The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Civil War Man]

Considering that there is no chance in Hell that the Republicans will work with Hillary, since she is second only to Barack Obama on the GOP's Shit List (and they'd probably switch places the second Obama moves out of the White House), then saying she will be able to get stuff done while Bernie won't is arguing that Congressional Democrats would intentionally sabotage a Sanders presidency out of spite.

Though, considering that the DNC Chair has officially joined with the GOP in their attempts to destroy the CFPB, that might not be completely outlandish.

Though that actually reminds me of something that's bugged me about the "Clinton is more electable" argument. One of the common attacks levied at Sanders supporters is that they're all these entitled young people who will just sit in the corner and sulk while Trump takes the White House if their candidate doesn't win. But if it's Sanders who's the less electable one, that implies that an even larger number of Clinton supporters would do that.

[Lord MJ]

Though that actually reminds me of something that's bugged me about the "Clinton is more electable" argument. One of the common attacks levied at Sanders supporters is that they're all these entitled young people who will just sit in the corner and sulk while Trump takes the White House if their candidate doesn't win. But if it's Sanders who's the less electable one, that implies that an even larger number of Clinton supporters would do that.

I think the whole "Clinton is more electable" argument stems from the fact that most of America would not vote for a "socialist" thus Clinton would appeal to a broader percentage of the electorate.

[Lord MJ]

Apparently immunity was just granted to a Hillary Clinton aide. I don't know if that is as serious as some online media outlets says that it is.

[Borgholio]

IMO, it's a good thing. It means that he can take the blame for setting the thing up insecurely and claiming that Hillary never knew about it.

[Starglider]

But if it's Sanders who's the less electable one, that implies that an even larger number of Clinton supporters would do that.

No, it doesn't, because (shockingly I know) there are people who actually chose which party to vote for each time around, don't vote in the primaries and don't think of themselves as 'supporters' of any particular candidate a year before the actual election.

[Civil War Man]

But if it's Sanders who's the less electable one, that implies that an even larger number of Clinton supporters would do that.

No, it doesn't, because (shockingly I know) there are people who actually chose which party to vote for each time around, don't vote in the primaries and don't think of themselves as 'supporters' of any particular candidate a year before the actual election.

Yes it does, because the primaries and parties have precisely jack shit to do with my argument, since I am talking about the general election. If someone casts a vote for Clinton in the general election, they are a Clinton supporter in the general election by virtue of the fact that they supported Clinton in the general election. Saying that Clinton is electable and Sanders is not is saying there is a significant enough number of people who would vote for Clinton in the general election, but would not vote for Sanders under any condition (and would instead stay home, vote third party, or vote Republican), that it would swing the election.

[Civil War Man]

I think the whole "Clinton is more electable" argument stems from the fact that most of America would not vote for a "socialist" thus Clinton would appeal to a broader percentage of the electorate.

Which may or may not be true, but that is not a good argument for trying to sway someone who is currently supporting Sanders for the nomination. Someone supporting Sanders this early in the election cycle is presumably not afraid of the word socialist and would logically be in favor of most of the socialist policies he advocates (otherwise they'd either be supporting a different candidate or would currently not be getting involved).

And if someone is supporting Sanders in the primary, and someone else comes up to them and says, "You should not vote for Sanders because he is unelectable. He is unelectable because he advocates socialist policies. You should vote for Clinton instead because she is electable," the logical conclusion is that Clinton does not support those policies, because if she did she'd be just as unelectable. So if Clinton does not support those policies, why the Hell would someone who does want to vote for her?

[Lord MJ]

I think the whole "Clinton is more electable" argument stems from the fact that most of America would not vote for a "socialist" thus Clinton would appeal to a broader percentage of the electorate.

Which may or may not be true, but that is not a good argument for trying to sway someone who is currently supporting Sanders for the nomination. Someone supporting Sanders this early in the election cycle is presumably not afraid of the word socialist and would logically be in favor of most of the socialist policies he advocates (otherwise they'd either be supporting a different candidate or would currently not be getting involved).

And if someone is supporting Sanders in the primary, and someone else comes up to them and says, "You should not vote for Sanders because he is unelectable. He is unelectable because he advocates socialist policies. You should vote for Clinton instead because she is electable," the logical conclusion is that Clinton does not support those policies, because if she did she'd be just as unelectable. So if Clinton does not support those policies, why the Hell would someone who does want to vote for her?

The logic I've heard is that the Democrats need to put forth the candidate that can best win the general election. I've heard repeatedly "A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for the Republicans, Bernie can't get to 270 (electoral votes)."

[The Romulan Republic]

I think the whole "Clinton is more electable" argument stems from the fact that most of America would not vote for a "socialist" thus Clinton would appeal to a broader percentage of the electorate.

Which may or may not be true, but that is not a good argument for trying to sway someone who is currently supporting Sanders for the nomination. Someone supporting Sanders this early in the election cycle is presumably not afraid of the word socialist and would logically be in favor of most of the socialist policies he advocates (otherwise they'd either be supporting a different candidate or would currently not be getting involved).

And if someone is supporting Sanders in the primary, and someone else comes up to them and says, "You should not vote for Sanders because he is unelectable. He is unelectable because he advocates socialist policies. You should vote for Clinton instead because she is electable," the logical conclusion is that Clinton does not support those policies, because if she did she'd be just as unelectable. So if Clinton does not support those policies, why the Hell would someone who does want to vote for her?

The logic I've heard is that the Democrats need to put forth the candidate that can best win the general election. I've heard repeatedly "A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for the Republicans, Bernie can't get to 270 (electoral votes)."

Polling does not support that (though I know its unreliable), and I think between his enthusiastic supporters and the spectre of Trump, Sanders might be able to generate a high turnout. Also, a lot of people loath Clinton, and a lot of Sanders supporters will probably refuse to vote for her (reprehensibly, in my opinion, but their it is).

Their was the threat of Bloomberg running independent and taking votes from Sanders, but I haven't heard much of that lately.

Though of course, there's no way to be certain.

And in Fascist news:

https://gawker.com/fbi-arrests-veterans ... 1762703370

Way back in 2014, a Cliven Bundy and his band of anti-government gunmen tried to start a small war with the Bureau of Land Management (some of them recently tried again in Oregon). Today, one of the leaders of that fight is in federal custody—and that means Donald Trump is down one campaign officer.

Jerry DeLemus is a fixture of the New Hampshire Tea Party scene and co-chairman of the state’s Veterans for Donald Trump group. He’s also, the New Hampshire Union Leader reports, under arrest over federal charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch standoff:

DeLemus is facing nine federal charges based on an indictment brought in Nevada, including conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, assault on a federal officer, obstruction of justice, attempting to impede or injure a federal law enforcement officer, interference with interstate commerce by extortion, and several firearms charges, according to court records.
The report is confirmed by multiple Facebook posts by friends and famly of DeLemus:

[Omega18]

Considering that there is no chance in Hell that the Republicans will work with Hillary, since she is second only to Barack Obama on the GOP's Shit List (and they'd probably switch places the second Obama moves out of the White House), then saying she will be able to get stuff done while Bernie won't is arguing that Congressional Democrats would intentionally sabotage a Sanders presidency out of spite.

Uh, this is missing some of the practical realities of being President and how elected representatives in the US are expected to behave even if part of the same party.

Part of Hillary's argument is that much of Bernie's rhetoric is being entirely unrealistic about being able to get things done with Republicans in congress, while she is much more realistic on this subject. We saw how well the suggestion by Obama during the 2008 primaries that he would be able to better work with congressional Republicans because he didn't have the baggage that Hillary did actually worked in practice...

There is also a question if Bernie will be too aggressive with executive orders while Hillary will potentially be more realistic about what will be legally upheld by the courts. Even with a future more liberal Supreme Court some of Bernie proposals may go to far, such as his previous proposal to give legal status to all current undocumented immigrants mentioned in a recent debate. (The problem is the legal justification for Obama's previous executive action in this area in the first place was prioritizing the more problematic undocumented immigrants as part of his authority over enforcement, while most legal scholars agree this justification no longer exists with an executive action covering actually everyone.) An executive action that is upheld can ultimately be better than a theoretically "better" one that the could end up struck down.

In terms of cooperation from Congress, the reality is even in the best case scenarios obviously Sanders would only have a tiny Democratic majority in Congress anytime soon. The reality is in such a situation it only takes a tiny number of Democrats to block a bill from passing assuming Republicans essentially oppose it. You can expect Senators Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, and Jon Tester from Montana in particular to be often on the more conservative side of the Democratic Party. In a House actually controlled by Democrats, you would also realistically have a bunch of Democrats from rather conservative congressional districts.

In the US political system members of congress are ultimately primarily expected to represent what their constituents want rather than what the President wants at any particular time. Especially if the Senator or House members comes from a state or congressional district where more came out to vote for Sanders' opponent in the last election, they may feel they are obligated to vote against certain measures which seem to go too far to the left and their constituents would be really likely to object to. In practice they should support some elements of the Democratic agenda, but they may be for a hypothetical example only willing to support a hike of the minimum wage on a national level to something like perhaps 12 dollars per hour as Hillary has proposed while they won't support Bernie's proposal for make the minimum wage nationally a full 15 dollars per hour. You can complain this is somehow sabotage, but it reflects how elected representatives will actually behave in the US especially as they need to worry about re-election in their own states and congressional districts. This also brings up the completely valid question of to what degree Bernie will actually be able to implement what he is promising if he was elected President.

[The Romulan Republic]

No President can get much done, beyond executive orders, with a hostile legislature.

Would Sanders have a tougher time in that regard? Maybe. Depends how much more conservative/establishment Democrats are willing to work with him and weather the Democrats would win more Congressional races with Clinton or Sanders on the ticket.

It probably helps that Sanders has been a legislator more recently and for longer than Clinton, though. These people are his colleagues, and he knows how to work with them.

[Elheru Aran]

I think that to some degree Sanders or his campaign must be gambling that there will be some turnover in Congress with this election. It's almost certain there will be a few seats switching places. Whether that's enough to do him any good should he be elected is an open question, because it's possible that if he became the D nominee, the R voters might turn out in enough numbers to keep their Congresscreatures in office...

[Omega18]

It probably helps that Sanders has been a legislator more recently and for longer than Clinton, though. These people are his colleagues, and he knows how to work with them.

The counter argument is that Sanders has sometimes been the sole Democrat (actually usually socialist at the time) voting against various bills over the years, and he typically was not the person actually writing the bills that got through the Senate. He's not the equivalent of a Ted Kennedy who was able to work comparatively effective with elected Republicans on certain key issues. (I will admit political shifts have made that tougher to do period recently.) On top of this, as I previously noted how strongly liberal someone's agenda actually is will also realistically have an impact on how supportive more moderate members of congress are likely to be of the proposals in various cases.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that to some degree Sanders or his campaign must be gambling that there will be some turnover in Congress with this election. It's almost certain there will be a few seats switching places. Whether that's enough to do him any good should he be elected is an open question, because it's possible that if he became the D nominee, the R voters might turn out in enough numbers to keep their Congresscreatures in office...

Any Democratic President needs major turnover in Congress, considering that the Obstructionist Party currently holds a substantial majority in both houses of Congress. Until that changes, any Democratic President will be able to do little more than damage control.

[RogueIce]

Considering that there is no chance in Hell that the Republicans will work with Hillary, since she is second only to Barack Obama on the GOP's Shit List (and they'd probably switch places the second Obama moves out of the White House), then saying she will be able to get stuff done while Bernie won't is arguing that Congressional Democrats would intentionally sabotage a Sanders presidency out of spite.

Though, considering that the DNC Chair has officially joined with the GOP in their attempts to destroy the CFPB, that might not be completely outlandish.

Would they sabotage in the sense of, say, the GOP obstructionism? Not really. But look at what a mess the AHA process was, and that was with Democrats in control. Do you really think they're just going to pass Universal Health Care even if Sanders win and the Ds take both houses? Or any of his more strongly-left proposals?

At best, he'll (more than likely) get watered down versions of what he wants, which kind of makes one wonder what's the practical difference between him and Hillary once in office? Except he won't be fighting his fellow Democrats over it in the process, which does make Clinton look like the more practical candidate for "get things done" assuming the Congress switches control.

Of course absent major turnover in the GOP ranks, a R-dominated Congress will probably be equally stupid no matter which of the Democratic candidates get elected, so it's kind of a wash on that front. Maybe Hillary, being relatively more moderate, can get more done with the saner Republicans than a self-proclaimed socialist like Sanders. But either way it'd be a CF.

It's just that, given Sanders is further left than even most Democrats, it does make Hillary more appealing even amongst the hopeful that the Democrats can either A) win back Congress or at the very least B) whatever gains they make are chiefly at the expense of the more rabid GOPers leaving the (comparatively) more rational GOP members in control. At least in the sense of "is willing to compromise on things" rather than "let's ride this shit into the ground" if they don't get what they want.

[Lord MJ]

I think the root of the discord and animous is that in their mind he doesn't see there is a difference between the economic issues and racial issues. It's been a repeated source of frustration for black voters.

I don't think that's entirely fair.

Their is certainly overlap between the two issues, but Sanders has addressed race specifically at times, most notably perhaps when it comes to reforming the Justice System.

I'm glad Sanders didn't say that.

Wouldn't be a tactful thing for him to say, but its true nonetheless.

It is a issue. Even an important one. But their are bigger priorities that Sanders is rightly focussing on.

America is not likely to rise or fall on funding for HBUCs. Climate change, the economy, and foreign policy, on the other hand...

Stop trying to replace Obamacare,

Ah, nice of your to repeat this Clinton talking point.

Sanders doesn't want to just scrap Obamacare. He wants to create something better.

Until he does, I'm sure Obamacare will remain in place under him (he voted for it, after all).

Now, if the objection is simply about replacing Obamacare with anything, even something better, simply because it doesn't have Obama's name on it or something, there's not much I can say to that.

and stop trying to make public colleges tuition free.

Why? Because it'll supposedly hurt HBCUs? Despite the fact that Sanders has pledged more support for them? Despite the fact that no president can responsible put the interests of a few institutions entirely ahead of the whole nation?

Also stop characterizing blacks as poor or in jail.

Except he hasn't done that, so far as I'm aware. He has rightly pointed out that a disproportionate number of black people are poor and in prison. You know, addressing racism. If he doesn't do this, he'll be called racist for not doing it.

Also explain exactly how his grand spending plans will work and they will even get passed in congress. These are sentiments I've seen from blacks that are vehemently opposed to Bernie Sanders.

Any Democratic President will depend on a sympathetic Democratic majority to get much done outside of Executive Action. Bernie or Clinton.

Sanders has made it clear that he will pay for his programs by tax increases on the rich, closing loopholes, and raising taxes while more than making up for it by cutting health care costs. Probably he'll also do it by spending less on the military and prisons. He probably should release more detailed plans and articulate it better, but let's be honest- how many voters ever read lengthy outlines of tax policy?

Another thing I think it comes down to is: "What good is making college tuition free, creating a socialized health care system, and breaking up the big banks going to do for black people? How are black lives going to be made better by any of Bernie Sander's policies? White people may benefit but blacks will be in the plight as before."

[The Romulan Republic]

Everyone who isn't rich stands to benefit from the policies you listed. That disproportionately includes black people.

No, they don't address the problems of black people alone, but they will have benefits. That should really be inarguable.

Which is not to say that racial issues don't need to be specifically addressed as well. They do. Fortunately, Sanders has been addressing them, throughout his career but increasingly of late.

[Lord MJ]

Everyone who isn't rich stands to benefit from the policies you listed. That disproportionately includes black people.

No, they don't address the problems of black people alone, but they will have benefits. That should really be inarguable.

Well it has been arguable. In that we already have Obamacare so why do we need to create a completely new health care system. One that will cost more money (and if it becomes necessary to cut something, programs that help blacks and minorities could be on the chopping block.) In that making college free would also cost money and has supply and demand issues that could invariably hurt blacks. Why should blacks care about Wall St issues, that's not our concern.

Note that this isn't my perspective or viewpoint. But it is one that has been echoed by black voters. A demographic Bernie Sanders is getting killed in.

Which is not to say that racial issues don't need to be specifically addressed as well. They do. Fortunately, Sanders has been addressing them, throughout his career but increasingly of late.

That's the part that black voters simply do not believe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Presuming that is the case (and again, I don't buy that most black voters are actively hostile to Sanders as opposed to simply preferring Clinton), how do you feel Sanders could better convey his message?

[Lord MJ]

Presuming that is the case (and again, I don't buy that most black voters are actively hostile to Sanders as opposed to simply preferring Clinton), how do you feel Sanders could better convey his message?

I don't know if it's possible. The message he is conveying isn't something that the black voting populace considers a priority. They have more pressing concerns.

For example when Bernie Sanders says reversing Citizens United is his litmus test for nominating a SCOTUS justice, that makes at least some black voters apprehensive. Citizens United is not something that's a priority issue for black voters.

[The Romulan Republic]

You could make the argument that Citizens United gives further disproportionate power to a wealthy establishment that is predominantly composed of older (often Right wing) white men, thus helping to perpetuate a racially biased social structure as well as providing more financial support to racist politicians and policies.

[Raw Shark]

Sanders' political career has so far been 100% directly involved with a constituency that is currently the second-whitest in the country. That doesn't mean that the man doesn't care about the plight of black people anymore, after marching with Dr. King, it means he was focusing on his actual job instead of using clout as a Senator to push a personal agenda. We've seen no reason to expect that that would continue if he was representing the entire nation. The consistency between his stated and demonstrated views between college and now has been far greater than that which we've seen from, "Flashing the peace sign in Lennon glasses next to red-eyed, cheetos-in-his-beard Bill at Yale," Hillary.

[Simon_Jester]

Another thing I think it comes down to is: "What good is making college tuition free, creating a socialized health care system, and breaking up the big banks going to do for black people? How are black lives going to be made better by any of Bernie Sander's policies? White people may benefit but blacks will be in the plight as before."

All of which is amazingly, mind-crushingly stupid, because blacks will NOT be in the same plight as before if blacks who are burdened by paying for health care are getting it for free, and if blacks who cannot afford to stay in college and complete an education are getting that for free too.

It's like saying "if you gave me twenty thousand dollars and a new car, how would I be better off? I would be in the same plight as before."

No, you fool, you would not be in the same plight, you would be in the "I'm twenty thousand dollars richer and my car is brand-spanking new" plight!

[Lord MJ]

Sanders' political career has so far been 100% directly involved with a constituency that is currently the second-whitest in the country. That doesn't mean that the man doesn't care about the plight of black people anymore, after marching with Dr. King, it means he was focusing on his actual job instead of using clout as a Senator to push a personal agenda. We've seen no reason to expect that that would continue if he was representing the entire nation. The consistency between his stated and demonstrated views between college and now has been far greater than that which we've seen from, "Flashing the peace sign in Lennon glasses next to red-eyed, cheetos-in-his-beard Bill at Yale," Hillary.

I think that's part of the issue. Since he's been focused on issues regarding a majority white state this entire time, the feeling is he has to do more to earn the black vote than simply show up and say "he's going to help black people." Particularly given that he comes off as dismissing the priorities expressed by black voters while saying that his agenda is the real cure.

[Lord MJ]

Another thing I think it comes down to is: "What good is making college tuition free, creating a socialized health care system, and breaking up the big banks going to do for black people? How are black lives going to be made better by any of Bernie Sander's policies? White people may benefit but blacks will be in the plight as before."

All of which is amazingly, mind-crushingly stupid, because blacks will NOT be in the same plight as before if blacks who are burdened by paying for health care are getting it for free, and if blacks who cannot afford to stay in college and complete an education are getting that for free too.

It's like saying "if you gave me twenty thousand dollars and a new car, how would I be better off? I would be in the same plight as before."

No, you fool, you would not be in the same plight, you would be in the "I'm twenty thousand dollars richer and my car is brand-spanking new" plight!

I think black voters (and people in general) are quite cynical about anything advertised as "free."