Presidential Election 2016

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2304
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » January 21st, 2016, 2:27 pm

Not everything that is "unrealistic" is equally so. Reparations are FAR more unrealistic than what Bernie is proposing
Pretty sure that two things both with a 0% chance of becoming law are, in fact, equally unrealistic.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 21st, 2016, 2:31 pm

EOst wrote:
Not everything that is "unrealistic" is equally so. Reparations are FAR more unrealistic than what Bernie is proposing
Pretty sure that two things both with a 0% chance of becoming law are, in fact, equally unrealistic.
You're doing the usual thing, and assuming government is static. (and being snarky instead of substantive, though I guess I would only expect the former from you)

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1759
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » January 21st, 2016, 2:36 pm

Tiller wrote:Reparations are FAR more unrealistic than what Bernie is proposing
Hm. I don't think that's true. I think the chances of breaking up the big banks or passing universal health care on the back of a middle tax increase are similarly small. Like, maybe reparations has a probability of 0.1% while those things are more like 1%, but it's a distinction without a difference.

Of course, Bernie knows those things don't stand a chance of happening and thinks they are worth advocating for anyway.

But you're right, the Bern crowd is defensive, because they were starting to believe. As was the Hillary crowd, which is why they are taking the gloves off.

Honestly, though, labeling Planned Parenthood his enemy isn't helping him either.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2304
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » January 21st, 2016, 3:06 pm

Tiller wrote:You're doing the usual thing, and assuming government is static. (and being snarky instead of substantive, though I guess I would only expect the former from you)
I'm giving as much substance as Sen. Sanders does when he is asked how he would implement any of his policy proposals. Government may not be static (insofar as the actors change constantly and the bounds of "acceptable discourse", the so-called Overton window, can and sometimes do change) but the structural constraints of the system are. The Sanders campaign has yet to advance any plan for how he would either 1) convince the opposition to accept any of his policies, 2) win a durable filibuster-proof progressive majority in the Senate and House, or 3) lower the bar for smaller (and still entirely hypothetical!) congressional majorities to pass legislation despite significant opposition. This is important, because by any interpretation a Sanders win would only create further incentives for Republicans (and moderate Democrats) toward zero-sum opposition, both because any successes of a Sanders administration would inevitably destabilize conservative positioning (cf. the difficulty of the R's Obamacare "repeal and replace" position) and because their ideological opposition would be deep and undoubtedly genuine.

Look, if Sanders were able to give a better answer to this question than "my election in itself would rewrite the rules," I would have a much more positive view of his campaign and his effect on the race. But I haven't seen that at all. I believe the record of the last eight years, in which a Democratic President who espoused broadly popular progressive policies was almost totally stymied by the structural limitations of American federal government, gives the lie to his argument. Cruz and Rubio can run on conservative maximalism because it's extraordinarily easy to imagine how their proposals might become law. That isn't true for Sanders.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 21st, 2016, 3:32 pm

EOst wrote:
Tiller wrote:You're doing the usual thing, and assuming government is static. (and being snarky instead of substantive, though I guess I would only expect the former from you)
I'm giving as much substance as Sen. Sanders does when he is asked how he would implement any of his policy proposals. Government may not be static (insofar as the actors change constantly and the bounds of "acceptable discourse", the so-called Overton window, can and sometimes do change) but the structural constraints of the system are. The Sanders campaign has yet to advance any plan for how he would either 1) convince the opposition to accept any of his policies, 2) win a durable filibuster-proof progressive majority in the Senate and House, or 3) lower the bar for smaller (and still entirely hypothetical!) congressional majorities to pass legislation despite significant opposition. This is important, because by any interpretation a Sanders win would only create further incentives for Republicans (and moderate Democrats) toward zero-sum opposition, both because any successes of a Sanders administration would inevitably destabilize conservative positioning (cf. the difficulty of the R's Obamacare "repeal and replace" position) and because their ideological opposition would be deep and undoubtedly genuine.

Look, if Sanders were able to give a better answer to this question than "my election in itself would rewrite the rules," I would have a much more positive view of his campaign and his effect on the race. But I haven't seen that at all. I believe the record of the last eight years, in which a Democratic President who espoused broadly popular progressive policies was almost totally stymied by the structural limitations of American federal government, gives the lie to his argument. Cruz and Rubio can run on conservative maximalism because it's extraordinarily easy to imagine how their proposals might become law. That isn't true for Sanders.
Thank you for the serious response, this I can actually agree with. It is all an uphill climb.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 22nd, 2016, 8:01 am

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event ... rally/45rj

Bernie is coming back to MN!

THE DETAILS
A Future to Believe In Rally with Bernie Sanders in St. Paul on 1/26
OFFICIAL EVENT
Information for the public: Doors open at 6:00 p.m. This event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required, but an RSVP is strongly encouraged. Admission is first come, first served.

DOORS OPEN:
6:00 p.m.
PROGRAM BEGINS:
7:00 p.m.
DATE:
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
ADD TO CALENDAR
HOST:
Bernie Sanders
LOCATION:
Saint Paul RiverCentre (St Paul, MN)
175 West Kellogg Boulevard
St Paul, MN 55102

Also there's a rally in Duluth:
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event ... rally/45th

DFLand's gotta represent!

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mplsjaromir » January 22nd, 2016, 10:02 am

I will say that people who like Bernie tend to be more annoying than those who are supporting Hillary. This is a meta-criticism of Bernie and not actually reflective of his candidacy. His has passionate fans due to the fact that he brings something to be passionate about.

So then what is the case for Hillary? The case I hear the most is that she is electable. This is a self referential truism not based on anything. She has won exactly one election for public office and that was against Rick freakin' Lazio. The 2008 primary was not some fluke or black swan event, she is simply not good a running a campaign. The most electable candidate of all time is now trailing a, until recently, largely unknown senor citizen.

On the campaign trail she has been touting her foreign policy experience, I for one think that it is not something to be touted. She voted for Iraq War, her instincts in Syria, Iran, Libya have been terrible. She openly supports the tyrannical Egyptian and Saudi regimes. She was certainly a serviceable Secretary of State viewed through an Overton Window, and every presidential candidate is bad on foreign policy. In fact every Western leader with maybe the exception of Jeremy Corbyn have bad/no ideas in regards to the Middle East FP. It is a wash between the two.

This leads to this 3D game of chess theoretical scenario that somehow a president Clinton will somehow lead to a more progressive outcome than a president Sanders. That has to be one of the most cockamamie ideas ever floated. Does anyone remember the 1990's? How hysterical the GOP and the media in general got when it came to the Clintons. Clinton will face a greater challenge in congress than Bernie ever will. Hillary's record has shown her to be a staunch neo-Liberal and an eager opportunist. Below is an interesting first hand excerpt oh how Hillary operates:

Image

Image

One can imagine only more non progressive legislation that hurts the poor coming from a Clinton White House, again.

I get it that single payer healthcare has a long way to make it to law. Although, according to polling it does have a have plurality of public support. What is key to negotiation is to take a strong initial position, not to concede that only small incremental progress is possible. A Sanders (or anyone's) presidency could maintain the status quo. Along with all the other power the president has, I cannot fathom how someone could believe that a Hillary presidency would be better for low and middle income Americans than a Sanders.

I will also comment on how some are portraying Obama as some sort of progressive who couldn't get stuff passed in Congress. Anyone who had been paying attention knew Obama for what he was, a centrist Democrat, a much better one than Hillary. Adolph Reed had him figured out, not in 2006 but 1996!
Adolph Reed’s 1996 assessment of Obama, shortly after the latter won his
first Illinois state senate race:

“In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program -- the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics, as in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway. So far the black activist response hasn’t been up to the challenge. We have to do better.”

“The Curse of Community,” Village Voice, January 16, 1996(New Press, 2000)
None of this means that I would not vote for Hillary in the general election. I will gladly vote for Republican-lite over the Republican anytime. Some people actually like neo-Liberalism, so Hillary is perfect for those voters. Getting decent Supreme Court Justices on the bench is critical. But if the best we can hope for is a continuation of the last 35+ years of neo-Liberalism then what is the bleeping point?

I hate to make this comparison, but the reason why Trump and Sanders are connecting with people is that they are offering ordinary people something other than tax credits. We have had a generation of privatization, austerity, boot strap pep talks, etc. The electorate is hungry for something more.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby David Greene » January 22nd, 2016, 3:51 pm

Tiller wrote:I'd even be willing to bet that the split in this forum largely falls along a split in age. Younger people on this forum will tend to support Bernie, while older people will tend to support Hillary.
I'm not sure that's true, at least not to the extent that you seem to imply. Plenty of older people I know support Sanders. Are young people more likely to support Sanders? Probably, but that's because young people are always more likely to support the non-establishment candidate.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 23rd, 2016, 9:31 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyreg ... e-run.html
If Republicans were to nominate Mr. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a hard-line conservative, and Democrats were to pick Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bloomberg — who changed his party affiliation to independent in 2007 — has told allies he would be likely to run.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby VAStationDude » January 23rd, 2016, 11:05 am

and likely hand the election to Trump. What a self absorbed wanker.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 23rd, 2016, 11:32 am

I'd guess there are more center-right people who don't like Trump than center-left people who don't like Bernie. But just making this up right now with no evidence.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby VAStationDude » January 23rd, 2016, 12:10 pm

Bloomberg is probably the strongest advocate for gun control in America. I would imagine his tax policies would be significantly more liberal than Trumps. He seems unlikely to peel off conservatives or right leaning voters from Trump.

Minneboy
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 668
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 1:18 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Minneboy » January 23rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Everyone remember when Ventura became Governor and neither the Democrats or the Republicans supported him. On the national picture the last seven years have shown just how well the Republicans have wanted to work with a black man. Now if Bernie somehow manages to get the Democratic ticket, I think you'll find that he will get even less support, because he's really not willing to compromise and a lot of Democrats are beholden to their PACs and other big donors who really don't want change. So for that reason alone as a Democrat I'd be pretty scared to try and get Bernie into the Oval Office. Not to mention you'd also send some moderates over to the other side and God forbid that Trump or Cruz is sitting over on that side in November.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 23rd, 2016, 12:44 pm

VAStationDude wrote:He seems unlikely to peel off conservatives or right leaning voters from Trump.
That's kind of the point. Trump and Cruz have the far right/fringe interests of the party, so Bloomberg would go after the middle. Like with Jesse here, a third party can win with under 40 percent of the vote.

Bloomberg certainly isn't perfect, but despite what our presidential politics show the majority of Americans support common sense gun reform and socially liberal ideas like gay marriage, and for moderates Bloomberg's background as a "Republican" and successful businessman distinguishes him from the stigma of "tax and spend" Democrats.

I'm skeptical that he'll end up running, and if he does he's still have a hard time winning. But if any independent could, it'd be him.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 23rd, 2016, 1:07 pm

Minneboy wrote:he's really not willing to compromise and a lot of Democrats are beholden to their PACs and other big donors who really don't want change.
This meme out there that suggests Bernie would only ever accept legislation if it is 100% his way, as if he would reject the public option because he wants single-payer, just isn't true. The difference between Hillary and Bernie, when we talk about policy, is that Bernie would go farther given the opportunity, and that the "compromises" he makes would be good, not bad, compromises. I can agree, however, that there would be some amount of additional resistance to him like Ventura had to deal with, though opposing the president of the United States would probably be a bit tougher.

Would anyone really prefer an end to gridlock if it meant bipartisan agreement on invading Iran and Syria? Would a "compromise" that voucherized Medicare be a compromise we really wanted? Not every compromise is inherently good, and "gridlock" isn't inherently bad, especially if "compromise" means reactionary change. One of my biggest concerns with electing Hillary, is that while I both agree and disagree with her depending on the issue, if congress remains under republican control, the only things she'll get done are things republicans agree with her on. Just look at what happened with Obama and the TPP. Presidential support matters.

I would love to see a President Bernie Sanders whip democrats into line to pass civil libertarian leaning legislation with that contingent of republicans who agree with him there. It would also be great to see him take executive action in areas that are the domain of the president, whether that means muzzling the NSA, DEA, and the department of Homeland Security (we don't even need the latter), or not plunging into reckless foreign wars. He's been in Congress for almost 3 decades, so I'm sure he knows how things work (more than Obama did, certainly, as a freshman Senator).

Additionally, if you start from a weak position in negotiation, ie not even supporting the public option in Hillary's case, you'll never get meaningful change. Hillary is flagrantly conservative because she only wants to offer the bare minimum to keep liberals/progressives placated, in order to styme change. If our two political parties remain conservative and reactionary, respectively, then we'll end up with Trump in no time.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby VAStationDude » January 23rd, 2016, 1:47 pm

Liberal Wall Street billionaire Bloomberg isn't anti establishment like Jesse. Trump and Sanders are not boring lifeless candidates like skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman. Bloomberg would be far less inspiring than either Trump or Sanders.

Two liberals running against one right winger would gift the election to the righty. As we saw in Florida in 2000 a miniscule swing in votes resulting from a self absorbed douche running a vanity third party campaign is enough to change the course of American history.

The consequences resulting from a Bloomberg candidacy include openly racist immigration policies and a couple more right wing Supreme Court justices.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 23rd, 2016, 8:37 pm

Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders are the anti-establishment candidates in this hypothetical. Bloomberg is the moderate.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mplsjaromir » January 23rd, 2016, 10:23 pm

Bloomberg appeals to the racist technocrat authoritarian who also hates guns and big sodas. A thin slice of the voters at large. He would sweep the New York Times columnists and that's about it.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2434
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 24th, 2016, 12:43 am

Oh, don't worry. We're all on the same page here that Bernie Sanders is the way to go; the only candidate who's above politics and can seemlessly implement single-payer health care without any sacrifices. His economic plan will erase white privledge, too.

Carry on.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mplsjaromir » January 24th, 2016, 8:52 am

Oh for sure, take the guy seriously who is running third party in a first past the post election. Especially if they plan on campaigning for three months. No wide eyed optimism there.

Bloomberg had the advantage of outspending his opponents 15:1 in his mayoral elections. He could spend $1 billion of his own cash and not break 2%.


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests