2016 Democratic Thread

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Not saying that individuals can not have their own ideas inside of a party. Just that there is no way to compromise or discuss abortion/gay rights when one side relies on "biblical" arguments. I have no problem with someone who wants to legitimately argue abortion based on when life scientifically begins and what rights should be protected of mother v unborn. I have no problem with someone who wants to argue gay marriage as federal v state etc.

 

The problem is when someone wants to argue based on "the bible" or based on "the koran" or any other religious scripture. It alienates those who do not identify. I have had plenty of arguments regarding abortion where the crux of the argument is at what point should an unborn child receive protections. Those are arguments where compromise or solutions could be reached. But it is impossible to compromise when the basis for the argument is a thousand year old book that explicitly prohibits something.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

There's a difference between trying to differentiate yourself when you're really just the same candidate pushing the same party ideology (Bush/McCain/Romney, Clinton and Obama) versus being far left socialist v. mildly left centrist. He wasn't just trying to be different, he was running on a different platform practically, which yes, she sort of molded towards as the primary went on, but it was still a different version of liberalism that he wanted.

 

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.

 

Again, you have an incredibly small chance of that happening. How much does Sanders' support really help Clinton? Any? I don't think so. Anyone moving from Bernie to Hillary is going to do so as an anti-Trump vote, not in a support of Hillary vote.

 

On the same line though, if all we care about is game theory and winning, I should go ahead and support Trump in order to prevent a Hillary presidency. And it's not that I support anything having to do with Trump, it's merely preventing the alternative.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

I'm not going THAT far with it, but it was a lot of the anti-corporate american/wall street stuff and she was the target for a lot of that.

[StrangeSox]

There's a difference between trying to differentiate yourself when you're really just the same candidate pushing the same party ideology (Bush/McCain/Romney, Clinton and Obama) versus being far left socialist v. mildly left centrist. He wasn't just trying to be different, he was running on a different platform practically, which yes, she sort of molded towards as the primary went on, but it was still a different version of liberalism that he wanted.

 

He's not a far left socialist, though. He's a social democrat at most, basically a modern New Deal Democrat.

 

Again, you have an incredibly small chance of that happening. How much does Sanders' support really help Clinton? Any? I don't think so. Anyone moving from Bernie to Hillary is going to do so as an anti-Trump vote, not in a support of Hillary vote.

 

A pro-Hillary or an anti-Trump vote count just the same. How much of an impact would it have? Well, going back to a bunch of swing state polls a month or so ago, if just 50% of the Bernie holdouts at that point voted for Clinton, she'd be pushing double-digit margins in every single remotely contestable state.

 

On the same line though, if all we care about is game theory and winning, I should go ahead and support Trump in order to prevent a Hillary presidency. And it's not that I support anything having to do with Trump, it's merely preventing the alternative.

 

Generally I would say that that's true, but again, Trump represents something pretty uniquely awful.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

Name me something that liberals have "compromised" on when it comes to those very same issues. Any attempts at regulating abortions in anyway are met with fervent opposition. Guns should be banned altogether, not regulated reasonably. Don't inhibit voting rights in anyway shape or form, etc. etc. Whether its based on religious ideology or not is irrelevant.

 

 

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.

 

I don't think they're much higher. Silver gave him a 7% chance of winning, and that's now before he embarrasses himself even more over the coming months.

[Jenksismyhero]

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

 

 

wtf? I thought he came out last week and said it was 7%

 

edit: alright, sorry, I must have read an article wrong. That was his prediction for the nomination last fall.

 

edit 2: still, IMO if he had just said i'm dropping out, thanks for the support and left it at that it would have been better and it wouldn't have hurt Hillary's chances (or increased Trump's). And it preserves his message.

Edited July 12, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[StrangeSox]

Name me something that liberals have "compromised" on when it comes to those very same issues. Any attempts at regulating abortions in anyway are met with fervent opposition. Guns should be banned altogether, not regulated reasonably. Don't inhibit voting rights in anyway shape or form, etc. etc. Whether its based on religious ideology or not is irrelevant.

 

Abortions are more restricted in more states now than they've been since before Roe*. "Ban all guns" is not a Democratic party platform or something that any politician I'm aware of is campaigning on. Inhibiting voting rights is s*** so I'm glad they're uncompromising on that.

 

I'm more in agreement with what bmags said, though, there's some ideological overlap in both parties. But it's much less than its ever been in the past, and it's been shifting more and more to parties split purely along ideological lines for a few decades now.

 

I don't think they're much higher. Silver gave him a 7% chance of winning, and that's now before he embarrasses himself even more over the coming months.

 

He's currently at 22.5% in Silver's polls-only model, as I linked a little above. In his (garbage, imo) polls-plus model, trump's closer to 30%. Not likely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.

 

*actually that may no longer be true since the ruling a couple of weeks ago, but there's been a fairly steady erosion of abortion rights since at least Casey as Kennedy couldn't find an undue burden before that one.

 

edit 2: still, IMO if he had just said i'm dropping out, thanks for the support and left it at that it would have been better and it wouldn't have hurt Hillary's chances (or increased Trump's). And it preserves his message.

 

A non-trivial number of his holdout supporters will grudgingly vote for Clinton in November with his (and to a lesser extent, Warren's) endorsement. He'll likely get something out of the deal as well, whether it's some sort of Executive appointment or more important Senate committee appointments. That strengthens his power, which strengthens his message. This is the same thing that happened in 2008 that got Clinton the SoS position and helped to tamp down the PUMA holdouts.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

wtf? I thought he came out last week and said it was 7%

 

edit: alright, sorry, I must have read an article wrong. That was his prediction for the nomination last fall.

Silver also uses a couple of different projection models

[Soxbadger]

Name me something that liberals have "compromised" on when it comes to those very same issues. Any attempts at regulating abortions in anyway are met with fervent opposition. Guns should be banned altogether, not regulated reasonably. Don't inhibit voting rights in anyway shape or form, etc. etc. Whether its based on religious ideology or not is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

I don't think they're much higher. Silver gave him a 7% chance of winning, and that's now before he embarrasses himself even more over the coming months.

 

Abortions are regulated. Guns there are varying arguments about regulation (public versus private). And I dont believe anyone is arguing for unregulated voting.

 

 

[greg775]

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.

 

He probably should have gone independent. Had he gone independent though, would he have ever gained any traction at all? Would anybody have covered his campaign at all? In retrospect, the bulls*** superdelagate thing killed him. Also the media's refusal to pay ANY attention to that string of victories he had fairly late. He was rolling. Had they amped up the Bernie coverage before California and actually wrote about Bernie's popularity rather than "he has no chance" as he racked up win after win, he might have been the nominee.

 

If he were an independent, none of that rigged bulls*** would have occurred. If the ballot boxes weren't rigged in November (and there's no reason to believe our elections are fixed), he might have actually had a chance as an independent. Instead of backing Hillary, he should have gone independent right after California saying, "I owe it to my supporters to have this play out. I am disappointed in how I've been treated by the superdelagates and am going to win the Presidency as an independent!"

 

Ultimately I don't blame him for backing Hillary cause that's what you do when you "lose."

Edited July 13, 2016 by greg775

[Quin]

He probably should have gone independent. Had he gone independent though, would he have ever gained any traction at all? Would anybody have covered his campaign at all? In retrospect, the bulls*** superdelagate thing killed him. Also the media's refusal to pay ANY attention to that string of victories he had fairly late. He was rolling. Had they amped up the Bernie coverage before California and actually wrote about Bernie's popularity rather than "he has no chance" as he racked up win after win, he might have been the nominee.

 

If he were an independent, none of that rigged bulls*** would have occurred. If the ballot boxes weren't rigged in November (and there's no reason to believe our elections are fixed), he might have actually had a chance as an independent. Instead of backing Hillary, he should have gone independent right after California saying, "I owe it to my supporters to have this play out. I am disappointed in how I've been treated by the superdelagates and am going to win the Presidency as an independent!"

 

Ultimately I don't blame him for backing Hillary cause that's what you do when you "lose."

 

Great post. Even though Bernie was courting superdelegates in the end because he was behind in pledged delegates. And you're right on the media, even though Hillary received the most negative coverage of any candidate by far.

 

Great post.

[greg775]

Great post. Even though Bernie was courting superdelegates in the end because he was behind in pledged delegates. And you're right on the media, even though Hillary received the most negative coverage of any candidate by far.

 

Great post.

How can you say Hillary has received the most negative coverage of any candidate by far. Cmon.

Here's what the "majority" of media reports have consisted of: Trump: Grabbing his crazy line of the day and mocking it or getting others to mock it and say what a disaster he would be. Bernie: See my last post. It's a crying shame what was done to him. And Hillary: Unabashed love. Cmon, the email thing was barely covered. Her snickers at questions about it were accepted as answers. And the Clinton meeting DA on the Tarmac was made out to be NOTHING when it was potentially HUGE. Finally the FBI's decision was roundly praised except by the few Republican columnists whose criticism got whisked away without a blemish.

 

You basically have every network with a Chris Matthews fawning over her every move and ready and happy to shed a tear at her historic coronation.

[shysocks]

How can you say Hillary has received the most negative coverage of any candidate by far. Cmon.

C'mon. Come on....

[caulfield12]

Apparently FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio do not exist. And about 85% of small/regional newspapers in the US.

 

By the way, it's AG (Attorney General), not DA (District Attorney). Slight difference!!!

Edited July 13, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Pence is looking increasingly likely to be Trump's VP

 

Here's a reminder of how awful he is.

 

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a massive new anti-abortion bill, House Enrolled Act 1337, into law on Thursday. Among other things, it bans abortions for reasons of genetic anomaly and requires all fetal remains to be cremated or buried, even if they come from a miscarriage.

 

...

 

1) It makes an unprecedented requirement to bury or cremate all fetal remains, even from an early miscarriage

 

It's hard to predict the precise effect this provision will have, but it could be really bad for abortion providers and women who have abortions or miscarriages.

 

The law says that "a miscarried or aborted fetus must be interred or cremated by a facility having possession of the remains," and requires "a person or facility having possession of a miscarried or aborted fetus to ensure that the miscarried fetus or aborted fetus is preserved until final disposition occurs."

 

It doesn't matter how far along the pregnancy is. Normally when a pregnancy ends earlier than 20 weeks, the "products of conception" (fetal tissue and the placenta) are treated like any other medical waste. After 20 weeks, the fetus is considered a "stillbirth" and the parents typically have the option to cremate or bury it if they choose.

 

So even if a woman has a miscarriage at eight weeks of pregnancy at home, under this law she could be required to keep the blood and tissue, take it to a hospital, and have it buried or cremated by a funeral home.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/26/11308890/indi...law-miscarriage

 

Don't forget his two (failed) anti-LGBT RFRA bills, either!

[StrangeSox]

Apparently FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio do not exist.

 

By the way, it's AG (Attorney General), not DA (District Attorney). Slight difference!!!

 

Speaking of Fox News, on the one hand, I want to commend them for being a lot more ethical than CNN. Fox News ended their contract with Gingrich given all of the VP talk/general Trump surregacy. CNN's taken the opposite approach and is hiring former Trump staffers/campaign managers who are still being paid by the Trump campaign.

 

On the other hand, a Cosby-like stream of women are coming forward in the wake of Gretchen Carlson's sexual harassment lawsuit, alleging that Fox News chief Rodger Ailes sexually harassed them as far back as the 60's.

[southsider2k5]

Pence is looking increasingly likely to be Trump's VP

 

Here's a reminder of how awful he is.

 

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/26/11308890/indi...law-miscarriage

 

Don't forget his two (failed) anti-LGBT RFRA bills, either!

 

Indiana is cheering. There is also a movement to draft Mitch Daniels back, which would make me double happy.

[RegionSox]

Pence is looking increasingly likely to be Trump's VP

 

Here's a reminder of how awful he is.

 

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/26/11308890/indi...law-miscarriage

 

Don't forget his two (failed) anti-LGBT RFRA bills, either!

That would be great if Pence were no longer governor. He has been a disaster.

[StrangeSox]

Indiana is cheering. There is also a movement to draft Mitch Daniels back, which would make me double happy.

 

Pence needs to declare whether he's going to be listed on the Indiana ballot for Governor or for VP by tomorrow. Funniest scenario is he takes himself out of the Gov race and then Trump picks someone else anyway.

[southsider2k5]

Pence needs to declare whether he's going to be listed on the Indiana ballot for Governor or for VP by tomorrow. Funniest scenario is he takes himself out of the Gov race and then Trump picks someone else anyway.

 

It is actually by noon eastern on Friday.

[lostfan]

Indiana is cheering. There is also a movement to draft Mitch Daniels back, which would make me double happy.

I'm not a Republican obviously, but Mitch Daniels is okay. He's more of what I consider a traditional Republican and not the Brownback/Walker/McCrory/Pence douchebag type of governor who run their states into the ground.

 

My favorite memory of Pence in Congress is when he invited President Obama to come speak at the Republican retreat in Baltimore, I guess expecting to lecture him or get him told but they'd *completely* underestimated him and halfway through they were like "yeah this is a bad idea. Good thing this isn't on TV."

[southsider2k5]

I'm not a Republican obviously, but Mitch Daniels is okay. He's more of what I consider a traditional Republican and not the Brownback/Walker/McCrory/Pence douchebag type of governor who run their states into the ground.

My favorite memory of Pence in Congress is when he invited President Obama to come speak at the Republican retreat in Baltimore, I guess expecting to lecture him or get him told but they'd *completely* underestimated him and halfway through they were like "yeah this is a bad idea. Good thing this isn't on TV."

 

This is exactly why I like Daniels. He put the state onto solid financial ground, and didn't get into the social BS that Pence seems to be obsessed about. The State of Indiana also didn't spend a ton of time trying to override local positions on issues when it didn't agree with what the state wanted.

[RegionSox]

This is exactly why I like Daniels. He put the state onto solid financial ground, and didn't get into the social BS that Pence seems to be obsessed about. The State of Indiana also didn't spend a ton of time trying to override local positions on issues when it didn't agree with what the state wanted.

I'm not a Daniels fan. I really didn't like his education policy and his hard push for creating charters schools. Almost half of Indiana's charter schools are getting a failing grade in the school ratings. I also don't see Daniels stepping down from being president of Purdue.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/qui...rida/index.html

 

HOW CAN GREG NOT BE ALL OVER THIS ONE?

[farmteam]

This is exactly why I like Daniels. He put the state onto solid financial ground, and didn't get into the social BS that Pence seems to be obsessed about. The State of Indiana also didn't spend a ton of time trying to override local positions on issues when it didn't agree with what the state wanted.

I thought I remember a lot of posts in the 2008 timeframe from you about how Daniels' education policy sucks? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else though (Balta? One of the native Indianans).

 

I also remember complaints about Daniels being rather shifty with the books. All that sad, I agree he's not as bad as Brownback/Walker/Palin/etc.