2016 Democratic Thread

[cabiness42]

What really baffles me about Greg's stance is he doesn't like "Hilly" because she seems b****y, but somehow likes Trump who is a blatant Dick.

 

I can't stand either, but if those are my only two choices I'll choose the one who punches me in the face over the one who stabs me in the back.

[southsider2k5]

This does not follow to me. The democrats were saying that the moderates of the party were too right wing, and those moderates lost the election, so therefore, they needed more rightwing people to be nominated so the democrats would say...that they are centrists?

 

While I believe Romney is a moderate, he was not running on a moderate platform. McCain did mostly, and Bush did in 00.

 

The right wing believes they really lost because they weren't right wing enough, which has pushed the party further to the right to find candidates. If guys like Romney and mcCain aren't painted that way, the probably capture more moderate votes and the party doesn't look like this today. The propaganda backfired.

[cabiness42]

The right wing believes they really lost because they weren't right wing enough, which has pushed the party further to the right to find candidates. If guys like Romney and mcCain aren't painted that way, the probably capture more moderate votes and the party doesn't look like this today. The propaganda backfired.

 

McCain lost the day he picked Palin as VP, and nobody was going to beat an incumbent Obama. No propaganda was necessary.

[bmags]

The right wing believes they really lost because they weren't right wing enough, which has pushed the party further to the right to find candidates. If guys like Romney and mcCain aren't painted that way, the probably capture more moderate votes and the party doesn't look like this today. The propaganda backfired.

 

Fine, but I don't see how the Democrats were to blame for that. Democrats say Republicans are too right wing, republicans lose, decide to go more right wing says everything you need to know about republican voters, not Democrat party strategists.

[StrangeSox]

The right wing believes they really lost because they weren't right wing enough, which has pushed the party further to the right to find candidates.

 

Which has been true for decades and across a lot more than just Presidential level politics. Right-wing media and politicians have actively stoked this mindset the entire time for their own benefit, but they've lost control of the monster.

 

If guys like Romney and mcCain aren't painted that way, the probably capture more moderate votes and the party doesn't look like this today. The propaganda backfired.

 

If Democrats ran less successful campaigns and lost elections, the Republican party would be less absurd than it is today and therefore that absurdity is the Democrats' fault? Why isn't it the Republicans' fault for running bad candidates and bad campaigns? Why hasn't the Democratic party made similar radical leftward shifts in response to Republican demagoguery? This idea seems to let Republicans and conservatives completely off the hook for their own ideology.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Fine, but I don't see how the Democrats were to blame for that. Democrats say Republicans are too right wing, republicans lose, decide to go more right wing says everything you need to know about republican voters, not Democrat party strategists.

 

The opposite should be true. If the GOP was losing because voters (due to DNC messages) viewed them as too far right, the expected response would be to become more moderate in order to prove Democrats wrong.

[bmags]

The opposite should be true. If the GOP was losing because voters (due to DNC messages) viewed them as too far right, the expected response would be to become more moderate in order to prove Democrats wrong.

 

Which is what the RNC itself DID say after 2012.

[caulfield12]

And that doesn't explain the huge popularity of Sanders' socialism/populism campaign.

 

It's more dissatisaction with Hillary Clinton than Republicans demonizing and labelling every single candidate like Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Hart, Dukakis and Obama a liberal.

 

The Democrats have more successfully come up with candidates who appealed to independent/moderate voters and didn't scare minorities to death on immigration...and the fact a lot of those voting for the GoP on social issues realized that economic issues were actually more important.

 

Those are the voters Clinton tore away from Obama in the primaries, that Trump claims now...the ones with lower education level and diminished earnings prospects because most of those jobs have gone overseas and been replaced by $10-15 per hour wages. Of course, Clinton is the one who pushed NAFTA and FTAA.

Edited January 11, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Which is what the RNC itself DID say after 2012.

 

That and figuring how they got so far behind on tech, data management/donor rolls and social media.

 

Despite Citizens United, they got trounced. All that soft money somehow weakened the party and made it self-destructive.

[greg775]

This is absurd. You think that half of republicans are just terrible people? I think they are misguided people and I cant say I understand how anyone could vote for him, but to just assume they are terrible is absurd too. But yes, if my only two choices on the ballot were Trump or Hillary, I'd vote Hillary. In reality, if Trump is on the ticket, I'll write in a candidate.

I can buy this fully.

Anybody can think I'm misguided and that's fine. I could of course be misguided on this issue of Trump. But I don't think we are all "terrible people" who like Trump. I mean I haven't heard all his speeches and his tone every time. I am not crazy bout Donnie. But I've explained why I like him and hate traditional politics. I think calling us Trumpies "terrible people" is not a nice thing to do. I am not perfect but I'm not a backstabbing jerk like a lot of people I've encountered in my everyday life.

[StrangeSox]

Saying a bunch of racist, misogynistic, bigoted things is not a nice thing to do, and supporting someone who's said what Trump has is pretty terrible. Where is the line between "misguided" and "actively a bad person" for you? I think anyone supports Trump crossed that line months ago.

[Chisoxfn]

To be clear, somewhere around 6% of the US adult electorate supports Trump, give or take. You are really surprised that 6% of the US is made up of people that are some combination of hateful, racist and/or stunningly ignorant? I'd say he's got more bandwidth still to eat up.

How do you get the 6%? Are you factoring in for the large percentage who doesn't vote and thus aren't counting them? Either way, Huffpost poll (1st poll I came up with via google search) had Trump at 36.3. By and large, voting public is split 50/50 so I'll just half the Trump numbers for national poll and get to 18% (now you have votes for independents, etc, but presume that is an inconsequential percentage). So I guess my question is, where is the 6%? By my count that is ~18% of the voting public and could arguably be larger if Trump was truly the nominee (as right now that vote is split and I presume a lot of Cruz voters would vote Trump).

 

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...nal-gop-primary

 

Also, no idea who Mercury polling are and for all I know they are a republican polling service, but thought this was an interesting stat in here on dems likely to vote for trump vs. repubs likely to vote for hillary (really small sample size too).

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/201...hillary-clinton

[greg775]

Saying a bunch of racist, misogynistic, bigoted things is not a nice thing to do, and supporting someone who's said what Trump has is pretty terrible. Where is the line between "misguided" and "actively a bad person" for you? I think anyone supports Trump crossed that line months ago.

OK I have to get meaner here and quit being so polite. So you are saying all the people who like Trump are bad people?? Trump has more than 6 percent of the populace way more than 6 percent supporting him. So millions and millions of Americans are bad people? Is that what you guys are saying? Then you believe that TONS of Americans are bad people? I've never criticized our own people like that. Like I said, Hilly and Bill have lied PLENTY just like Trump. I've never called you a BAD PERSON for supporting them. This is all relative.

Trump is not going to expel all foreigners; he's not going to build any wall. Yes he's lying. The fact I still like him somewhat compared to the old political machine types does not make me BAD person. I see a real decline in the American dream and I want people to start making some money again. I'm not confident any of the regular traditional politicos can do this for America. I say give Trump a shot at it. If he fails, big deal, expel him in four years.

 

America is full of all types of people. Do you think people are BAD people who for decades have gone in the booth and voted for ALL Republicans on each individual ballot without knowing anything about many of them? People in this state do that all the time. I would not say they are BAD people even though I disagree with their actions in that regard. I mean what if a person gave millions to the poor, helped old ladies cross the street every day, visited prisoners, gave gifts to the needy on a regular basis and happened to support Trump heavily. Is that person a BAD person? I say of course not.

Edited January 12, 2016 by greg775

[caulfield12]

How do you get the 6%? Are you factoring in for the large percentage who doesn't vote and thus aren't counting them? Either way, Huffpost poll (1st poll I came up with via google search) had Trump at 36.3. By and large, voting public is split 50/50 so I'll just half the Trump numbers for national poll and get to 18% (now you have votes for independents, etc, but presume that is an inconsequential percentage). So I guess my question is, where is the 6%? By my count that is ~18% of the voting public and could arguably be larger if Trump was truly the nominee (as right now that vote is split and I presume a lot of Cruz voters would vote Trump).

 

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...nal-gop-primary

 

Also, no idea who Mercury polling are and for all I know they are a republican polling service, but thought this was an interesting stat in here on dems likely to vote for trump vs. repubs likely to vote for hillary (really small sample size too).

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/201...hillary-clinton

 

 

Expressing support for someone in a telephone poll/survey versus likely caucus/primary voters in states like Iowa, NH and S.Carolina/Nevada are two very different things.

 

Just like differentiating between "super motivated" supporters who would never vote for anyone else (were he to lose the GOP nomination) or would vote only if Trump as running as an independent.

 

You have a huge number of Trump supporters who are more about what he represents than being ready to support all the other GOP candidates equally...on the other hand, you have huge numbers of GOP who will not support Trump were their 1st option or 2nd option to be taken off the board.

 

I think it's fair to say he's drawing support from (let's split the difference between 18 and 6) 12% of the country, or one out of every 8.

 

 

Now labeling them as "bad people" would be the same thing as Perot supporters being labeled as "crazy people"...there has to be a sense of separating the promise of a different kind of politics (the currently polarizing Dem vs. GOP) from the actual symbol of that movement itself.

 

In the same sense, you can sympathize with or support the Occupy Wall Street movement without being a "slacker" or craving chaos and anarchy or whatever...

 

The difference is "bad" people really believing the candidates mean what they say...those who don't know the difference or basically mimic or echo their family members' beliefs without thinking clearly on their own or consistently voting straight party tickets without even looking at races and issues...and those who ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE POLICIES ENACTED.

 

Here, I think that 12% Trump support gets cut by 50-75%....leaving the 3-6% "bad," although, even then, in their own minds they are justifying fear of foreigners or fear of Arabs (conflating them all with being terrorists or jihadists) or fear of Mexicans in a sort of "racial profiling" type of way.

[StrangeSox]

OK I have to get meaner here and quit being so polite. So you are saying all the people who like Trump are bad people?? Trump has more than 6 percent of the populace way more than 6 percent supporting him. So millions and millions of Americans are bad people? Is that what you guys are saying? Then you believe that TONS of Americans are bad people? I've never criticized our own people like that. Like I said, Hilly and Bill have lied PLENTY just like Trump. I've never called you a BAD PERSON for supporting them. This is all relative.

Trump is not going to expel all foreigners; he's not going to build any wall. Yes he's lying. The fact I still like him somewhat compared to the old political machine types does not make me BAD person. I see a real decline in the American dream and I want people to start making some money again. I'm not confident any of the regular traditional politicos can do this for America. I say give Trump a shot at it. If he fails, big deal, expel him in four years.

 

America is full of all types of people. Do you think people are BAD people who for decades have gone in the booth and voted for ALL Republicans on each individual ballot without knowing anything about many of them? People in this state do that all the time. I would not say they are BAD people even though I disagree with their actions in that regard. I mean what if a person gave millions to the poor, helped old ladies cross the street every day, visited prisoners, gave gifts to the needy on a regular basis and happened to support Trump heavily. Is that person a BAD person? I say of course not.

This is a lot of words that never come close to addressing the reason trump is terrible and why you are terrible for supporting him.

[Jenksismyhero]

Saying a bunch of racist, misogynistic, bigoted things is not a nice thing to do, and supporting someone who's said what Trump has is pretty terrible. Where is the line between "misguided" and "actively a bad person" for you? I think anyone supports Trump crossed that line months ago.

 

This is crap. I hate Trump and would never in a million years vote for him, but if people "like" him or "support" him in a competition between a douche and a turd sandwich, so be it. That doesn't make them terrible people.

 

Do you "like" Bill Clinton? FDR? Teddy? Any of the founding fathers? They've all done (and said) deplorable/immoral/disgusting things in their lives, yet they have SOME redeeming qualities that we all "like" and even celebrate.

 

edit: and i'm not saying I find Trump to have any redeeming qualities, just that others may beyond the outlandish crap he says.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Trump is popular because of the terrible things he's saying. They aren't incidental to why people support him. We don't celebrate FDR for the Japanese American internment camps, we don't celebrate Washington for owning slaves. What are the redeeming qualities of Trump's campaign so far, and how are they the source of his popularity rather than the racism/sexism/xenophobia/pseudo-fascism?

 

edit: and i'm not saying I find Trump to have any redeeming qualities, just that others may beyond the outlandish crap he says.

 

Ok but that's sort of the point. People are supporting Trump because he's a s***bag bully picking on pretty much every conceivable minority group (racial, religious, gender, physical impairment) out there who's 'not afraid to tell it like it is.'

 

I think the rest of the Republican field is full of terrible policies, but I wouldn't say that people who support Rubio/Cruz/Bush etc. are terrible people. I think Trump clearly and deliberately crossed that line a long time ago, though, and his support hasn't waned.

Edited January 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

I could have told you with this campaign he'd have the pat buchanon people wrapped up, but that it's been so much larger is crazy.

[NorthSideSox72]

How do you get the 6%? Are you factoring in for the large percentage who doesn't vote and thus aren't counting them? Either way, Huffpost poll (1st poll I came up with via google search) had Trump at 36.3. By and large, voting public is split 50/50 so I'll just half the Trump numbers for national poll and get to 18% (now you have votes for independents, etc, but presume that is an inconsequential percentage). So I guess my question is, where is the 6%? By my count that is ~18% of the voting public and could arguably be larger if Trump was truly the nominee (as right now that vote is split and I presume a lot of Cruz voters would vote Trump).

 

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...nal-gop-primary

 

Also, no idea who Mercury polling are and for all I know they are a republican polling service, but thought this was an interesting stat in here on dems likely to vote for trump vs. repubs likely to vote for hillary (really small sample size too).

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/201...hillary-clinton

 

He's getting 25 to 30% in polls among Republicans. About 25% of the electorate identifies as Republican (remember that much of the electorate does not identify to a party). That's 6 to 8% of the electorate. See more gory math here.

 

 

[bmags]

Right I think Northside's math may be a little low but not too much.

 

There is another side to the Trump polling though, where when people are allowed to vote anonymously they favor him more.

[StrangeSox]

He's getting 25 to 30% in polls among Republicans. About 25% of the electorate identifies as Republican (remember that much of the electorate does not identify to a party). That's 6 to 8% of the electorate. See more gory math here.

The counterpoint to this is that Nate Silver has been saying for months "Trump can't win, his support will collapse" without any real underlying argument to back it up. Romney never had more than 30-35% support until he pretty much had the nomination locked up.

 

He wrote that piece about 8 weeks ago now. Trump is still maintaining a solid lead over both Cruz and Rubio. Votes haven't been cast yet, but we're coming up quickly on the first primaries and caucuses now. Trump definitely isn't a lock to win the nomination, but he's not the "haha, the first in a long string of joke candidates just like 2012" we all may have thought he was 6-8 months ago.

 

edit: additionally, the most credible threat to Trump right now is Ted Cruz.

Edited January 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Trump is popular because of the terrible things he's saying. They aren't incidental to why people support him. We don't celebrate FDR for the Japanese American internment camps, we don't celebrate Washington for owning slaves. What are the redeeming qualities of Trump's campaign so far, and how are they the source of his popularity rather than the racism/sexism/xenophobia/pseudo-fascism?

 

 

 

Ok but that's sort of the point. People are supporting Trump because he's a s***bag bully picking on pretty much every conceivable minority group (racial, religious, gender, physical impairment) out there who's 'not afraid to tell it like it is.'

 

I think the rest of the Republican field is full of terrible policies, but I wouldn't say that people who support Rubio/Cruz/Bush etc. are terrible people. I think Trump clearly and deliberately crossed that line a long time ago, though, and his support hasn't waned.

 

I think he's popular because he's the anti-establishment candidate and he's not PC. He's something completely new and different in the election cycles recently (or ever). I think if you start parsing out the specifics of what he says, people wouldn't agree with it, but it's the general ideas that people get behind.

 

Aside from some dumb, unprofessional statements (all mexicans are criminals, Fiorina's looks, etc) what other crazy things has he said that he alone is advocating? Building a wall? That's a decades long conversation. He's not the first. And I think MOST people understand that's not realistic to do. But they like that he's wanting to take that on and that he wants Mexico to play a role. No Muslims in the country? Again, he's not the only one. And while it's discriminatory and unconstitutional and everything else, it's the idea that we need to be more secure to prevent a Paris-like attack that people are attracted to.

 

I mean to me it's the reverse of Sanders. Sanders is advocating for a socialist society where everyone is taken care of by the nanny state no matter what. It's a pipe dream. He's selling it and the young people who don't know better are buying it. Trump is the exact same. He's selling this bombastic vision of America and of policies that he thinks the fringe Republican base wants. He know it's not realistic. He knows it'll never happen. But the more he exaggerates, the more press he gets, the more the press stops paying attention to other candidates and the higher his ratings go.

 

 

 

 

[bmags]

Yeah, you are right, Sanders and Trump are the exact same. End thread.

[StrangeSox]

I think he's popular because he's the anti-establishment candidate and he's not PC. He's something completely new and different in the election cycles recently (or ever). I think if you start parsing out the specifics of what he says, people wouldn't agree with it, but it's the general ideas that people get behind.

 

Aside from some dumb, unprofessional statements (all mexicans are criminals, Fiorina's looks, etc) what other crazy things has he said that he alone is advocating? Building a wall? That's a decades long conversation. He's not the first. And I think MOST people understand that's not realistic to do. But they like that he's wanting to take that on and that he wants Mexico to play a role. No Muslims in the country? Again, he's not the only one. And while it's discriminatory and unconstitutional and everything else, it's the idea that we need to be more secure to prevent a Paris-like attack that people are attracted to.

 

Which is just code for all of the s***ty things he's been saying. Mexicans are rapists, retweeting literal neo-nazi fake black crime stats, Megyn Kelly on her period, Fiorina's looks, mocking a physical disability, proposing that we shut down mosques and register and track all Muslims, s***ting on POWs, goons at his rallies beating up minorities and throwing out Muslims, and I'm sure more that I'm forgetting.

 

He's not really advocating policy, which I think strengthens my argument that his support is due to him and what he's saying.

 

I mean to me it's the reverse of Sanders. Sanders is advocating for a socialist society where everyone is taken care of by the nanny state no matter what. It's a pipe dream. He's selling it and the young people who don't know better are buying it. Trump is the exact same. He's selling this bombastic vision of America and of policies that he thinks the fringe Republican base wants. He know it's not realistic. He knows it'll never happen. But the more he exaggerates, the more press he gets, the more the press stops paying attention to other candidates and the higher his ratings go.

 

Sanders advocates for quasi-democratic socialism and broadly speaking equality and fair treatment. Trump is advocating for racism, sexism, xenophobia and dips his toe into outright fascism. "Advocating for something that is outside the mainstream of US politics and probably not achievable" isn't what makes Trump terrible, it's his nativist populism.

 

[StrangeSox]