2016 Democratic Thread

[southsider2k5]

It wasn't a twist. You yourself said that Republicans care more about "principles" or ideological purity than Democrats, who prioritize winning. If you're prioritizing winning, then being rigid is less of a concern. If you're prioritizing purging people who don't hold the right principles, then you'll do that ahead of worrying about winning, e.g. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell being candidates

 

 

 

Yes, this is a good response to the guy who said just a page ago that they don't particularly like Hillary and said they were voting for her for "lesser evil" reasons.

 

But you fell into line and are doing everything you can to get her elected, just like Bernie and the rest of the party, even while there are plenty of Republicans who aren't with Trump.

 

There just isn't room for leaving the party line for the Democrats. This whole discussion just shows that again. Even though people don't really like her or agree with her, everyone is in line like good little Dems.

[bmags]

If the democrats nominated donald trump, I would not be voting democrat. I'm sorry that your party hates America and everything it stands for, but it's not the democrats fault for electing a pretty milquetoast centrist with policy knowledge and experience.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

But you fell into line and are doing everything you can to get her elected, just like Bernie and the rest of the party, even while there are plenty of Republicans who aren't with Trump.

 

There just isn't room for leaving the party line for the Democrats. This whole discussion just shows that again. Even though people don't really like her or agree with her, everyone is in line like good little Dems.

 

Hillary Clinton will appoint SC and federal justices along with hundreds of executive branch positions that are far closer to my own ideology than a Republican would. That's why I'm voting for her, and it has nothing to do with being forced to follow the party line. Instead, it is solely due to having two possible options in our system and recognizing the vastly less s***ty one. In multi-party countries, strategic voting happens to an even greater degree; that's how Canada's most recent election was won by the liberal coalition, and it wasn't due to people "falling in line" but understanding basic political science/how voting works. Understanding where my vote has the most influence (a stretch given we're talking about Illinois, but let's pretend I live in Ohio or something for argument's sake) doesn't mean I'm suddenly lock-step with the DNC platform or everything Clinton is campaigning on. I'm not and I won't be, but in a basic risk assessment, she's much more preferable to me.

 

There are plenty of Republicans who aren't with the orange man-baby that's currently leading the GOP, but an overwhelming majority are and Trump himself represents something very odd within American politics. We don't know what the fallout from him will be for either his supporters or non-supporters, so you don't even really have anything to point to there.

 

Honestly, you seem to be using "party line" in several different ways here, but mostly pretty idiosyncratically. I reject any definition that means a party apparatus enforces rigid ideological adherence if people recognize that voting for the party who may not represent all of their interests but it still much closer is better than voting to assuage their own ego.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Honestly, you seem to be using "party line" in several different ways here, but mostly pretty idiosyncratically. I reject any definition that means a party apparatus enforces rigid ideological adherence if people recognize that voting for the party rather than voting to assuage their own ego.

Bingo

[StrangeSox]

my god that last sentence is a nightmare, let me edit that!

[bmags]

I saved it for you forever.

[Soxbadger]

But you fell into line and are doing everything you can to get her elected, just like Bernie and the rest of the party, even while there are plenty of Republicans who aren't with Trump.

 

There just isn't room for leaving the party line for the Democrats. This whole discussion just shows that again. Even though people don't really like her or agree with her, everyone is in line like good little Dems.

 

Nah its all that liberal college thinking. You learn about great liberal thinkers like Machiavelli and those pesky liberal ideas like "the ends justify the means." What is the point of being an uncompromising ideologue if being one results in less of my ideas reaching fruition?

 

The difference is that many positions that are considered "Republican" seemingly do not leave room for compromise. You are either for or against abortions. For or against gun control. For or against gay marriage.

 

At the end of the day, its about winning and losing. There is no point in going against Hillary if in the end it is likely to result in something worse than Hillary. Its nothing more than Game Theory. You pick the action that is most likely to result in the best outcome for yourself. Since the chances of "other option than Hillary" will never win, I am presented with 2 choices. Trump or Hillary. As I believe that Trump is the worst outcome, I therefore have to pick Hillary.

 

It has nothing to do with being a good little Dem, it has everything to do with the fact the Republican's have failed to provide an option that is better than Hillary from my personal standpoint.

 

If I didnt believe Trump as a person was completely off the reservation, I may have been tempted to go another direction than Hillary.

[Jenksismyhero]

Bernie should have gone independent. He's a sell out for backing a corporate/Wall Street puppet like Hillary, the exact type of politician/Washington insider he was campaigning against. Especially in an election like this, where the threat of Trump actually winning is incredibly low. Hillary doesn't need his support and he didn't need to give it to her.

 

 

[bmags]

Nah its all that liberal college thinking. You learn about great liberal thinkers like Machiavelli and those pesky liberal ideas like "the ends justify the means." What is the point of being an uncompromising ideologue if being one results in less of my ideas reaching fruition?

 

The difference is that many positions that are considered "Republican" seemingly do not leave room for compromise. You are either for or against abortions. For or against gun control. For or against gay marriage.

 

At the end of the day, its about winning and losing. There is no point in going against Hillary if in the end it is likely to result in something worse than Hillary. Its nothing more than Game Theory. You pick the action that is most likely to result in the best outcome for yourself. Since the chances of "other option than Hillary" will never win, I am presented with 2 choices. Trump or Hillary. As I believe that Trump is the worst outcome, I therefore have to pick Hillary.

 

It has nothing to do with being a good little Dem, it has everything to do with the fact the Republican's have failed to provide an option that is better than Hillary from my personal standpoint.

 

If I didnt believe Trump as a person was completely off the reservation, I may have been tempted to go another direction than Hillary.

 

Hey this was pretty good.

[Jenksismyhero]

Nah its all that liberal college thinking. You learn about great liberal thinkers like Machiavelli and those pesky liberal ideas like "the ends justify the means." What is the point of being an uncompromising ideologue if being one results in less of my ideas reaching fruition?

 

The difference is that many positions that are considered "Republican" seemingly do not leave room for compromise. You are either for or against abortions. For or against gun control. For or against gay marriage.

 

At the end of the day, its about winning and losing. There is no point in going against Hillary if in the end it is likely to result in something worse than Hillary. Its nothing more than Game Theory. You pick the action that is most likely to result in the best outcome for yourself. Since the chances of "other option than Hillary" will never win, I am presented with 2 choices. Trump or Hillary. As I believe that Trump is the worst outcome, I therefore have to pick Hillary.

 

It has nothing to do with being a good little Dem, it has everything to do with the fact the Republican's have failed to provide an option that is better than Hillary from my personal standpoint.

 

If I didnt believe Trump as a person was completely off the reservation, I may have been tempted to go another direction than Hillary.

 

Come on now, that's laughable. Don't pretend like in 2016 America one party is better or more open to compromise than the other.

[StrangeSox]

Hey this was pretty good.

agreed

[Balta1701]

Bernie should have gone independent. He's a sell out for backing a corporate/Wall Street puppet like Hillary, the exact type of politician/Washington insider he was campaigning against. Especially in an election like this, where the threat of Trump actually winning is incredibly low. Hillary doesn't need his support and he didn't need to give it to her.

But the potential results of him winning are so unbelievably terrible that even that hopefully low chance is something that decent human beings should be terrified of. A decent human being would be doing everything in their power to stamp out this disease before it infects the entire country.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Bernie should have gone independent. He's a sell out for backing a corporate/Wall Street puppet like Hillary, the exact type of politician/Washington insider he was campaigning against. Especially in an election like this, where the threat of Trump actually winning is incredibly low. Hillary doesn't need his support and he didn't need to give it to her.

 

If Bernie ran 3rd party, wouldn't the risk of Trump winning increase dramatically?

[StrangeSox]

If Bernie ran 3rd party, wouldn't the risk of Trump winning increase dramatically?

 

Yes, and it would also accomplish nothing while destroying any influence Sanders might have within the Democratic Party. What did Nader's 2000 campaign gain for liberals, either short or long term?

[Jenksismyhero]

But the potential results of him winning are so unbelievably terrible that even that hopefully low chance is something that decent human beings should be terrified of. A decent human being would be doing everything in their power to stamp out this disease before it infects the entire country.

 

So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have.

 

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, and it would also accomplish nothing while destroying any influence Sanders might have within the Democratic Party. What did Nader's 2000 campaign gain for liberals, either short or long term?

 

So fine, don't run. But don't SUPPORT her either.

[StrangeSox]

So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have.

 

Again, this is how political primaries go. Clinton and Obama was a lot worse. The s*** Bush pulled on McCain was ridiculous but he came around. Not getting the full and complete backing of your party is a pretty rare anomaly.

 

Bernie running 3rd party also likely hurts Democrats down ticket, which would hurt Sanders' own power within the Senate. He'd be completely marginalized within the Senate with no voice within the Democratic party. On the other hand, by not sabotaging the party that's actually fairly close to his own ideology (the House Progressive Caucus might even be to Sanders' left), he's been able to have at least some influence as evidenced by Clinton recently adopting his college tuition plan and shifting leftward in general over the course of this campaign.

 

So fine, don't run. But don't SUPPORT her either.

 

Why? Like Soxbadger said, game theory. If not-Clinton wins, Sanders policies suffer a huge blow, a generational one given that at least one SC seat is at stake. Clinton winning is a vastly preferable outcome to Trump winning from a Sanders perspective, even if it is not ideal. And those are really the only two possible outcomes.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have.

 

You need to be open to the idea that you are projecting onto sanders that Clinton is the opposite of everything he believes.

 

If a Hillary Clinton was the cause of all of the US's problems, then their solutions would not match up so often.

[Balta1701]

So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have.

Frankly, yes. The possibility that he could win is that hideous.

[Soxbadger]

Come on now, that's laughable. Don't pretend like in 2016 America one party is better or more open to compromise than the other.

 

If you take an objective look I am not really sure that you can defend this. The problem is that when a political party aligns itself with religious ideology you do not leave much room for compromise.

 

This is especially true for anyone who does not identify with the religious ideology that the party aligns itself with.

 

So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have.

 

I am pretty sure that Trump's odds are much better than 1%. Even with Bernie trying to get everyone of his supporters to vote for Clinton there is still a chance Trump wins. Ultimately Sanders had to ask himself what does he really believe. And sometimes you lose a battle to win a war.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Brian Stelter ✔ @brianstelter

"Fox News Channel has mutually agreed to suspend its contributor agreement" with Newt Gingrich "effective immediately." Story TK.

3:00 PM - 12 Jul 2016

 

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/752...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

 

Hmmmmmmm

[StrangeSox]

If you take an objective look I am not really sure that you can defend this. The problem is that when a political party aligns itself with religious ideology you do not leave much room for compromise.

 

This is especially true for anyone who does not identify with the religious ideology that the party aligns itself with.

 

 

 

I am pretty sure that Trump's odds are much better than 1%. Even with Bernie trying to get everyone of his supporters to vote for Clinton there is still a chance Trump wins. Ultimately Sanders had to ask himself what does he really believe. And sometimes you lose a battle to win a war.

 

Based on polls as it stands today, his chances are 22.5%

 

 

[bmags]

If you take an objective look I am not really sure that you can defend this. The problem is that when a political party aligns itself with religious ideology you do not leave much room for compromise.

 

This is especially true for anyone who does not identify with the religious ideology that the party aligns itself with.

 

I'm not sure you are right here. There are pro choice repubs/oppo dems, anti gun control dems (hey Sanders), etc. There will probably be pro gay marriage repubs if there aren't alreeady. The one real ideology of the republican party prior to trump was extreme tax cuts on wealthy.

[StrangeSox]

Just feel the need to say that I think RBG was out of bounds making comments on the election. Scalia started it, she is adding on to it. I hope it stops.

 

some additional comments today, agree that this isn't the greatest thing here

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/jus...aker/index.html

[lostfan]

I find the idea that Sanders uniquely represents certain things that the Democratic Party supposedly opposed to be laughable, to be honest.

 

-Universal healthcare: no. This has been a Democratic thing forever but they have never been in a position to actually enact it.

-Raising the minimum wage: no. Obama has repeatedly tried to do this but there hasn't been enough support in Congress.

-Citizens United: Get the entire f*** out of here with this. I'm not even going to bother explaining it.

 

Sanders's college plans specifically, maybe, but it's not like making tuition more affordable is something that never occurred to Dems before he mentioned it. And he's been louder about "breaking up the banks" than most Dems. But the majority of stuff he campaigned on is standard Democratic stuff, it's not like he campaigned on anything actually socialist like a guaranteed minimum income or anything. "Get money out of politics" is a hell of a lot harder to do than just having a position against it and there's multiple layers of reform that need to happen. But, again, that's a standard Democratic position.