The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=362353)

Kanzler April 27th, 2016 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9217881)
With Cruz's path to a contested nomination vanishing by the minute, he's going to announce Carly Fiorina in the hopes of changing the topic after yesterday's Trump sweep and hoping it can revive him in Indiana and, most importantly, try to save his dwindling California prospects. Because if Trump wins Indiana, he can essentially get to 1,237 just by showing up in the remaining contests.

It looks like Trump's going to get about 40% in Indiana, but Kasich dropped out of Indiana for Cruz. I think he's gonna lose there.

Esper April 27th, 2016 10:31 PM

Well, it looks like the chances of Bernie getting the nomination are pretty slim and only a major scandal will keep Clinton from getting the nomination. I could talk a lot about my feelings on this turn of events, but whatever. I think Bernie needs to stick around through the general election to continue to be a voice for all the people who supported him. There are a lot of Bernie supporters who aren't going to trust Clinton to do anything to win them over since she's essentially said she won't really change her message or campaign if/when she becomes the nominee. I just hope that the media won't shut Bernie out.

Ivysaur April 27th, 2016 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9217897)
It looks like Trump's going to get about 40% in Indiana, but Kasich dropped out of Indiana for Cruz. I think he's gonna lose there.

Except Kasich didn't exactly "drop out" -he's still telling people to vote for him anyway- and the question is whether Kasich's supporters will vote for "poison" or will just abstain so "shot in the head" wins the primary he's winning anyway.

I mean, the question is: how big is the "Never Trump" team? And how many people will vote for Cruz to deny Trump a win he's successfully arguing he deserves by now?

Ivysaur April 28th, 2016 5:45 AM

Bonus: in case someone is wondering why Cruz isn't really the "republican saviour" and why the "NeverTrump" campaign is going nowhere, I think John Boehner explains it very nicely here: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/john-beohner-ted-cruz-lucifer-222570

I'd quote his exact words about the Texan senator but this is a PG-13 forum.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 7:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9218713)
Can you blame her, though? She's in a position where she really kind of can't. If she tries to change her message to accommodate Bernie supporters, then her own supporters are going to be given actual solid reason to distrust her given the fact that she would flip-flop right in front of their faces. The absolute most that she can do to extend her hand to the Bernie supporters is to keep reminding them of the similarities she shares with Bernie, instead of the differences. That's really just about it; she's not really in any position to actually change stances on anything, especially in this critical part of the race. Maybe, just maybe she might go so far as to compromise and incorporate some Sanders-esque idealisms at some point during her later speeches, but that's as far as I can see it going.

That would mean that her own supporters oppose an eventual $15 federal minimum wage, oppose breaking up the big banks, oppose raising taxes on the wealthy, oppose taking money out of politics, support the TPP, and support fracking. I thought the reason that her supporters wanted her over Sanders was because she's more "realistic" not because they disagreed with Sanders positions per se.

Sanders supporters are critical of Clinton's moves to the left because she does so waveringly, and they fear that they will co-opt the progressive positions just to undercut them in the general. If you want Sanders supporters - progressives in general, and supporters of reduced income inequality and policies favouring the working class - then you want to be more credible on those positions, speak more strongly about them instead of just providing empty rhetoric.

@Ivysaur but what about the whole "giving him a clear path to victory in Indiana" thing?

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 7:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9218994)
I'm not quite sure where you get this from that her supporters would oppose all of this. oO Perhaps you misunderstood my post?

I'm saying that she can't adopt typical Sanders policy i.e Medicare For All because it's something that she's been staunchly against, and flip-flopping on that issue for the sake of gaining Sanders supporters would be an awful move at this point, so she's stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's not that her supporters would be against these proposals, it's more so the flip-flopping in itself that would shoot her in the foot more than anything else. does that make sense?

Clinton supporters already have a higher tolerance for her flip-flopping than the rest of the population. I don't believe that most establishment Democrats are against most of Sanders' position per se. Clinton supporters are mostly reliable Democrats to begin with, which means they're much more likely to show up to the polls and stay in due to their disgust for politics. They're going to show up anyways.

As for not adopting Medicare For All, that's the fault of her own rhetoric. She should never had said that she's opposed to Medicare For All, that it'd "never ever come to pass". She went too far in preying on the fears of losing the ACA. What she should have done is recognize that Medicare For All would be too ambitious to be accomplished in a Republican controlled Congress and, looking back at how much effort Obama had to spend in negotiating and ultimately whittling down the ACA, how much of that time and effort could have been spent advocating for other important issues (insert Clinton talking about breaking barriers). She should have stuck to the argument of pragmatism, talk about facts (which she apparently is good at doing), and give the case like the lawyer she is that by supporting such an ambitious program that she has a lot of respect for will take away from other forms of progress. She should reaffirm that she agrees with the goal of ultimately moving to a single payer system, but tell the American people that as much as she and other progressive Democrats are in support the Republicans who control Congress would be able to shut it down by mere numbers because of how extreme they are (points for bashing Republicans). She shouldn't have said that she was personally opposed to single payer that it would never come to pass, she should've completely placed the blame on the Republicans which would be completely understandable. But she chose to play to people's fears instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9218994)
Again, the most that she CAN do is speak positively about Sanders and actually demonstrate/prove that Sanders has had an effect on her and her own policy views instead of ignoring that he exists now that he's mathematically lost.

By "actually demonstrating/proving that Sanders has had an effect on her" does that mean actually supporting Sanders' ideas that she only opposes due to pragmatism? You're saying that she can't because that'd be flip-flopping and she'd lose too much politically so it implies that rhetoric is as far as she'll go.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 8:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219033)
Rhetoric is really her only direction, is what I'm saying. If Sanders' message is "the political system is broken and we need a revolution", obviously it goes without saying that his supporters resonate with that particular message. One of Clinton's only path to really gain those supporters is not by ignoring Sanders' existence, but by making his concerns heard. You don't necessarily have to agree with Sanders or his supporters' positions to do that, as long as you generally get the point of their overall message that "big money"/influence has no place in politics, wall street isnt healthy for the economy, etc etc.

She can't flat out assume those stances outright, only to say "I can see where you guys are coming from, and it makes a lot of sense and why you would fight for those ideals" or something or another like that.

Empty rhetoric from Clinton was the reason that Sanders supporters voted for him while they could, empty rhetoric from Clinton will be the reason they stay home on election night.

To be quite honest though, I'm much more optimistic about Clinton's ability to incorporate Sanders ideas - which although that might be flip flopping to an extent - without alienating her present base. The way Sanders supporters see it they have a choice - support a candidate who shares there ideas and ideals or go back to the shadows of political disaffection. Clinton supporters don't really have a choice - they are supporters of the Democratic Party per se, reliably so, and they're much more concerned about defeating Republicans than Clinton's ideological consistency.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 8:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219056)
Then the onus will be on them in that particular case if they do stay home on election night. I disagree with what Bernie says about Hillary having to assume any conditional stances before earning his endorsement. Hillary raises a fair point (i cba to find the link to where she mentions this but you can find a news site that mentions it, I'm fairly sure) that in 2008, she didn't make any conditions when supporting Obama, and did it wholeheartedly, because she saw the bigger picture that the election is more than just about who's right and who's wrong on policies, it's about fighting for your party as well as having the best interests of the nation in mind. It'd be within Sanders' best interests, in that scenario, if he does wish to mend the Democratic party, to support the individual that wins the Democratic nomination without any conditionals.

The thing is that it's not about what's best for Bernie Sanders. Sanders earned the support of the Democrats and Independent in support of him and if Clinton wants their support she'll have to do so as well. Clinton was right, in a major sense, when she described Sanders as not a true Democrat. He's concerned more with the direction of the country than the fortune of the Democratic party. And so too are the people he's inspired this election cycle. They are more patriot than partisan, and will not vote for a party that they cannot in good conscience vote for. If they don't believe in Clinton, they won't vote for her, end of story.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 8:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219071)
If Sanders' supporters do have this patriotism that you claim and care about direction of the country, then surely it shouldn't be an issue backing Clinton vs Trump? It does seem a large percentage of millenials (which are Sanders' biggest group) are certainly willing to make that choice.

When you vote for someone, you give them a mandate. You are saying that this candidate represents me. For the people out there who cannot in good conscience give a mandate to any of the parties' nominees, they are well in their reason to not vote. If Clinton is as competitive as they say she is, then she'll be fine without Sanders supporters. If she needs them, then she needs to earn their vote. So far, she has not earned their vote. "Not being Trump" does not make her sufficiently qualified. If Clinton loses the general election, then she should have done more to unite the party. After all, it's the party that looks for the people's support, not the other way around.

Esper April 28th, 2016 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219093)
It's interesting that you state the bolded. Out of plain interest, if Sanders was the front-runner and, hypothetically, was at a disadvantage in the general, would you still be making the same claims of "not doing enough"? I say this because this is not a one-way road like you seem to be implying. Clinton can do everything on her part, including picking a sufficiently left enough VP to appeal to Sanders' supporters, but Sanders' supporters have to meet Clinton half-way at some point. When you vote for someone, it's not just " do they represent me?", it's also "do I trust them to do what's best for the country?" It's likely that, while Clinton's values and ideologies may not resonate with a sizable portion of Sanders supporters, they will more than likely, vote based on the latter question.

If there are two candidates that do not accurately represent an individual enough, do you just not vote because they dont represent you, or do you vote anyway for the best interest of your country and vote for the candidate that would have the most positive impact? That's what at stake, here. So to a degree, "Not being Trump" does actually matter in the long-term.

It is, yes, entirely possible that she can win the general election within her strong support among African-Americans, Hispanics, Non-Whites and other minorities and seniors, but any actual support from the Sanders group would help. It is, also, entirely possible that despite the whole "#BernieorBust" thing, that 2008 would probably repeat itself and a good chunk would vote for Clinton, anyway, at the end of the day.

Sanders is a different kind of candidate than Clinton. For him to be a front-runner while also being at a disadvantage in the general would require that he be a completely different candidate than he is or that the American public be completely different from what they are. Sanders does poll well in a general election, better than Clinton. So I don't think it's useful to suppose what people would do in this hypothetical situation.

And if someone thinks that Clinton is equally bad, or sufficiently bad, for the country as Trump then, no, they don't have to get behind her. No one has to get behind her. She has to earn people's support. Personally, the thing that might get me voting for her at this point is my concern over the future of the Supreme Court, but otherwise I trust her less and less each day to be a president that honestly tries to represent me and people like me. I think it's entirely likely that she'll ask for Sanders' supporters to support her without ever doing anything for them in return.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 9:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219093)
It's interesting that you state the bolded. Out of plain interest, if Sanders was the front-runner and, hypothetically, was at a disadvantage in the general, would you still be making the same claims of "not doing enough"? I say this because this is not a one-way road like you seem to be implying. Clinton can do everything on her part, including picking a sufficiently left enough VP to appeal to Sanders' supporters, but Sanders' supporters have to meet Clinton half-way at some point. When you vote for someone, it's not just " do they represent me?", it's also "do I trust them to do what's best for the country?" It's likely that, while Clinton's values and ideologies may not resonate with a sizable portion of Sanders supporters, they will more than likely, vote based on the latter question.

And that hypothetical is a hypothetical for the very reason that he wouldn't be at a disadvantage in the general, because he's able to appeal to Democrats and Independents, because he's promoting the issues and the policies that people would support. The people don't owe a party or their candidates anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219093)
If there are two candidates that do not accurately represent an individual enough, do you just not vote because they dont represent you, or do you vote anyway for the best interest of your country and vote for the candidate that would have the most positive impact? That's what at stake, here. So to a degree, "Not being Trump" does actually matter in the long-term.

We will see how things go in the general election. But what you are suggesting that one party can hold votes hostage just as long as the other party is worse. You are suggesting that the duty to the country overrides the responsibility that elected officials have to the people who vote for them. Depending on how little Clinton does to represent party outsiders, yes there comes a point when you just don't vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219093)
It is, yes, entirely possible that she can win the general election within her strong support among African-Americans, Hispanics, Non-Whites and other minorities and seniors, but any actual support from the Sanders group would help. It is, also, entirely possible that despite the whole "#BernieorBust" thing, that 2008 would probably repeat itself and a good chunk would vote for Clinton, anyway, at the end of the day.

In 2008, the supporters of the less exciting candidate ended up supporting the more exciting candidate. It's a very imperfect analogy, since now it appears that the supporters of the less exciting candidate are now asking for the supporters of the more exciting candidate. If Sanders was the nominee, then Democratic voters are going to vote for him anyways because they want the Democratic candidate anyways. If Clinton was the nominee, new Democrats and independents don't have a loyalty to the party and they'll have to be earned.

Esper April 28th, 2016 9:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219119)
This is why I said "hypothetically", unless the hypothetical itself didn't quite work well, then apologies for that. Also, I hope I don't come across as rude (just being honest here), but general election polling at his point in time, six or seven (or so?) months before the election means particularly squat. Sanders polls better than Clinton because the Republicans, by and large, have been ignoring Bernie's existence and focusing the majority (if not all) of their resources attacking Clinton and making her look significantly worse than she does currently.

I have little doubt that if the GOP wanted to attack Sanders and affect his favorability numbers (which will, in turn, affect general election polls), they can very well do that. However, they know that Sanders won't win the nomination, so there's no reason for them to do so. It's likely that these numbers will change between now and sometime a month or so before the general election.

Nah, you're not being rude. You're just being passionate, which is good.

You're right in that the Republicans have mostly left Bernie alone, but I can't think of what they could criticize him on except 1) the things that Clinton has already done, such as him being too "pie in the sky" with his plans, or 2) differences in polices and social issues. If the way the people react to the attacks on Trump by the establishment are any indication, Bernie's status as an outsider would help generate sympathy for him. Regarding 1) Bernie might be hind Clinton in delegates, but his support has only grown over time even in the face of these criticisms. And 2) attacks based on policy and issues are actually good because then it gets the public to make their choices based on policies and issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219119)
Yeah, you're right. No one has an obligation to vote for her, no one has an obligation to vote for anyone. However, if you are a "patriotic" individual who cares more about the direction the country is headed rather than the state of the Democratic Party itself, or about the state of politics, it makes very little sense to me, almost hypocritical in some fashion, to stay home just because of ideological. Again, this is not a such a one-way road.

Personally, even if I don't vote for Clinton I am certainly not staying home. There are going to be plenty of down-ballot votes and propositions that I'm going to want to weigh in on. I also see no hypocrisy in being concerned about how progressive ideas will be represented and enacted in government. I think that if you go into each election with a lesser-of-two-evils mindset you'll only ever get middling, minimal change, if you get any at all. That's got to change, because if it doesn't then nothing big will ever change quickly enough.

I don't think the election system in America is designed to favor "patriotic" individuals, if by "patriotic" we mean "believes in the democratic process". Most of the time our votes don't matter because in a presidential election only a few states decide who wins. In local elections a lot of states are either solidly Democratic or Republican and even those that are a mix of the two are still just a mix of two and there's rarely room for a third voice.

Ivysaur April 28th, 2016 10:09 AM

One of the most important points to make here is that Sanders is appealing to "left-leaning people who are Democrats but do not identify as Democrats because being an open partisan is frowned upon" independents. I'd bet a leg that a most of those would be voting for the D candidate anyway the same way most of the open Democrats who are voting Clinton would vote for Sanders or Lincoln Chafee if they were their candidates.

Look, the US political system is amazingly broken and barely functions when it comes to representing people's views. But you do have a chance to have your voice heard in the primaries. Hell, I donated $10 to Sanders, the same way I did to Obama last time. The truth is, he has lost and if your candidate loses, you have to settle for the best you can get- tilting the party platform to the left. Demanding that the candidate who won the popular vote moves away because she's "less exciting" is not fair. And refusing to vote is, in my opinion, downright irresponsible. Because if your idea is "if I can't have a socialist as a candidate, then I'm okay with getting a right-wing fascist president instead because the alternative is a mere centrist one", then I'm absolutely disgusted.

The US gives you a chance to aim for the best: primaries. That's when you try and get the candidate -house, senate, president- you really want. Republicans learnt that and made sure to primary-out all "moderate" officials they could find and replace them with radicals. But, once that's done, General elections are the moment when you settle for the least-bad candidate in the ballot. Which might be the good you you supported in the primaries or the bad guy you didn't like as much but who will be a million times better than the other one, whose ideology is in the opposite side of the spectrum. If you refuse to vote because Clinton is "too moderate", you may end up with a Republican House, a Republican Senate and Trump/Cruz as President. And I assure you that "socialism" is the last thing you'll get in those four years. And undoing their legacy may take decades, not just one new election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9219137)
Personally, even if I don't vote for Clinton I am certainly not staying home. There are going to be plenty of down-ballot votes and propositions that I'm going to want to weigh in on. I also see no hypocrisy in being concerned about how progressive ideas will be represented and enacted in government. I think that if you go into each election with a lesser-of-two-evils mindset you'll only ever get middling, minimal change, if you get any at all. That's got to change, because if it doesn't then nothing big will ever change quickly enough.

Of course, down-ballot races mean zilch if there is Trump/Cruz to veto everything into the dustbin. Sadly, to get anything done, you need two parties ready to compromise or across-the-board majorities. And the first option is no longer available.

And I guess that's the difference. Incrementalism against radical change. Here in Europe we learnt that the former does work; I guess it's a matter of different views. But "incremental" improvements like the ACA are nonetheless better than "incremental" steps back like all anti-abortion laws in red states. Again, lesser of two evils.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 10:26 AM

On the other hand, the idea that it isn't necessary for Clinton to accommodate Sanders supporters because that's the best they can get bankrupts the idea that parties ought to represent public support. I'm equally disgusted with the idea that "I no longer need to acknowledge your voice because you need me even if I don't". Winning the primary is no excuse to marginalize those voters who didn't or couldn't vote in the primary but who would be voting for you come November.

Clinton doesn't have to absorb all of Sanders' positions, but in order for her to get those votes she'll have to make her case to the voters she stands to lose. She'll have to come out stronger on those positions she's said she's moved on and has to project commitment. Like flight said, it's a two-way street.

With that being said, I'm beginning to have doubts that Trump will be the fascist everybody says he will be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219165)
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Bernie do poorly (at least, compared to Clinton) to those who clearly identify as Democrat, rather than a "democratic independent" or whatever those fancy grey-area terms are these days that he's drawing a lot more of? Just a general question really, has no relevance to this otherwise. u.u

Yes, but these voters are reliable Democrat voters anyways. The Democratic Party has their 30% or so votes in the bag regardless of who is the nominee. They're like Red or Blue states who don't decide elections. Sanders would have their vote not because he's entitled to them, but because they'll show up anyways. And besides, I don't think Sanders would disgust them to the point of staying home. That's why I think it would've been great, electorally speaking, if Sanders was the Democratic nominee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219165)
@bolded: is that not what Bernie is doing to a degree? According to some news sources (it's up to you if you deem them trustworthy sources; I've noticed these when I was perusing around) that I've found, Bernie is essentially saying "if you want my voters, you better support my plans", instead of "I'm going to unequivocally and unconditionally back whoever wins the Democratic nomination for the sake of the country, and do the best that I can to my ability to convince my voters that voting for you is the best option at this point"

Bernie Sanders isn't holding voters hostage because 1) he's not going to be the nominee and he won't be calling the shots for what the Democratic party stands for this election and 2) he's not the master of his support base. A lot of people admittedly admire him religiously, but their slogan isn't "I'm with him", it's "He's with us". I don't think anybody should expect that by standing behind Clinton (which he already pledged to do) that he'll open the floodgates to the maybe 20% or so voters that aren't for Clinton. I don't think anybody should expect that by acquiescing for Clinton's positions that his supporters will continue to support him.

In the very article you linked, it says:

Quote:

Sanders said that “If we end up losing,” it would be “incumbent upon [Clinton] to tell millions of people who right now do not believe in establishment politics and establishment economics” that she supported Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan.

“I think Secretary Clinton is going to have to explain to millions of young people and a lot of other people that climate change is a real crisis and incrementalism is just not going to solve it,” he added.
Bernie Sanders is not a prophet, he's a vehicle. He says over and over again, it's not about him, it's about what the people believe. There are Sanders supporters who will vote for Clinton because they are convinced enough by her candidacy and the fear of Republicans. But for the Sanders supporters who are still not convinced of Clinton, Sanders telling them "I'm going to unequivocally and unconditionally back whoever wins the Democratic nomination for the sake of the country, and do the best that I can to my ability to convince my voters that voting for you is the best option at this point" will not convince them to show up. Clinton and her supporters ought to know that getting Sanders to toe their line is not going to bring them the effect they think it will and they should ignore this fact at their own peril.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219165)
I disagree with this conclusion. It was less about excitement, because Clinton openly went and advocated for her voters to vote Obama in the general election. Again, if what you imply (and stated in your previous posts) is true that the concern of Independents as well as young Democrats are more concerned with the direction with the country rather than inside politics within the Democratic Party, would it make more sense to vote for the candidate who, despite ideological differences, would more than likely produce favorable results in a presidency compared to their opposition? I see these as intrinsically (?) linked a way; you can stay home and vote of course, you don't have to vote for anyone and if no one earned your vote, you certainly have a right to stay home. Simultaneously however, staying home implies you recognize and accept that essentially your voice is not heard and that whatever is the direct result of the election afterwards could be the result of the refusal to vote.

Excitement is just a shorthand for progressive ideas and bringing in new voters. Obama and Clinton weren't that different to begin with, and besides she could herd her more establishment Democrats toward his way. Sanders supporters tend to be outsider Democrats and Independents who don't respond as well to party loyalty. History doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes; except this time it's not rhyming.

Esper April 28th, 2016 10:35 AM

Sanders is not damaging Clinton. The damage is already there for anyone to see. If anything he is helping her. Any dirty laundry that he is pointing out is going to come out in a general election anyway and it's better for her to have a chance to address it and come up with a response now so that she's ready for Trump or whoever. Sanders is not starting rumors and getting people to believe things that never happens. It's all there in the record already. He's not adding anything to it.

Clinton urged her supporters to support Obama because he became the de facto party leader by getting the nomination and Clinton is a staunch party supporter. Bernie is an outsider. His political fortunes don't rest on being tied to the Democratic party like Clinton's did and do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9219154)
Of course, down-ballot races mean zilch if there is Trump/Cruz to veto everything into the dustbin. Sadly, to get anything done, you need two parties ready to compromise or across-the-board majorities. And the first option is no longer available.

And I guess that's the difference. Incrementalism against radical change. Here in Europe we learnt that the former does work; I guess it's a matter of different views. But "incremental" improvements like the ACA are nonetheless better than "incremental" steps back like all anti-abortion laws in red states. Again, lesser of two evils.

But in Europe it's mostly parliamentary style governments where you have more choices and even if you support a party with only 10% support among the voters they'll still have a voice in government. As an American living with the American political system you don't know how preferable the European system looks to me, even if it has its own flaws.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 10:51 AM

420postsblazeit

To summarize the past several posts, I think what people are underestimating on Clinton's side is that Sanders and his supporters are very different and definitely not your average Democrats, which means that you can't rely on preconceptions and past strategies to rally them to your side.

Ivysaur April 28th, 2016 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9219182)
But in Europe it's mostly parliamentary style governments where you have more choices and even if you support a party with only 10% support among the voters they'll still have a voice in government. As an American living with the American political system you don't know how preferable the European system looks to me, even if it has its own flaws.

The difference is, a parliamentary system allows for "revolutions". You only have to elect a party that is completely different and give them enough strenght to pass any laws necessary to that end, they have four full years for that. In the US, on the other hand, the complex system of checks and vetos makes it impossible for any revolution to happen: the House can veto it, 41 senators can veto it, the President can veto it. And if you get a supermajority like Obama's and you try to do something that's "too radical" (even if it's actually tame) like the ACA, then all those disgruntled people who are against it can organise and send you back to vetoland in all of two years. It's as simple as getting a 41th senator and your revolution is over.

In a system that's designed to only ever allow incremental change, saying "revolution or nothing" means you'll get nothing 99% of the times. Good luck.

Here, we have two main left-wing parties. You have the moderates and the radicals. You can pick either in the elections. In the US, they are also running- in the primaries. That's when you make the difference.

Also, @Kanzler: it's not the matter of being "a fascist" per se. He's clearly a megalomaniac and his positions, even if they won't be necessarily fascist, can and will cause the international image of the US -with their neighbours, with their allies- to drop even worse than under Bush II. And a functioning US is still needed to keep world order.

Then, of course, he goes and does things like adopting a slogan used by literal nazi supporters in the 40's to describe his foreign policy views and you wonder whether he's just him being a dimwit or whetehr there is something more to it.

Kanzler April 28th, 2016 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9219206)
And if they don't show up, they would be going against what they stood for in the first place, despite the efforts of either Clinton or Sanders. If you're for some form of change for the betterment of this country, shouldn't you have your voice heard one way or another, or are you going to stay home or vote green party (meaninglessly, I may add) for the sake of "sticking it to the establishment"?

Well, if you put it that way, they've always been going against what they stood for in the first place by not voting in primaries or general elections. I don't think that's the most productive attitude to have, and it's not going to convince anyone who already isn't convinced.

@Ivysaur. We'll see the extent to which he'll backpedal in the general.

Ivysaur April 28th, 2016 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9219218)
@Ivysaur. We'll see the extent to which he'll backpedal in the general.

It's hard to backpedal too far when you have millions of tapes showing you saying all sorts of insane things on the last 6-10 months alone.

On the other hand, his list of actual policies so far can be summarised in a post-it so he can make anything up along the way.

Klippy April 29th, 2016 9:45 PM

Politico is hardly an official source of what's to come or a reputable source of news/information. It's especially hilarious when Politico quotes people in such a vague way.

"One Republican says Trump has no chance!" Gee, what a viable piece of election coverage. That article is pointless except to stroke the egos of Clinton fans. There are thousands of articles that do the same for Cruz supporters and Sanders supporters - Sanders at least still has a chance and his supporters need the motivation to continue.

I could pull up plenty of links from all over the web and act like they're gospel for a candidate - there's a dozen or so fresh articles about Trump beating Clinton "like a baby seal". I'd wager you'd dismiss that one though just as I dismiss them all at this point. It's completely useless until we're about a month out from voting - especially when we've seen Clinton go from the sure-fire candidate to barely beating back Bernie without her 500 extra superdelegates. We've seen Jeb Bush going from the sure-fire candidate to barely being able to sell his guac bowls for donations. It's especially pointless when Trump and Clinton haven't even debated once or truly faced off in any meaningful way.

Acting like a Politico article months from meaningful general election campaigning means something is like getting an A on your first homework assignment and feeling assured you'll ace the class.

There is way more to come in this election.

Kanzler April 30th, 2016 8:36 AM

There's a difference between trusting facts and trusting analysis. Facts are at least more or less objective but analysis depends very much on assumptions and biases. Unless you are aware of and agree with those assumptions, you should dig a little deeper.

I don't know if millennials will play a big part in this election if Sanders isn't a big part in it. 18-30 turnout almost hit 50% during 2008, but fell back to about 40% (that's a fall of 25%!) in 2012, probably due to Obama. Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama. The young people who do show up will overwhelmingly vote for Clinton. But if Trump manages to mobilize working class whites, it'll be a challenge for Clinton to match that with an equal mobilization of young voters.

Ivysaur April 30th, 2016 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9221658)
There's a difference between trusting facts and trusting analysis. Facts are at least more or less objective but analysis depends very much on assumptions and biases. Unless you are aware of and agree with those assumptions, you should dig a little deeper.

I don't know if millennials will play a big part in this election if Sanders isn't a big part in it. 18-30 turnout almost hit 50% during 2008, but fell back to about 40% (that's a fall of 25%!) in 2012, probably due to Obama. Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama. The young people who do show up will overwhelmingly vote for Clinton. But if Trump manages to mobilize working class whites, it'll be a challenge for Clinton to match that with an equal mobilization of young voters.

In turn, she can make it up with blacks, hispanics and women, so I wouldn't exactly bet against her odds. Especially considering that blacks and hispanics have been Clinton's best constituencies and... she'd be running against the KKK-endorsed Mexicans-Are-Rapists guy.

Klippy April 30th, 2016 10:51 AM

It's entirely acceptable to dismiss these trends this early. It's a joke to consider anything right now as accurate or even close to what's next (and you'll see I post some polling numbers below. They mean nothing today, except to prove Trump doesn't poll that far behind her generally speaking). Especially when polling "experts" like Nate Silver consistently get Trump winning wrong and underestimate Bernie.

Hillary will not be able to reach blacks like Obama reached them. There's not even a point in speculating that. She also has far less excitement surrounding her than Obama did. Millennials will not flock to her and she doesn't exactly inspire excitement like Sanders or Trump and millennials overwhelmingly support Sanders, yet we find they either aren't showing up to vote or aren't even participating in the process besides being keyboard-supporters that only preach for him, but don't go and do the work to get him nominated.

Repeatedly screaming that Trump is a racist isn't working for anyone's narrative by the way and it's a very poor argument for why he will not win given he's disavowed any KKK endorsements and is pretty adamant that he's against illegal immigration, not legal immigration. Dismissing him as a clown is exactly why he's made it this far and why he's toppled the Bush dynasty and ruined Marco Rubio's "promised one" image (along with Chris Christie).

Trump's basically winning in every state left and has not stopped winning since the start. I suspect there's way more to come in this election and it will continue to be one that surprises pundits and "experts" alike. But framing this debate like Trump has no chance is completely foolish and WILL contribute to him winning. People will dismiss him as having no chance, and then not show up to vote assuming he'll get blown out. You're free to continue dismissing him, but he polls relatively close to her.

And once again, dismissing him because of that 7% average lead she has is the exact opposite of what Sanders supporters currently do. They see a 7% differential and recognize that it's close and easy to change and takes effort. After 3~ debates and several months of potential mistakes, surprises, and endorsements, you'll be shocked how close this one will be. Republicans, despite disliking him now, will fall in line later on as Trump reins in his outlandish comments and begins acting like a leader more and more.

Dismissing any candidate (except Cruz and Kasich who have no mathematical chance of winning the nom) is naive and foolish for any supporter or even any candidate. Bernie could arguably win the nomination still. Clinton could be indicted. She could screw up and say something stupid. So could he. Trump could too.

There's absolutely no point in predicting this early and even less of a point of dismissing someone as having no chance (unless they literally have no chance. See: Ted Cruz and John Kasich).

Ivysaur April 30th, 2016 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klippy (Post 9221819)
It's entirely acceptable to dismiss these trends this early. It's a joke to consider anything right now as accurate or even close to what's next (and you'll see I post some polling numbers below. They mean nothing today, except to prove Trump doesn't poll that far behind her generally speaking). Especially when polling "experts" like Nate Silver consistently get Trump winning wrong and underestimate Bernie.

Hillary will not be able to reach blacks like Obama reached them. There's not even a point in speculating that. She also has far less excitement surrounding her than Obama did. Millennials will not flock to her and she doesn't exactly inspire excitement like Sanders or Trump and millennials overwhelmingly support Sanders, yet we find they either aren't showing up to vote or aren't even participating in the process besides being keyboard-supporters that only preach for him, but don't go and do the work to get him nominated.

Repeatedly screaming that Trump is a racist isn't working for anyone's narrative by the way and it's a very poor argument for why he will not win given he's disavowed any KKK endorsements and is pretty adamant that he's against illegal immigration, not legal immigration. Dismissing him as a clown is exactly why he's made it this far and why he's toppled the Bush dynasty and ruined Marco Rubio's "promised one" image (along with Chris Christie).

Trump's basically winning in every state left and has not stopped winning since the start. I suspect there's way more to come in this election and it will continue to be one that surprises pundits and "experts" alike. But framing this debate like Trump has no chance is completely foolish and WILL contribute to him winning. People will dismiss him as having no chance, and then not show up to vote assuming he'll get blown out. You're free to continue dismissing him, but he polls relatively close to her.

And once again, dismissing him because of that 7% average lead she has is the exact opposite of what Sanders supporters currently do. They see a 7% differential and recognize that it's close and easy to change and takes effort. After 3~ debates and several months of potential mistakes, surprises, and endorsements, you'll be shocked how close this one will be.

Dismissing any candidate (except Cruz and Kasich who have no mathematical chance of winning the nom) is naive and foolish for any supporter or even any candidate. Bernie could arguably win the nomination still. Clinton could be indicted.
There's absolutely no point in predicting this early and even less of a point of dismissing someone as having no chance (unless they literally have no chance. See: Ted Cruz and John Kasich).

If you want to consider the possibility of Clinton somehow exploding or indicted, then I think you also need to consider the possibility of Trump not clinching 1,237 delegates and being overrun by a Cruz-friendly horde of delegates in the Convention. I don't know, if we want to play extremely unlikelies, let's do it properly. As rules stand right now, if Trump doesn't get the 1,237th delegate, Cruz has a shoe in (and he's literally the only other person who could be nominated, as per the current rules), so Cruz does have chances. About as many as Sanders, I'd dare say: they are both only a frontrunner implosion and a convention coup away.

Second, polling expert Silver (why the quotes?) had been saying your argument: that early polling means nothing. Of course, he used that argument to (subjectively) claim that Trump had no chance, even when he acknowledged that polls were, in fact, in his favour. Other than that, his actual, number-based polling predictions have been fairly accurate: they only failed to predict Sanders winning Wisconsin, mostly because nobody in the world did (and it's hard to guess it when all you have are polls and all of them are off by 20+ points). As a bonus, his predictions about how Trump-should-be-doing-by-now-if-he-were-to-win made at the start of the race are frighteningly accurate: he's six delegates over the mark Silver predicted at this point (counting the Pennsilvanian unbound delegates that are declared Trump supporters).

Quote:

Republicans, despite disliking him now, will fall in line later on as Trump reigns in his outlandish comments and begins acting like a leader more and more.
You are underestimating the real terror of Republican leaders currently feel to be annihilated if they come out in support of him. You don't seem to understand that Trump is an outlandish comment turned human. If his idea of "acting like a leader" is his utterly deranged foreign policy speech from the other day, then I can only see the current pattern of elected Republican officials in competitive zones running away from him getting worse. Or simply pretending he doesn't exist and running local races.

Quote:

She could screw up and say something stupid. So could he. Trump could too.
The problem is, Trump has been saying stupid things since day one. Literally. That's his thing. He says stupid things and people freak out when his support doesn't go away. But he has hardly been adding any support with the general public either, so it's hard to say how useful it can be in a general.

Also, the chart you showed proves that Trump's support in a Trump vs Clinton race has been falling at a constant pace as Clinton's has increased, which isn't exactly a good sign. In shot: can things change? Yes. Are both candidates well-known enough that you can't really expect the numbers to switch that much with campaigns and debates? Yes. Were people wrong to expect Trump to do well? Yes. But, as a person who predicted that Trump could actually do well last August just by looking at the polls, I look at the same polls and see... that he's doing poorly in a general. Pundits insisted that he'd collapse some day despite the polls, you are saying that that race is going to be close despite the polls. Well, your call.

Quote:

Repeatedly screaming that Trump is a racist isn't working for anyone's narrative by the way and it's a very poor argument for why he will not win given he's disavowed any KKK endorsements and is pretty adamant that he's against illegal immigration, not legal immigration. Dismissing him as a clown is exactly why he's made it this far and why he's toppled the Bush dynasty and ruined Marco Rubio's "promised one" image (along with Chris Christie).
The racism card has made Trump get a whooping -64 net favorability rating among latinos and a 41% of them say they feel "more enthusiastic" to vote this year just to stop him. It's just that there are so many Latinos in the Republican primary electorate that their opinions don't matter. Well, except in the Puerto Rico primary, that one where he got 10% of the vote or so. So I think it's a pretty good card to play.

I'll be happy if the race ends up being as "shockingly close" as 2012, which was won by Obama with months to go.

Klippy April 30th, 2016 12:42 PM

The odds of Trump not securing the delegates are extremely low given he's poised to win in basically every contest heading into the nomination. It's also unlikely the Republican Party will take it from Trump given he's only 230~ away, despite Ted Cruz believing differently. They know Trump will go third-party and will very likely take many of his 10 million voters with him - though arguably they'd be okay with that because they'd also rather have Clinton, someone they know is not going to rock the boat.

Clinton-and-Sanders is still a contest at least. And Clinton imploding/getting indicted is far more likely than Trump given (as you say yourself), he's a walking outlandish comment. But he's also anti-establishment so the fact that Republicans in positions like Mike Pence, an anti-LGBT rights supporter of Bible-thumpin' Ted, means little to someone like Trump, who claims to be looking for support from the people and not the politicians.

I'm not sure how you're seeing that he's falling at a constant pace or she's increasing though. That list is fairly consistent around 7%-12%, with a handful of outliers putting her at ~20% and him ahead by ~5% or so. That's hardly indicative of much other than it's close in polling. Factor in debates during the general, possible implosions, and a mix of other factors, and there's not really much saying this is going to be a landslide yet.

"My call" is that it's too early to predict anything in an unbelievably unpredictable cycle. I do recall you making such statements about Trump early on, so good on you. I'd never have guessed he'd have made it this far or done this well for the nomination. But I don't claim to be an expert. :) Just one vote.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.