Presidential Election 2016

[amiller92]

Maybe it's not a popular idea, but the United States is way behind a lot of other western countries and what's been done in the last 8 years are extremely baby steps forward in providing for our citizens the way many other modern western countries are. You cant fault someone for not being complacent and not thinking we've done everything we can, especially when we need to do so much more.

No, but I can fault someone for believing that we could have gotten more just by believing in it or wanting it more or whatever the Bernie plan is.

Hillary Clinton proposed single payer health care in 1993. It was and is the right thing to want. But proposing it without a path to passing it set any progress on health care back by two decades. Who knows where we'd be now if she had proposed something it the ACA (they probably had a better shot a public option then).

Sometimes baby steps actually get you there faster.

[mplsjaromir]

^^^ A nitpick but, as the chair or President Clinton's healthcare reform task force, what Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993 was not single payer health care.

[Sacrelicio]

^^^ A nitpick but, as the chair or President Clinton's healthcare reform task force, what Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993 was not single payer health care.

Wasn't it basically ACA with a public option? Seems like a great thing for her to continue to work on.

[Tiller]

This thread is silly. If Hillary wins, then we'll just wash our hands and try again in 2020. (and we'll use the infrastructure we've set up to start throwing out centrists in Primaries in 2018, 2020, etc)

In the meantime, 4 million more people will immigrate here, 16 million more people will reach voting age, and 10 million people will die, disproportionately conservatives that currently support Hillary or the Republican party.

And there'll be another 30 million person change between 2020 and 2024. Ideally Bernie wins this time, but if he doesn't, we can run the clock out to get a similar candidate in.

He not only wins big under 45 and with independents, but he also does well in rural areas and with white blue collar workers, who will give Trump a victory over Hillary.

[FISHMANPET]

Draft Baker!

[MNdible]

This thread is silly.

Truer words, my friend. Truer words.

[Sacrelicio]

This thread is silly. If Hillary wins, then we'll just wash our hands and try again in 2020. (and we'll use the infrastructure we've set up to start throwing out centrists in Primaries in 2018, 2020, etc)

In the meantime, 4 million more people will immigrate here, 16 million more people will reach voting age, and 10 million people will die, disproportionately conservatives that currently support Hillary or the Republican party.

And there'll be another 30 million person change between 2020 and 2024. Ideally Bernie wins this time, but if he doesn't, we can run the clock out to get a similar candidate in.

He not only wins big under 45 and with independents, but he also does well in rural areas and with white blue collar workers, who will give Trump a victory over Hillary.

"Run out the clock?" Trump victory? It's almost like some of you guys want to lose.

[Tiller]

If Hillary wins, then defeat in the general is likely preferable. It would be optimal if split ticket voting got us a republican president but a democratic senate.

I'd rather have a true opposition party, instead of a controlled opposition party. I'd also rather we not continue devolving from a democracy into a feudal system (We've gotten rid of half the coin now, aka Bush). If we're going to have a disaster, then putting our name on it is a terrible idea. A Hillary presidency with a republican congress would only do regressive things, and would absolutely be a disaster. A democratic presidency with only 1 house of congress thus far has proved politically disasterous, so I also wouldn't look forward to that. I'd love it if we could get a supreme court justice through before the election to make my decision eaiser.

[twincitizen]

If Hillary wins, then defeat in the general is likely preferable.

There it is folks. Go home Tiller, you're drunk.

To entertain your insane rationale though - IF the Supreme Court were not at stake, I think one could make an almost coherent argument for Dems to take a loss in 2016, setting up for a big Elizabeth Warren (or whoever) victory in 2020.

However, given that anywhere from 1-3 Supreme Court seats are at stake AND that Republicans control both houses of Congress, you have to be way off the deep end to think a Democratic loss in 2016 is in any way desirable. Just no. F*** no. A Democrat must win the Presidency in 2016, full stop.

[Sacrelicio]

If Hillary wins, then defeat in the general is likely preferable.

There it is folks. Go home, you're drunk Tiller.

I actually donated to a political candidate for the first time ever today, and I'm also planning to caucus for the first time in my life, for my main Dem, the Notorious HRC. Figured I'd put my money where my big mouth is.

[Tiller]

I'm sorry if you'd prefer that I'd lie to you to protect your feelings or whatever, but it's where I stand as of now.

The thing that has given me greatest pause is indeed the supreme court, but justices die and retire all the time. The court is only worth so much. I'm also somewhat dubious as to who she would appoint given she has called for a "manhattan project" to break encryption. No thank you! Cruz being the republican nominee would make this much more of a concern considering his background in constitutional law and zealotry, but he's not going to make it.

The things she can do as an executive, and the things she could do in compromise with a republican house, are in areas where my disagreement with her is strongest. You can ridicule or lecture me all you want, but Hillary has done nothing to earn my vote, and considering her rhetoric about Bernie "not being a real democrat", it doesn't sound like she wants it either.

[Didier]

Bernie is not a real Democrat, technically.

[amiller92]

If Hillary wins, then defeat in the general is likely preferable.

In a nutshell. As if history has not happened. As if W was not way worse than Gore. As if McGovern losing to Nixon (when Humphrey may not have) didn't extend and expand the war in southeast Asia. As if Obama has accomplished nothing.

I'd love it if we could get a supreme court justice through before the election to make my decision eaiser.

So you're eager to cut your nose off to spite your face, but less so if it costs an ear too? O.K.

[amiller92]

Bernie is not a real Democrat, technically.

Stop being mean or you'll get Trump elected. Which would be good, because doing neutral to mildly negative things is just as bad as doing wildly bad things. I care not that it likely means launching new wars, making our tax system substantially less progressive, even more deregulation of the banks I purport to disdain, rolling back environmental regulation, slashing social spending, overturning Roe and active harm to immigrants!

The Clintons and Obama (and Gore, for that matter) exist and are at the forefront of Dem politics for a very good reason. When Dems insist on ideological purity and grand measures, they get their asses handed to them in national elections. In 1992, they were coming off embarrassing losses in three straight presidential races and four of the prior five. Nominating people like McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis was obviously not working. Heck, Clinton even arguably only won because Perot was in the race.

But go ahead, disdain the "third way" strategy and tell yourself that we haven't made any progress over the last 24 years because of it. Tell yourself that the lives that will be lost matter less than your vision of the future. It's a good look.

[amiller92]

More substantively, this is a good article about Bernie's policies and rhetoric (which like Trump's, albeit on different subjects, seems to be stuck somewhere in 2008-2009): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-wom ... 89954.html

(okay, it devolves a bit toward the end)

[LakeCharles]

More substantively, this is a good article about Bernie's policies and rhetoric (which like Trump's, albeit on different subjects, seems to be stuck somewhere in 2008-2009): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-wom ... 89954.html

(okay, it devolves a bit toward the end)

This part is true though, and not just of economists:

I am, however, pointing out how ridiculous it is, given the circumstances, for your campaign to behave as if the only honest, informed economists in the world are the ones acting as your surrogates.

When intellectuals (even unaffiliated ones like Coates) question Sanders, they are smeared as "Clinton minions." When other intellectuals question Clinton, there isn't this grand questioning of their integrity, they just say "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

[amiller92]

When intellectuals (even unaffiliated ones like Coates) question Sanders, they are smeared as "Clinton minions." When other intellectuals question Clinton, there isn't this grand questioning of their integrity, they just say "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

And you know, I don't mind that at all. It's a campaign. You're trying to win.

But what I mind is the willful blindness that it's happening and the childish outrage when the Clinton campaign plays politics. There's a little movement around not voting for Hillary if she's the nominee because her campaign was mean to Bernie's supporters, as though it's a one-sided thing.

Like, yeah, pledging not to vote for the female candidate is a great way to express how offended you are at the suggestion that misogyny plays a role in some of Sanders's support.

[mplsjaromir]

There are female candidates for president other than Hillary Clinton.

[at40man]

When intellectuals (even unaffiliated ones like Coates) question Sanders, they are smeared as "Clinton minions." When other intellectuals question Clinton, there isn't this grand questioning of their integrity, they just say "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Hell, many will jump beyond just calling people "Clinton minions" or whatever; regardless of truth I've been called a "Trumpeter" by rabid Bernie fans simply because I don't support their candidate of choice.

My biggest criticism of Bernie Sanders has to do with his constant peddling the idea of free college education to gullible and naive college students. It's not going to happen and even NPR -- hardly a bastion of right wing politics -- agrees that it is an unrealistic idea that cannot achieve its desired results. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/ ... ium=social

[LakeCharles]

I also don't get the policy of cutting student loan rates for those with existing loans. Both candidates have this as part of their plan, so I'm not calling out either in particular, but why is that so popular? It's hugely regressive. The people with the most loans are doctors and engineers with advanced degrees, who either already are or will likely very soon making at least 6 figures. In fact NPR reported that this plan would cost $350 billion dollars, and over $250 billion of that would go to the top 25% of income earners. If we wanted a plan to help struggling graduates, throwing $250 billion at higher-income individuals is not the answer.