US General Election 2016

Thanks for the insight, I'll take a look at those articles tomorrow after work.

Syria was a tangled mess from the beginning; I think the only strategy there would be to work on Assad to stop bombing and tormenting his people. Work on changing the behavior of the strongman at the top and take it from there. Obama only partially addressed this.

Clinton has problems, but she's all we've got right now.

Cheers, bungo. I like getting to talk about this stuff with people.

halfwise wrote:Syria was a tangled mess from the beginning; I think the only strategy there would be to work on Assad to stop bombing and tormenting his people.  Work on changing the behavior of the strongman at the top and take it from there.  Obama only partially addressed this.

Clinton has problems, but she's all we've got right now.

Not saying Obama had a good approach to Syria (or any approach for a while there) either, just to be clear. But yeah, come general election time, in the 98% likely chance that Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'll be voting for her.  Hell, the Supreme Court nominations alone clinch that for me.

And honestly, I think having had a serious primary challenger will be a positive for her in the general. It doesn't really look good to just coast to a coronation. Can you imagine if her strongest opponents had been Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb?

Eldorion wrote: Hell, the Supreme Court nominations alone clinch that for me.

Yeah, I'm betting that Scalia and Ginsburg step down together. After dueling this long together, I don't think either one would dare to trust the Supreme Court to the other one alone.  If so, whichever president nominates the replacements for those two will pretty much be defining the Court for the next decade or two.

And honestly, I think having had a serious primary challenger will be a positive for her in the general. It doesn't really look good to just coast to a coronation. Can you imagine if her strongest opponents had been Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb?

Exactly. The Clinton campaign is as viable as it is today because of Bernie. Although I'm sure her people would have liked a few more points spread on the victory, a close race in Iowa was exactly what they needed to energize their base. Now they're on guard and their game is 10 times better. Complacency rarely wins elections or ball games.

I say, it's time to put a cranberry farmer in the White House!

They'd have to catch one first!

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/rand-paul-ran-for-president-and-realized-hes-a-145457152.html

Rand Paul dropped out. It's a shame to see him go. Despite not believing in climate change he was one of the few voices of reason left on the Republican slate. All that's left now is Rubio, who is more a voice for moderation than reason.

Jeb has now officially done worse than a candidate who has already dropped out of the race.

Eldorion wrote:The GOP has actively let itself become insular, and as a strategy it worked for a while, but changing demographics make relying on the conservative, religious, white vote above all others not as much of a viable strategy anymore. Changing patterns of religiosity and attitudes on social issues, especially among young people, and increasing racial diversity (especially interracial marriages and children) have all contributed to the necessity of having a broader base of support. But the GOP is still operating in the shadow of the Southern Strategy:

Reagan-era GOP strategist Lee Atwater wrote:You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_.281970s_and_1980s.29

You can follow a similar trend with the way that anti-gay rights politicians have discussed that issue. How it's gone from being "ew, fags" to being about defending an important social institution to being about the supposedly threatened religious liberty of the Christian Right. But the motivation and intent behind it remains clear and it affects the way people vote, both for and increasingly against the GOP.

Edit: couple articles for anyone interested in reading more and/or who wants a perspective other than mine (which is good ).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-todays-gop-crackup-is-the-final-unraveling-of-nixons-southern-strategy/

It should go without saying, but as with everything in politics (and history, and all the other social sciences), there are plenty of people who disagree with all of this.

Just a warning that this is all sort of tangential.

Those were really insightful articles. I especially liked the second one because it has put what's happened with the Tea Party, and John Boehner's recent difficulties into context beyond the "he's not delivering what the base wants" claim.

Though it doesn't make much sense to build a southern stronghold, because electoral votes have not been greatly increasing in that region apart from Texas. In 2012 the souther states that the GOP has taken since 2000 only have a value of 141 electoral votes. In 1968 those totals were 129 electoral votes. A grand total of 12. And while the numbers have fluctuated, I think it's important to see that it wasn't going to be viable from the start if you're going to neglect the north east (a former GOP stronghold as I understand it, but could never even imagine) and the northern midwest.

But now we've got swing states, and those have become increasingly blue with each election, so I just see a much harder road to hoe for the GOP. So they've neglected people like me who aren't religious, don't care if two people of the same sex want to marry each other, but would also like to see a major overhaul of the current tax code. I wouldn't call myself a democrat, but I wouldn't call myself a libertarian either, probably just middle of the road (trying not to get run over by the crazies in each party).

It is difficult, however, to read about people assuming just because someone voted against Obama means they did so because of his race. I voted for Obama in the Wisconsin primary (when I was living in WI), because I liked what he was saying, but voted for McCain as a protest vote in the general election because I didn't like the cult of personality that had grown around him (people claiming that he would pay their mortgage, adults having kids sing that "Yes We Can" song, and those awful blue and red "Hope and Change" posters plastered everywhere). Seriously, this is stuff that any sane person would want to distance themselves from. "Do you really think you should have your kids singing a song endorsing my campaign? They're in kindergarten for fucks sake."

Yeah, so I haven't voted since 2008, but from Dave's recommendation a few weeks ago I might look into third party candidates.

"Please like me." - Jeb Bush

http://www.mediaite.com/print/jeb-bush-has-to-tell-new-hampshire-crowd-please-clap/

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10908260/obama-mosque-visit-introduction-video

If we could somehow get Fox News to broadcast this young Muslim women's introductory speech, it could make such a difference.

Never gonna happen. (but hope I'm wrong).

That is cool, but I mean, they also could have watched George W. Bush when he visited a mosque on September 17, 2001. It's hard to counter willful ignorance though.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4552368/bushs-911-speech-mosque

George W. Bush wrote:These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that. The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: "In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule." The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that"s made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

bungobaggins wrote:Just a warning that this is all sort of tangential.

Those were really insightful articles. I especially liked the second one because it has put what's happened with the Tea Party, and John Boehner's recent difficulties into context beyond the "he's not delivering what the base wants" claim.

Certainly nothing wrong with tangents. Glad you found something worth thinking about in them.

But now we've got swing states, and those have become increasingly blue with each election, so I just see a much harder road to hoe for the GOP. So they've neglected people like me who aren't religious, don't care if two people of the same sex want to marry each other, but would also like to see a major overhaul of the current tax code. I wouldn't call myself a democrat, but I wouldn't call myself a libertarian either, probably just middle of the road (trying not to get run over by the crazies in each party).

Definitely a good point. I have libertarian sympathies to some extent. I'm with them for the most part on social issues (at least, the ones who don't invent exceptions to their principles in order to appease their religious bigotry). But I think that anti-discrimination laws are a legitimate function of government to preserve the liberty of disadvantaged groups of people. On the economic front my views are still somewhat in flux but I'm much less negative about capitalism then I was when I was younger. But unfortunately, the role of the Supreme Court as Dave was elaborating on earlier makes me reluctant to vote third party because I want to minimize the risk of it becoming even more conservative and potentially rolling back social issues or health care (I for one have personally benefitted from some of the provisions in Obamacare even though I've been fortunate enough to not need the government's help to get insurance; I also think that providing health care for as many people as possible is the right thing to do in general).

Not trying to say anyone's wrong for voting third party though, I can certainly understand the motivation.

bungobaggins wrote:Yeah, so I haven't voted since 2008, but from Dave's recommendation a few weeks ago I might look into third party candidates.

Eldorion wrote:Not trying to say anyone's wrong for voting third party though, I can certainly understand the motivation.

I'm glad to see some kindred spirits! We should start a 3rd-party thread when we get a little closer to the elections. It would be fun to see how many we can find, and get them all together in one place.

I share your concern about the Supreme Court Eldo. But for myself I know with absolute certainty that all of WA's electoral votes will be going to the Democratic candidate (probably Hillary) and that the state will split red/blue down the Cascade mountain range, with the rural east going solidly Red and the developed Puget Sound region (with most of the population) going solid Blue.

In this environment my one vote can't help the Democrats at all, or the Republicans either for that matter.  However one independent protest vote will actually mean something, in Olympia if not in DC.

I dunno Eldo....Maryland looks pretty blue to me. Are you sure the Dems can't spare your vote for a worthy Don Quixote?

MD is true blue in Presidential elections, although we did just elect a Republican governor (who I voted for, mainly out of disgust with the state democratic party which has gotten too arrogant and comfortable in power). But yeah, my vote is not gonna be essential for Hillary to win the state.

Eldorion wrote:That is cool, but I mean, they also could have watched George W. Bush when he visited a mosque on September 17, 2001. It's hard to counter willful ignorance though.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4552368/bushs-911-speech-mosque

George W. Bush wrote:These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that. The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: "In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule." The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that"s made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

Speaking of wilful ignorance, the media made a big deal of saying Obama's visit was the first time a president visited a mosque. You have clearly proven that untrue. Also many Muslims have spoken approvingly of Bush's pro-Muslim statements and laid blame on Obama for not doing the same. I suspect Obama was sensitive to being painted as a Muslim, so did not say as much as he may have.

Why is Hillary so adamant against debating Bernie in New York City?  Anybody have a reasonable answer for that?

Mmm- Trump loses, doesn't get his own way, throws a tantrum, blames everyone else, throw accusations about and calls people names- yup exactly the same as he as acted in Scotland when he lost the case to stop the wind farm being built.

This is what you would get if he were President too. Only every day and over actual real serious shit.

If it weren't for all the other crazy stuff that comes out of his mouth, I'd say that sounds kinda fun.

It's kinda fun to watch somebody who really gets under Trump's skin, and enjoys it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268365-nh-paper-on-trump-losing-is-what-he-does

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/marco-rubio-2016-new-hampshire-primary/index.html

You could really do the same thing with Sanders over the past 20 years. "Longer hours for lower wages!" Listening to Sanders is just tiring, but listening to Hillary is nearly impossible for me.

halfwise wrote:Why is Hillary so adamant against debating Bernie in New York City?  Anybody have a reasonable answer for that?

Still hoping somebody can tell me why.

No idea, sorry. I was under the impression that she didn't want to commit to additional debates beyond the NH in general. Some liberal blogs seem to think that she was scared because of her poor favorability ratings in NY but I dunno about that.

But they finally did agree to more debates...and NYC was glaringly left off the list. As a major liberal center it just doesn't make sense.

Hmm...looking at some polls, unless I'm reading them wrong, Sanders has a lower unfavorability rating than Clinton. Meaning he may be the one to back. Hmm...