the unified opposition. All of this again serves to remind us how unbalanced the primary election is versus the general. The primary run drags on for ages. Once the candidates are locked in, though, it's a quick slide into the final election. Just a few months and just a few precious debates. There's not much wiggle room for a post-convention third party candidate.

 

"But Bernie would win with independents, who make up the majority of voters now!"  But we don't know that, because their performance in the primaries is hard to track -- a lot of states don't allow them to vote. Independents are often just as split down philosophical lines. A good chunk of them would rather vote for the libertarian candidate. 

 

Drumpf and Hillary are neck to fuckin' neck in the polls. With the Republicans rapidly uniting, it is incredibly dangerous to be "Never Hillary" right now if you're a liberal voter.

 

There is a very real possibility that "Bernie or Bust" will result in President Drumpf.

 

 

 

 

 

Like....... Holy shit, do you guys even realize how legitimately close we are to President Drumpf?????

[wisp]

Some Bernie people think that a Drumpf presidency is preferable to Hillary BECAUSE Drumpf would fuck everything up so bad. They think it would be a wake-up call to the country.

 

I don't know whether I can get on board with this or not. It's really appealing to want to fall in line with people who believe 4 years of his bullshit would kick the US back towards the left, but I feel like that belief depends heavily on the assumption that the majority of us have common sense.... the fact that he is in a serious position to win this thing despite all the terribly unethical and downright idiotic things that have come out of his mouth suggests to me that we can't depend on our fellow citizens making good choices there.

[Sir Turtlelot]

I understand the whole "Bernie or bust" movement, and it wouldn't be so bad if this were just another average election. Unfortunately, this is not just another average election. Not only is a Drumpf presidency absolutely horrifying, but with the balance of the SCOTUS up in the air as well, there is simply far too much at stake to risk it on such a notion. If Hillary becomes the nominee, then she absolutely MUST get both Bernie and his supporters on board, no matter the cost.

[Jasi]

It all just comes back to this question of ideology vs practicality. Some people are very big picture. I have communist friends who will not support Hillary and think she's the worst; they're on the side that wisp mentions, where they would prefer to see a Drumpf presidency to wake the people up and force them to revolt. They think the entire system is screwed and we need a revolution to fix it. I am not very interested in political machinations so I just want for Drumpf to absolutely not be president, and to me that seems way more important than trying to further this ideology no matter the cost. 4 years is a long time. But it all boils down to a matter of perspective, and what matters more to you. idk if all Bernie supporters will fall in.

[canas is back]

I know of many many conservatives that are in the same boat in the reverse, many of them would rather see Hillary or Bernie in the office than Drumpf because any resulting fallout would hit the democratic party. Drumpf is such a disgusting human being that a lot won't vote for him either, it's not just something with the democratic party losing voter trust, it's the republican one as well. 

[Oberon Storm]

I am starting to lean "Bernie or Bust". I fully understand what this means and that there will be consequences. I do not honestly believe that Hilary is that much better than Drumpf even though what she SAYS is more closely aligned with my own views. Frankly, asking me to choose between Drumpf and Hilary is like asking me to choose between a cyanide pill and chlorine gas. The idea is so unpalatable that I am very much considering not voting. I can't think of a third party option I really like.