2016 Election Thread (My God Kill Me Now)

[Schlich]

I think the cat's out of the bag re: me shamelessly peddling for Sanders but I'm going to post this (Salon disclaimer) in the hopes it helps pioneer with his decision tomorrow:

Paul Krugman’s dead wrong about Bernie: Why Sanders’ track record proves he’s not just about “happy dreams”

Take a good look at what Bernie Sanders has done throughout his career and one thing is clear: He gets stuff done

[Schlich]

this is pretty cool: FiveThirtyEight tool to see how voter turnout would affect the general election results

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... 538twitter

[Michael]

I think the cat's out of the bag re: me shamelessly peddling for Sanders but I'm going to post this (Salon disclaimer) in the hopes it helps pioneer with his decision tomorrow:

Paul Krugman’s dead wrong about Bernie: Why Sanders’ track record proves he’s not just about “happy dreams”

Take a good look at what Bernie Sanders has done throughout his career and one thing is clear: He gets stuff done

It might be true he's been a pragmatist, but that's not what he's selling and what his supporters are looking for. I believe he likes to use the word "revolution"? How is a pragmatic revolution going to work?

I like this quote by Krugman:

There’s a sort of mini-dispute among Democrats over who can claim to be Mr. Obama’s true heir — Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton? But the answer is obvious: Mr. Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Mrs. Clinton is the heir to President Obama. (In fact, the health reform we got was basically her proposal, not his.)

I doubt there would be significant policy achievements between Bernie and Hilary in the white house.

[Schlich]

The "revolution" has always, always, been about the people, not about Bernie Sanders and what he is going to do in the oval office.

That being said, no politician has ever made it this far without big money contributions. Not even Obama. That matters perhaps less than Sanders supporters would have you believe but it also matters way, way more than what establishment Democrats would ever admit. Combine that with the fact that Bernie knows how essential keeping his grassroots momentum is*** (learning from Obama's mistake), and that hopefully Democrats as a whole have learned how important midterm elections are, this "revolution" isn't not as far fetched as it seems. (which, let's be honest, what we're talking about isn't really revolution. it's a political revolution, and nothing more). People are waking up to new ideas like never before. I hate to introduce The Internet as some sort of deus ex machina, lord knows where that's gotten us lately, but there's there's absolutely no way that Bernie would be where he is without it. The proof is in the pudding. People are simply talking, and already we can see how much of a difference that has made. When people are confronted with truth--and for many people, Bernie is the first dose of truth they feel like they've gotten from a politician in decades, if ever-- they tend to accept it, on the whole. That's the faith that we're putting in the American people. And is that really such a hail mary? Maybe. Change can and does happen fairly quickly all the time, all throughout history, when people start giving a [expletive]. America has dug ourself into some deep [expletive] but it's not like our human nature is actually any different from the countries that have their [expletive] together. But we have to act. We can't give in to defeatism or complacency. We really truly have the opportunity to be the greatest country in the world, not that that title matters particularly much to me.

***take with a grain of salt, but I spoke with a couple of older Sanders volunteers while canvassing in Quad Cities today who also worked with Obama in Iowa, and they said that this grassroots effort blows Obama's out of the water. Obama's was polished, organized, and powerful, but this is larger, authentic, passionate, and most importantly, completely self-organized and self-funded.

I hate to sound all grandiose because i know that I risk sounding naive (what else is new), but this is really what Sanders is talking about when he talks about revolution. And an overwhelming majority of millennials see it as clear as day. It's not because we don't have the experience to know how the world works--that condescending attitude has never flown with us and never will-- it's because, among many other reasons, we have a deep yearning for authenticity because we grew up in a world full of bull [expletive] being thrown at us from every angle. We can handle it. This campaign about firmly and resolutely taking our country back from these whackjobs who hijacked it instead of pussyfooting around. No half measures when it comes to our candidate and more importantly our values. Enough is enough.

I doubt there would be significant policy achievements between Bernie and Hilary in the white house.

I assume you meant policy differences. In a lot of ways, I agree. Their voting records were really similar, except of course for the immensely important cases where they weren't. Both are fierce negotiators with deep histories in the system. Both, I think, are standard liberals at heart, even though they disagree on how to pitch it to their voters. I think in areas like health care we'd see very very little difference. In areas such as Wall Street reform, Hillary has been a Third-Wayer for way too long to make any meaningful change, though I'm not going to say she doesn't have good intentions there. Re: Krugman's quote, I think it's kind of premature to be calling anyone the heir to President Obama, because there's absolutely no way of saying that a President Sanders wouldn't be a President Obama--that's a worst case scenario, really--and we're making the assumption that Candidate Obama and President Obama are two separate people (they're not). Comparing a presidency to a campaign is beyond silly. I think you'll be really interested in this podcast talking about the way Obama's legacy is affecting these two candidacies.

Sanders, in my opinion, is the best and perhaps only chance we have of achieving the kind of change I want to see in my lifetime. That sounds hyperbolic, and I hesitated to type it. Hillary says "we can't wait." But without this revolution, how long will it be before we can start talking about these things again? How much longer before another Wall Street collapse because Hillary went too soft? How long before we do irrevocable damage to our planet because no one could to stand up to corporate pressure in politics? How many more people will die because we were too worried about gridlock to keep pushing for universal health care? How much longer will we continue this unrelenting trend of all the wealth going to the few people with capital until we get an actual revolution on our hands? How long it will be before there's some other big unforseen crisis that Clinton may or may not approach with sound judgment? How long will it take to find a candidate this unique, with a following this devoted, this hopeful, this charged up and ready for action? I don't expect that to happen for a very long time, especially if we continue this embrace of mediocrity. I'm not going to pass up this incredible opportunity to take a gamble, however doomed for failure this 'revolution' may be, on what I am going to completely guess is at least an additional 20 years of prosperity, for me, my children, and most importantly for those way less fortunate than me, because we were too scared to step outside our comfort zone and we really thought that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz had an ice cube's chance in hell at the presidency. This is worth that risk. And it will never, ever, happen with Hillary Clinton as president.

But really, all of that would just be the cherry on top of what would be, at worst case, a damn good presidency.

[jim]

If i understand how this caucus stuff works I think I would be voting for the candidate with the most cute girls in it. My vote could be bought with yoga pants. Im totally serious too.

[pioneer98]

If i understand how this caucus stuff works I think I would be voting for the candidate with the most cute girls in it. My vote could be bought with yoga pants. Im totally serious too.

I don't doubt that happened in 2008. All the college kids went for Obama.

[pioneer98]

A Trump field organizer has accused Trump's campaign of sex discrimination
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us ... ebook.com/

[pioneer98]

This article has a few more, uh, details about it:
http://heavy.com/news/2016/01/elizabeth ... -miss-usa/

Daughter of the chair of Scott County Republicans, she competed in Miss USA Iowa last year, and:

Elizabeth Mae Davidson claims in her discrimination complaint that when she met Donald Trump with another young female volunteer at a rally last summer he told them, “You guys could do a lot of damage,” referring to their looks, the New York Times reports.

Seems like a Bush trick for this to come out the night before the caucus and from the daughter of such a prominent Republican.

[lukethedrifter]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/ ... nt=event25


Pretty much explains why mainstream Dems never make any real progress on Wall St reforms.

[pioneer98]

Yep.

I was also going to add that going with Clinton because of concern about replacing Supreme Court justices is basically putting more importance on wedge issues than economics. Yes, the Supreme Court made the Citizens United decision, but mostly what they decide are gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, etc. These are all things we will still be debating 40 years from now regardless of this election's outcome. It is the strategy of the Wall Street and other elites to get us worrying about things like gay rights and abortion so the economic issues continue flying under the radar and they can continue fleecing us.