Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Vondy]

I could riff on that in so many outré ways, but I shant.

[Badger]

Obviously, Applejack is the very best pony. Great strength, a lasso, and down home simplicity.

 

I'll take the Mustang though. My drivers side window is plastic and duck tape on my 2003 Altima, and I hit 230k miles today. I need a car.

 

I think I see your car 3 separate times on the way to work everyday.

[Badger]

...without mentioning what a pony produces.

 

Well, that actually is excellent symbolism, on what most political promises entail.

[Pariah]

Thank you. I thought the comparison fairly obvious, myself

[Old Man]

Obviously, Applejack is the very best pony. Great strength, a lasso, and down home simplicity.

 

I'll take the Mustang though. My drivers side window is plastic and duck tape on my 2003 Altima, and I hit 230k miles today. I need a car.

At least your car was built this century. Next up for Stacie is a new oil pump. Which is behind all the belts and pulleys on that side of the engine, including the timing belt.

 

I hear Applejack is a pretty good pony.

 

Back on topic, in my opinion Sanders needs to do a better job controlling his supporters if he's going to keep running. I get that part of his platform is that the system is rigged against him, and I think he may even be right, but this hooliganism is only going to hurt his chances.

[megaplayboy]

The problem is that he's going to lose, he knows he's going to lose...but he keeps telling his supporters that victory is achievable, that the system is rigged against him, and that the Democratic establishment(including his opponent) is deceitful and hopelessly corrupt. It's mid-May. The primaries will be over in 4 weeks. The convention is in 2 months. If he really wants to advance his policy ideas and defeat Trump, how does he bring this plane in for a smooth landing?

 

I voted for him, for the record. But if you are going to work within the system, you need to continue doing so. The runner-up endorses the winner so that the winner has the best chance to defeat the ®ival party's nominee in November. If the runner-up doesn't endorse the winner and work to defeat the rival party, and the winner doesn't prevail in November, the runner-up shares in the blame for the defeat, and the faction they represent loses power and respect and trust in the next few go-arounds. If the winner prevails anyway, then the slight is remembered, and the runner-up's power over policy is diminished considerably.

 

These are hard truths which a lot of people are not yet ready to hear, but it is what it is.

[CaptnStrawberry]

Sanders has more or less tacitly endorsed his rival, saying she has the intelligence and experience to be Prez and he will support the eventual nominee.  But he feels he owes it to the many millions who have supported him to keep fighting, and I think that's his decision alone. 

 

Still of the opinion we need an actual Third Party if we're ever going to challenge the status quo.  As many have pointed out, getting such a thing on the ballot in all fifty states is next to impossible.

[DasBroot]

At this stage - two left in the field, one with a large advantage - the Democrats really should be announcing that no matter who wins the other will be their VP to try and unify the vote against the Republicans.  They haven't stirred up the same intra-candidate hate that Trump used to blast his competition (Trump couldn't announce Cruz for his running mate if his life depended on it) - yet. A VP nomination lets Sander's followers feel that he has a direct voice in the President's ear to try and steer policy and sets up a run for the big chair in 2020 or 2024.

[Pariah]

FWIW, Bernie sanders will be 79 years old in 2020. 

[Simon]

Also highly unlikely for a VP to run against a sitting President, so you'd be looking at 2024 before he could run again (at 83 years of age).

[DasBroot]

None of them are spring chickens.  We might end up with a one term president due to just that alone - will any of them really want to go through this again in 4 years (well, two years ... let's be realistic about when the next presidential campaign run will start)?

 

That's all the more reason to take the seat if offered.

[Hermit]

Eh, the age issue isn't a factor for me. I'm pretty sure presidents get good medical care.

[megaplayboy]

The office ages you pretty badly, though.

[Hermit]

That's true. Obama looks like he's been in office for twenty years rather than near 8 IMO

[Old Man]

The job sucks. That's why only lunatics and criminals apply.

[Vondy]

The problem is that he's going to lose, he knows he's going to lose...but he keeps telling his supporters that victory is achievable, that the system is rigged against him, and that the Democratic establishment(including his opponent) is deceitful and hopelessly corrupt. It's mid-May. The primaries will be over in 4 weeks. The convention is in 2 months. If he really wants to advance his policy ideas and defeat Trump, how does he bring this plane in for a smooth landing?

 

I voted for him, for the record. But if you are going to work within the system, you need to continue doing so. The runner-up endorses the winner so that the winner has the best chance to defeat the ®ival party's nominee in November. If the runner-up doesn't endorse the winner and work to defeat the rival party, and the winner doesn't prevail in November, the runner-up shares in the blame for the defeat, and the faction they represent loses power and respect and trust in the next few go-arounds. If the winner prevails anyway, then the slight is remembered, and the runner-up's power over policy is diminished considerably.

 

These are hard truths which a lot of people are not yet ready to hear, but it is what it is.

 

It is perfectly within the system to fight it out to the last ballot and to try to convince the super-delagates to switch sides based on better polling numbers against the eventual rival. That the odds are very strongly against that happening is a separate consideration and the Hillary supporters who are trying to shame him into quitting on their terms are, quite frankly, being undemocratic because they don't like that the system hasn't silenced their opposition (yet).

 

As for the runner-up endorsing the winner: it may be tradition and good politics, but I see absolutely zero moral value in the act. Nor do I see nominations as being of any value whatsoever if they are made pro-forma and only because its expected. If a runner-up were to refuse to endorse the winner because they believed they are a sad-sack candidate and a poor choice for president, I wouldn't shed a single tear over it. 

 

I am sure, should Bernie lose (which I believe is likely), that he will endorse Hillary on the grounds that she is not Trump. He's said he thinks she has the intelligence and competence to do the job. That does not, however, obligate his followers to vote for her in any way shape or form. Its not incumbent on Bernie to convince his followers to vote for Hillary. In the absence of substantive policy overtures on her part, I see that as pure nonsense.

 

Its 100% on Clinton's shoulders to convince us to vote for her. If she can't, then she deserves to lose.

 

Four years is not an eternity.

[womble]

A question about the Dem convention/selection process.

 

It seems to me, from an outside and somewhat cursory perspective that Hilary is doing rather better than Bernie in states that are much more likely to return electoral college votes for the Reps than the Dems. Bernie, conversely (with an exception or two) seems to be doing better in traditionally blue states and the ones that seem to crop up as "decider" states in the election for the Big Chair. My question is whether there is any weighting towards the candidate for the nomination who performed best in the battleground states that can go either way?

[Vondy]

A question about the Dem convention/selection process.

 

It seems to me, from an outside and somewhat cursory perspective that Hilary is doing rather better than Bernie in states that are much more likely to return electoral college votes for the Reps than the Dems. Bernie, conversely (with an exception or two) seems to be doing better in traditionally blue states and the ones that seem to crop up as "decider" states in the election for the Big Chair. My question is whether there is any weighting towards the candidate for the nomination who performed best in the battleground states that can go either way?

 

There isn't any systemic weighting based on the electoral issues you raise.

 

Its up to Bernie to make that argument to the superdelegates. 

 

If he can, maybe he'll shut up about them. They serve a purpose.

 

That said, I do think that superdelegates should not declare themselves prior to the states voting.

 

I feel they have undue influence on the populist vote by pre-weighting the outcomes.

[Pariah]

This can't be real, can it?

 

Trump pulls ahead of Clinton in new national poll

 

Okay, it is a Fox News poll, but still...really?

[Starlord]

Bernie is still a factor in many people's eyes...perhaps that skewed the poll.  *shrug*

[Pariah]

Good observation.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'd say the poll's likely accurate, but just too early to be considered predictive. Polls taken a week or even days out are likely to be pretty accurate. This far out, just a rough measure of how each candidate is doing in their campaigns. I'm not sure how much value they have even for that.

[sinanju]

Meanwhile in the DNC...

 

"We've analyzed the attack, ma'am, and there is a danger. Shall I have your personal shuttle standing by?"

"Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you severely overestimate their chances!"

 

I have no idea who's going to win in November. None. But I'm reminded of the line: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."

[Ternaugh]

This can't be real, can it?

 

Trump pulls ahead of Clinton in new national poll

 

Okay, it is a Fox News poll, but still...really?

 

Oh, it can be real, and still be misleading.

 

Polling problem 1: Trump: 45% Clinton 42% Margin of error: 3 points. The spread isn't statistically significant.

 

Polling problem 2: We don't really have a national election. We have essentially a bunch of smaller races for Electoral College votes. Right now, the map favors the Democratic candidate, but even that's too soon to tell if you're in a battleground state.

[Vondy]

This can't be real, can it?

 

Trump pulls ahead of Clinton in new national poll

 

Okay, it is a Fox News poll, but still...really?

Polls have been showing Trump v. Clinton to be a much tighter contest than Trump v. Sanders for months. In the former she's just barely eked out wins and has steadily lost ground. This is within the margin of error.

 

In the latter, Sanders has typically been ahead by the margin of error or slightly greater. In some cases, much greater. The simple fact is, no matter how hard her supporters try to spin it, people dislike her almost as much as they dislike Trump.

 

If she doesn't have a big moment, or hits the wrong tone once to often on the capaign trail, she very well could lose... and badly. Clinton is an unlikable plodder whose policies are unimaginative and represent a status quo Americans increasingly see as corrupt and elitist and stacked against the common man.

 

And, trotting Bill out on economics, irrespective of his competence, is a hack move that will be read as weakness. In a campaign between a plodding hack and a windmilling baffoon, the buffoon may just land a knockout punch.

 

If past performance is an indicator, she is, contrary to media fantasy, in a much more tenuous and vulnerable position than the dems want to admit. In this case, the less electable candidate is (clinton) is likely to win the nomination.

 

And, me? If she doesn't offer Sanders camp substantive policy concessions and clean up her act, I'm going to sit back, eat popcorn, slurp my soda, and cheer while she gets beat down and bloodied.

 

I can survive four years of Trump if it means the DNC pulls it's head out of its collective backside and realizes they lost touch with key elements of their base. They need to get with the times and with the people. So does Hillary.

 

The people shouting for unity really mean surrender. I'd rather go down fighting for my principles in this case. I want her to lose. Badly. It's the best way to teach the DNC what they need to know to elect a real populist firebrand.