Page 15 of 51

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 11:19 am
by amiller92
twincitizen wrote: I thought that like a majority of self-identified democrats supported single-payer at this point.
If that were true, the APA might have been single payer.

No idea whether support for single payer has gone up since then, as you mentioned.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 12:06 pm
by Tiller
According to this: http://ilsinglepayer.org/kaiser-poll-de ... ngle-payer

81% of democrats and 58% of Americans favor Single-Payer.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 12:14 pm
by mplsjaromir

Does Hillary Clinton still believe in the idea that we need tougher drug laws because of non-existent 'Super Predators"?

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 12:26 pm
by Tiller
Oh, and here's account I ran across yesterday (in a random comment somewhere) of Clinton's 2008 campaign:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ll/306944/
The preface:
For all that has been written and said about Hillary Clinton’s epic collapse in the Democratic primaries, one issue still nags. Everybody knows what happened. But we still don’t have a clear picture of how it happened, or why.

The after-battle assessments in the major newspapers and newsweeklies generally agreed on the big picture: the campaign was not prepared for a lengthy fight; it had an insufficient delegate operation; it squandered vast sums of money; and the candidate herself evinced a paralyzing schizophrenia—one day a shots-’n’-beers brawler, the next a Hallmark Channel mom. Through it all, her staff feuded and bickered, while her husband distracted. But as a journalistic exercise, the “campaign obit” is inherently flawed, reflecting the viewpoints of those closest to the press rather than empirical truth.

How did things look on the inside, as they unraveled?

To find out, I approached a number of current and former Clinton staffers and outside consultants and asked them to share memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, diaries—anything that would offer a contemporaneous account.
The article is a rather disconcerting read, considering how close she was and now is again to the White House.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 1:48 pm
by Tiller
My 2016 wish: Cruz wins the R nomination and Trump goes 3rd party.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 2:12 pm
by trigonalmayhem
My wish: Bring back the Whig party and see what kind of three-way mess it causes!

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 2:26 pm
by mulad
If/when Sanders manages to do well in the primaries, it's looking like the number of Democratic Party superdelegates could easily tip numbers back in Clinton's favor. There are 4,764 overall delegate votes, according to Wikipedia, including 718 superdelegate votes (about 15% of the total). I've been pretty dismissive of the endorsement race, but I had initially forgotten that governors and U.S. representatives and senators are all superdelegates, in addition to a bunch of Democratic Party leadership at the state and national levels.

It looks well over half of the superdelegates currently intend to vote for Clinton, which makes it considerably more difficult for Sanders to gain enough committed delegates through the primary process. Superdelegates can change their mind at any time, and about 50 shifted from Clinton to Obama in 2008 when it became clear that Obama would win. Obama was already ahead in the superdelegate count at that time, though. Let's just hope the primary battle swings decisively toward one candidate.

Here are Wikipedia's pages on the '08 and '16 superdelegate counts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... ates,_2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... ates,_2016 (the main count there dates back to mid-November)

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 2:34 pm
by trigonalmayhem
If the superdelegates tip the balance away from who the actual voters choose there will be hell to pay. That could lead to a lot of people simply not turning up for the general election because the party machine has taken a giant steaming dump on them. If nothing else it would be a clear demonstration of how utterly broken our political process is and that there is probably no fixing it.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 2:38 pm
by amiller92
Everyone loves Bernie, but Hillary is going to win easily in both the primaries and the superdelegates.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 2:44 pm
by grant1simons2
Polls are about even in Iowa, and Bernie is getting endorsements every day now. If people show up and vote, Bernie can win.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 2:51 pm
by Tiller
The superdelegates will go along with the votes. Otherwise, if they flip the nomination, there will be hell to pay.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 16th, 2016, 12:25 am
by Didier
Total speculation, but in regards to single payer, even if you support the concept there is no chance it happens here in the near future. So for a Democrat, it's probably safer to publicly support reform of the current system, which people know, rather than opening yourself up to attacks about a system many voters probably don't understand.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 16th, 2016, 12:45 pm
by Nick
I'm a Bernie person, I guess, but damn a lot of Bernie people ruin Bernie.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 16th, 2016, 4:09 pm
by Snelbian
Nick wrote:I'm a Bernie person, I guess, but damn a lot of Bernie people ruin Bernie.
YUP.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 16th, 2016, 4:25 pm
by Tiller
Hillary doesn't even need the help of her supporters on that count.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/c ... z3xRWbBWm1
A top surrogate for Hillary Clinton is prepping a new attack in an intensifying and increasingly personal war against rival Bernie Sanders -- calling on the 74-year-old to release his medical records before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.
Clinton defender David Brock -- founder of the Correct the Record PAC, which coordinates directly with Clinton’s campaign -- is expected to hit the airwaves this weekend from Charleston, the scene of the third Democratic debate on Sunday night, and challenge Sanders to cough up a clean bill of health and doctor’s note in the next 16 days

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 17th, 2016, 11:53 pm
by Didier
Tiller, who do you think won the debate?

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 18th, 2016, 12:00 am
by Sacrelicio
Tiller wrote:Hillary doesn't even need the help of her supporters on that count.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/c ... z3xRWbBWm1
A top surrogate for Hillary Clinton is prepping a new attack in an intensifying and increasingly personal war against rival Bernie Sanders -- calling on the 74-year-old to release his medical records before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.
Clinton defender David Brock -- founder of the Correct the Record PAC, which coordinates directly with Clinton’s campaign -- is expected to hit the airwaves this weekend from Charleston, the scene of the third Democratic debate on Sunday night, and challenge Sanders to cough up a clean bill of health and doctor’s note in the next 16 days
She shouldn't be going negative at all.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 18th, 2016, 11:18 am
by amiller92
Didier wrote:Total speculation, but in regards to single payer, even if you support the concept there is no chance it happens here in the near future. So for a Democrat, it's probably safer to publicly support reform of the current system, which people know, rather than opening yourself up to attacks about a system many voters probably don't understand.
Which is why we need Bernie to run for president and talk about it.

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 18th, 2016, 12:00 pm
by MNdible

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Posted: January 18th, 2016, 12:17 pm
by grant1simons2