Presidential Election 2016

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1823
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » January 28th, 2016, 11:53 am

twincitizen wrote:In a way the Democratic primary field is as bad as the Republican one, just with fewer people.
We've got one candidate who is supremely qualified and can almost certainly beat anyone the other side is offering and another who is inspiring a lot of people and showing surprisingly well in the polls (although take the head-to-heads with the GOP with a giant grain of salt).

That does not sound at all bad.

at40man
Rice Park
Posts: 429
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 6:49 pm
Location: The Saintly City

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby at40man » January 28th, 2016, 12:33 pm

amiller92 wrote:
Tiller wrote:you seem to be under the impression that Bernie would be utterly unable to contest such negativity.
They won't need to go that negative on Bernie. They'd just need to keep saying "socialist" and "he'll raise your taxes."
\Bernie uses those words to describe his ideological slant and his tax policies...

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6199
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby twincitizen » January 28th, 2016, 12:44 pm

amiller92 wrote:
twincitizen wrote:In a way the Democratic primary field is as bad as the Republican one, just with fewer people.
We've got one candidate who is supremely qualified and can almost certainly beat anyone the other side is offering and another who is inspiring a lot of people and showing surprisingly well in the polls (although take the head-to-heads with the GOP with a giant grain of salt).

That does not sound at all bad.
Point taken. I guess I meant more metaphorically, in terms of their extremes.

You've got your uninspiring establishment/"moderate" candidate with serious baggage (Clinton: Bush, Christie)

and you've got a guy who's so far outside the mainstream that he's not even a member of the party he's running for (Sanders: Trump, arguably Rand Paul, Ted Cruz)

and you've got a guy polling at 1% who truthfully should be getting a lot more attention based on their records, electability, etc. (O'Malley: Kasich)

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2391
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 28th, 2016, 12:52 pm

twincitizen wrote:I could say a lot more about this, but I have long felt that Hillary should not have run. I didn't want her to run, I hoped she wouldn't.

At the same time I also acknowledge that she's the most qualified person to run for President in a long, long time. And I think she would be very good at the job. Even though I probably am closer to Sanders in terms of policy positions, I have absolutely no qualms about saying Hillary would make a better President.

The problem is that the "inevitability" of her campaign prevented other viable mainstream Democrats from even thinking about running. Qualified as she is, her poor favorability ratings are a BIG DEAL and I don't think they should be swept under the rug. Yes, she has been the subject of right-wing attacks for 25 years now. But she hasn't exactly endeared herself to her own side either.

Short story is I wish the Democratic Party process would have turned out better (i.e. more viable candidates). Instead we have two extreme positions, neither of which is a clear lock to win the Presidency. Democrats should be a lock to win based on demographics alone, but we are not - precisely because of the two frontrunner candidates.

In a way the Democratic primary field is as bad as the Republican one, just with fewer people.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I like Bernie more, think Hillary might be the most capable president among all of those running, but believe both Democratic candidates are wrong for the 2016 ticket.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 852
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 28th, 2016, 1:04 pm

amiller92 wrote:
Tiller wrote:you seem to be under the impression that Bernie would be utterly unable to contest such negativity.
They won't need to go that negative on Bernie. They'd just need to keep saying "socialist" and "he'll raise your taxes."
And Bernie would just need to remind the older folks susceptible to namedropping "socialist" that he would be strengthening Social Security and Medicare, not turning America into the Soviet Union.

The whole "scary socialist" argument, that 50% of America wouldn't vote for a socialist, misses the part that if Bernie is the nominee, the ballot says "Bernie Sanders", not "Socialist". If there were any lines of attack they'd be prepared for in the general election, this would be at the top of the list.

As someone who knows some people who viscerally hate Obama (family is forever :roll:), I'll submit this as an example of the sentiment I've seen on this topic, as it matches well:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01 ... socialist/

The contrast is telling.
Bill O'Reilly wrote:“Senator Sanders has no chance,” O’Reilly said. “America will never vote for a socialist as commander-in-chief.”
Nearly every commenter wrote:Um, Bill…… I think that horse was let out of the barn about 8 years ago. The difference is that Sanders admits it."
Those who would most tend to by the line that Bernie = Communism are already pretty far gone, though they still like him over Hillary or Obama since they view him as more honest (and is a white man, though being jewish is a downside for some). That doesn't mean they will vote for him, of course. We'll have to see how the "Socialism" vs "Social Security/Medicare" argument goes.

With America being as highly polarized as it is today, the Socialist argument would only help in the margins (being one of few things they can really hammer him on to turn out their base, the other thing maybe being "Terrorism"), and isn't some magically "disqualifying" issue like it would have been in the 80's.

It's probably easier for Bernie to respond to charges of "Socialism" and "Terrorism" than it is for Hillary to respond to "Benghazi", because citing that "giant right-wing conspiracy" against her won't dissuade the republican base, while the Social Security and Medicare many of them are reliant on will give them pause.

There are real benefits to starting off clean, since you actually have an opportunity to shape perceptions of yourself. It's not only about winning the white house, which is important, but also trying to regain control of offices down ticket. Bernie does better in rural areas of MN compared to Hillary, so having him on the ticket would help us regain the state house next fall.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2391
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 28th, 2016, 1:10 pm

twincitizen wrote:and you've got a guy polling at 1% who truthfully should be getting a lot more attention based on their records, electability, etc. (O'Malley: Kasich)
Even though it probably doesn't matter, since every candidate has a couple weeks of momentum only to fade again, Kasich is actually polling third in New Hampshire and is almost even with Ted Cruz for second. It seems likely that Trump, Cruz and one or two "establishment" Republicans will survive through New Hampshire, so there's a chance. Although I think the fact that Kasich is the only GOP candidate who's remotely acceptable to people in this conversation means he's probably doomed.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out. I wouldn't be totally surprised to see Trump underwhelm in Iowa — though I also wouldn't be totally surprised to see him do as well as he's polling.

Tonight's Trumpless debate also provides an interesting scenario, too. If you're Fox or another candidate, is there any benefit of even acknowledging that Trump isn't there? It seems to me that it should be really easy to make a mockery of the situation — and Trump's candidacy in general — just by ignoring him. But instead I'm sure the debate will open with five questions asking people to respond to things Trump said since the last debate, and then afterward the talking heads will discuss "what it means" that Trump wasn't there, and then Trump will make some sort of mocking statement that downplays any "zingers" the candidates thought they got against Trump during the debate. So once again Trump will remain the story and the charade will continue.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1357
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby xandrex » January 28th, 2016, 3:48 pm

twincitizen wrote:The problem is that the "inevitability" of her campaign prevented other viable mainstream Democrats from even thinking about running. Qualified as she is, her poor favorability ratings are a BIG DEAL and I don't think they should be swept under the rug. Yes, she has been the subject of right-wing attacks for 25 years now. But she hasn't exactly endeared herself to her own side either.
Hillary certainly isn’t perfect. That much is pretty obvious.

But I wouldn’t say her unfavorability is just the right reflexively hating/attacking her and then her actions to those on the left (though obviously those are both issues).

I think an issue that is rarely raised in her unfavorability is that Hillary Clinton is a woman and this country is still misogynistic AF. I grew up with people on the left and right making fun of her ankles (knew many people who literally called her “Cankles”). She’s called power hungry for seeking office (as if ego plays no part in any of the other candidates running). When she was feminine and agreeable during portions of her time as First Lady, she was called weak. When she got tactical she was called cold and calculating. People on the left and right attribute Bill’s 1990s policies to her as if OBVIOUSLY their marriage means that in her heart she supported everything he did. The media and public shamed her for her husband’s transgressions.

In some ways, no matter what face Clinton puts on, she’s screwed. And I’m not saying any of this in support of her, but just in how I’ve realized some of the sexist attacks on her have come from so-called "progressives" and really made me realize we’ve got a hell of a lot more work to do in this country if that's what we're seeing.

trigonalmayhem

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby trigonalmayhem » January 28th, 2016, 4:05 pm

My problem is with the people who assume any criticisms of Clinton are rooted in sexism instead of valid concerns about the fact she is a shill for huge investment banks on wall street. I'll admit there's plenty of people who lack Bernie's classy nature, but there's always going to be some assholes in the bunch. None of that changes the fact that true progressive who are sick of the status quo and the party machine do not like her.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1357
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby xandrex » January 28th, 2016, 4:33 pm

I can only assume you’re lobbing that one at me. But you’re really misrepresenting what I said.

I said that it’s not just that Hillary has positions the right disagrees with and has voted for things aren’t lefty enough for the #FeelTheBern crowd. If you don’t believe sexism plays any role in her unfavorability that’s fine. But it’s hilarious that so-called progressives profess to believing deeply in a culture steeped in sexism have a carve-out for Clinton.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2750
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mulad » January 28th, 2016, 4:54 pm

In the interest if equal time:


User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 852
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 28th, 2016, 7:54 pm


Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2391
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » January 28th, 2016, 8:08 pm

This debate is minutes old and they're already talking about Donald Trump.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1823
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » January 29th, 2016, 11:50 am

xandrex wrote: If you don’t believe sexism plays any role in her unfavorability that’s fine.
It's not really fine. If someone does not believe this, they are pretty darn clueless.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1357
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby xandrex » January 29th, 2016, 12:08 pm

amiller92 wrote:
xandrex wrote: If you don’t believe sexism plays any role in her unfavorability that’s fine.
It's not really fine. If someone does not believe this, they are pretty darn clueless.
Well, yeah. My point was that if you don’t believe it, whatever. Because that doesn’t make it untrue. ;)

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1102
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mplsjaromir » January 29th, 2016, 12:17 pm

amiller92 wrote:
xandrex wrote: If you don’t believe sexism plays any role in her unfavorability that’s fine.
It's not really fine. If someone does not believe this, they are pretty darn clueless.
Conversely, it would be clueless to say that anti-Jewishness doesn't play a role in Bernie Sanders' unfavorability and left wing economic populism in general.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3880
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Nathan » January 29th, 2016, 12:22 pm

Image

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1823
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » January 29th, 2016, 12:41 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:Conversely, it would be clueless to say that anti-Jewishness doesn't play a role in Bernie Sanders' unfavorability and left wing economic populism in general.
I guess, although I tend to be surprised when explicit antisemitism pops up.

Not so misogyny, which is everywhere.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1102
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mplsjaromir » January 29th, 2016, 1:25 pm

amiller92 wrote:
mplsjaromir wrote:Conversely, it would be clueless to say that anti-Jewishness doesn't play a role in Bernie Sanders' unfavorability and left wing economic populism in general.
I guess, although I tend to be surprised when explicit antisemitism pops up.

Not so misogyny, which is everywhere.
^^^That is true.

The criticism I hear most of her is that she is war hawk who is cajoling for hostility with Iran, supports/has benefited from the drug war/mass incarceration, wholesale capitulation to the right-wing narratives on race, crime, welfare and taxes, a campaign almost solely financed by Wall Street. I am not smart enough to know if these are sexist critiques or not.

I have heard few arguments in her favor. The most common is the tautology that she is more electable and could get more done legislatively.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3880
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Nathan » January 29th, 2016, 1:30 pm


User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 748
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby VacantLuxuries » January 29th, 2016, 1:43 pm

I am not smart enough to know if these are sexist critiques or not.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that claims that criticizing the 'likability' of Clinton is sexist in nature. If it's taken in the context of "she doesn't smile enough so she looks like a grump", yeah I would agree that's a sexist critique of someone running to be a head of state. But in the context of "I don't like how she calculates her positions and is the Democratic candidate most likely to get us into another Middle Eastern war," I think it's a valid critique. She's not likable because she's a flip flopping warmonger, not because she doesn't hug enough people.


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest