Nosy Latin American chimes in US Election :P

[Sigma_Orionis]

It's important to remember that the first laws that created worker's pensions were enacted by a rabid right winger and monarchist: Otto von Bismarck. Why did he do something like that? to blunt the communists' appeal to the German workers

I think that FDR took advantage of WWII to enact a similar agenda, after all a major factor of winning WWII was industrial production, and you needed the "rabble" to work. Seen plenty of US WWII propaganda where the government made nice with Management and Labor. And I think that the elites in the US went along. Hell, for all I know MAYBE it was sold to them that AFTER the war they'd have the world market for themselves.

The Cold War also provided incentives for making sure the majority was at least middle class. I think that the prospect of the USSR being presented (falsely, and encouraged by way too many left wing nutjobs) as a "worker's paradise" allowed that to happen

I find it interesting that as the USSR declined in the late 70s the US right wing gained strength (why do I find it interesting? because during the 70s and at least half of the 80s, the USSR was painted as very strong and ready to strike at the US within a moment's notice) , the Oil Crisis and the stagflation of the 70s certainly helped as well.

Since there's no USSR bogeyman anymore, I think that the US Economic elites think they don't need the rabble anymore. Which, if you ask me, is at best stupid, the rise of communism happened PRECISELY because of that. Now the Elites of the US Right have to deal with a loose cannon like Trump. Hopefully the US left will win and even more hopefully they don't mess up badly enough to make the US right look appealing at least till that side has more reasonable people managing them.

I'd like my unicorn in purple

[SciFiFisher]

Since there's no USSR bogeyman anymore, I think that the US Economic elites think they don't need the rabble anymore. Which, if you ask me, is at best stupid, the rise of communism happened PRECISELY because of that. Now the Elites of the US Right have to deal with a loose cannon like Trump. Hopefully the US left will win and even more hopefully they don't mess up badly enough to make the US right look appealing at least till that side has more reasonable people managing them.

I'd like my unicorn in purple

I think we are all secretly optimistic while trying to tone down our pragmatic realist.

[geonuc]

I miss the USSR.

[Swift]

I miss the USSR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrtnnLor2UM

[Sigma_Orionis]

How appropriate: Live in Kiev

[vendic]

This sort of stuff drives me nuts:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... trump-love

At this point, it's not clear if Trump can be stopped anytime before November 8th, but liberals should nevertheless be doing everything they can to help his opponents relegate him to the ashcan of history. After all, it's no sure thing that he'll lose in November either. There are lots of ways he could win. An economic downturn could do it. Trump's demagoguery might do it. Some kind of unexpected scandal could do it. He might turn out to be a better general election campaigner than we think. Or Hillary Clinton could just run a bad campaign.

The article like many others reads like Hillary is the only candidate. They mention Rubio twice and there is no mention of Sanders. With all this talk of Bernie Bro's a quick search through the page reveals that not even a single comment had the words Bernie or Sanders.
It makes me wonder if there is an active campaign to try and block him out.
Given that many people in SC. at the exit polls said they don't know Bernie there is a hell of a lot of ignorance in the community.
This isn't the only article either.
I have yet to read a single article where it is assumed that Sanders will win and doesn't even mention Hillary.
Then there is the never ending crap about the delegates they have and how far ahead Hillary is. Yeah, if you have already assumed that she won the candidacy, but they don't mention that part. If you assume Bernie won, those same figures will show him far ahead of Hillary right at this point in time. Sheesh.

[Cyborg Girl]

@vendic

Hate to say it, but I think you are missing the point of the article. Sanders is beside the point. He could, quite possibly, also turn out unexpectedly weak against Trump.

Side note, have you seen this yet?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ont-119927

People will dig up more "dirt", or just invent it from whole cloth if that doesn't work.

And yet for some reason everyone seems to be banking on Trump being unelectable. This is a bad, bad mistake that has gotten the Dems trounced before, and will get them trounced again if they're not careful. Especially with a guy like Trump, who never plays fair. Ever.

...

BTW, while everyone is going bugfuck over the Clintons and ignoring Sanders, here's another nice snippet about Trump:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... g-sex.html

And more:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... e-20150728

And then there are his comments about his daughter, Ivanka: "[S]he does have a very nice figure. I've said if she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."

At the very least, the guy is a fucking creep. Now watch it roll off him like water off a duck's back. At this point, I'm fairly convinced he could in fact shoot someone in public, and get away with it because he's a fucking celebrity.

Best case IMO, he doesn't get the nomination.

Worst case? He becomes America's version of Colonel Qaddafi.

[Cyborg Girl]

Oh, another thing you may be forgetting: as CiC the President is in charge of the largest surveillance apparatus that has ever existed.

Can you imagine a creep like Trump, having that much power?

[vendic]

@vendic

Hate to say it, but I think you are missing the point of the article. Sanders is beside the point. He could, quite possibly, also turn out unexpectedly weak against Trump.

Actually I haven't missed the point. Sanders is consistently polling better than Hillary when lined up against the opposition.
The article is about not letting Trump win.
If you're going to write an article about winning something and ignoring what currently seems your best weapon, you're not really being honest. Which is my point.
For the record, many republicans would rather vote for Sanders than Trump.
Many Democrats would rather vote for Trump than Hillary.
What does that tell you?
This is what it tells me. Democrats will vote for Bernie if they can't vote for Hillary, but it doesn't work that way the other way around. So you're going to lose democrat votes if Hillary is elected. You know, people that don't vote double some other guys vote. I hear that all the time (not that I agree with it in any practical sense).
Some Republicans that won't vote for Trump have stated they'd rather vote for Sanders. No Republican's I've heard of anywhere would vote for Hillary over Trump. That means if Hillary is a candidate, you lose a bit of the Republican base. If not voting is doubling the oppositions vote, then what exactly is voting for the opposition worth?
Lastly, independents are highly likely to vote for Sanders. Not so likely to vote for Hillary.

There are some that say they will never vote for a socialist. Typically it's people that are Republicans and wouldn't vote for a "libtard" anyway. Those that have any clue know he isn't socialist.

Side note, have you seen this yet?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ont-119927

Nope. Not sure I see how it's going to affect much.
Trump has how many failed marriages, failed businesses, is an asshole and an arrogant self righteous prick.
Hillary has a big issue with lying and with trust, not supporting sexually abused women (she basically slut shamed the women Bill screwed and the women say she encouraged him), takes more money in from special interests than anyone by far, she is establishment through and through and the reason Trump is popular is because people are sick of establishment politicians on both sides.
I don't see how Sanders almost quiet private life comes close to any of that. Don't forget that he is respected on both sides of the fence.

Here's the real problem as I see it. The DNC has hedged their bets already that Hillary is going to be the one.
When you prepare to dig in and fight, you want to make sure you have the best chance.
You choose your best weapon, not the one that you've pre-selected before you even knew the enemy, simply because you believe it's her turn.

Two stories I can relate to from Australian politics that seem pretty valid here.
The Oz public hated the Liberal party (conservative party, don't even bother asking) and were desperate to get the Labour party in.
Everyone know it, except for the idiot Labour politicians who put in Kim Beasley, a person that Australians really didn't like. They expected people to vote the party line. It was said that the Labour party could put up a drovers dog and it would win against the Liberals.
The election that year wasn't won by the Liberal party. It was lost by the Labour party.
IMHO that is what will happen if Hillary is put up.
Similarly for Trump but he seems to have people that like him.

Last but not least, I remember the Australian elections and how we were so happy to get a female Prime Minister in.
Till she got in. Julia Gillard was a mess. We couldn't wait to get her out. The lesson there is don't vote for a vagina because that's not who the person is. Vote for the person, not their gender.

[Sigma_Orionis]

.....
The Oz public hated the Liberal party (conservative party, don't even bother asking)......

I'll answer that for you, in Europe and most countries with British influence "Liberal" means those who favor "Liberal Economics" (Small Government yada yada), in the Americas, "Liberal" means those who favor "Liberal Politics".

[SciFiFisher]

Here's the real problem as I see it. The DNC has hedged their bets already that Hillary is going to be the one.
When you prepare to dig in and fight, you want to make sure you have the best chance.
You choose your best weapon, not the one that you've pre-selected before you even knew the enemy, simply because you believe it's her turn.

One theory I have is that this is part of the package deal the DNC promised Hilary in 2008 in return for releasing her delegates so they could vote for Obama at the DNC convention. If she had decided to be a poopy head about it things may have been very different in 2008.

Of course, this presumes that the DNC is honorable enough to actually keep a promise this is more than 4 years old.

[vendic]

If that's the case, then fuck her even more.
They aren't "her" delegates. That's just a huge nail in the coffin for her being establishment.

While I'm at it, many people don't seem to understand why people who supported Bernie won't support Hillary.
They act like they are betraying the Democrats.
Which is pretty ironic considering that the reason they won't vote for Hillary is that they are anti establishment and feel betrayed themselves.
Anyone that then tells them that a vote for Bernie, or no vote, is a vote for Trump will be met with, a fuck you too mentality, I've had enough.

Has anyone noticed that as time passes Bernie gets more votes while Hillary loses. It's because people still don't really know about him. The Clinton campaign is now even trying not to mention him because that provides him with exposure.
The DNC deliberately tried to not expose him by manipulating the debates.
Now the campaign is concentrating on Trump vs Hillary.
Pretty impressive that we've had three states so far that have voted and the shift is to ignore the other candidate and hope that no one notices. This might really bite them on the ass as people might end up feeling they have been manipulated by the party yet again.

[SciFiFisher]

If that's the case, then fuck her even more.
They aren't "her" delegates. That's just a huge nail in the coffin for her being establishment.

While I'm at it, many people don't seem to understand why people who supported Bernie won't support Hillary.
They act like they are betraying the Democrats.
Which is pretty ironic considering that the reason they won't vote for Hillary is that they are anti establishment and feel betrayed themselves.
Anyone that then tells them that a vote for Bernie, or no vote, is a vote for Trump will be met with, a fuck you too mentality, I've had enough.

Has anyone noticed that as time passes Bernie gets more votes while Hillary loses. It's because people still don't really know about him. The Clinton campaign is now even trying not to mention him because that provides him with exposure.
The DNC deliberately tried to not expose him by manipulating the debates.
Now the campaign is concentrating on Trump vs Hillary.
Pretty impressive that we've had three states so far that have voted and the shift is to ignore the other candidate and hope that no one notices. This might really bite them on the ass as people might end up feeling they have been manipulated by the party yet again.

For Bernie's sake I hope he picks up some traction today. Today is Super Tuesday. There are 12 states and 1 territory with primaries of variation or another today. One scenario is that Hilary and Bernie go to the wire and pick up an almost equal amount of delegates. Which means then it goes to the DNC convention for a nominee to be picked. At that point it becomes a case of the two nominees convincing the DNC that they have a better chance of beating whoever wins the Republican nomination.

Interesting analysis I heard on NPR today. A moderate conservative they were interviewing stated he hoped that Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich were able to keep enough delegates from Trump. That way all four of them would wind up at the Republican convention. His opinion was that if they did that there was no way Trump was walking away with the nomination.

Which, in theory, could give us a Sanders vs Kasich choice in the general election.

The website 538 shows Bernie is still in the race but will be behind Hilary after Super Tuesday. But, I would not count him out yet.

[vendic]

So long as he keeps going to really shake things up I'll be happy.
I'd be happier if he got elected.

I came across this while trying to show the differences between Hillary and Bernie.
I fact checked a lot of it and those had factual basis. I didn't know about half this stuff.
The Pardons of terrorists (verified), more lies and corruption (also verified).
Even if the rest is bullshit, it's not a good track record. It could lead to a complete disaster if the Clinton's were to get back in power.
Given the rest of the stuff that they were involved in, I'm going to say the email controversy might have more merit than first appears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY

[geonuc]

If y'all want to rant about US election problems, here's some suggested topics:

1). Voter ID laws. A lot of states have passed onerous laws that restrict which IDs are acceptable for voting and some have cut back on places where you can obtain a state ID (drivers license or non-driver ID). Those cutbacks have been largely in rural, minority districts and tend - more than tend - to make it harder for Democrats to vote. The excuse for these laws has been the boogeyman of voter fraud, even though no such significant fraud has ever been shown to happen in modern times anywhere in this country.

2) Voting machines. If you were in this country and of voting age 2000, you know what this means. We still haven't fixed the problems.

3) Advance voting. Another favorite for the GOP shenanigans. Seems that more Democrats vote in advance because more of them have trouble getting off work and traveling to the polling place during designated election hours. So Republican legislatures have cut back on this obviously beneficial public service.

4) Winner take all primary and general election delegates. This is big. Someone could win a state by literally a single vote and yet reap the entire load of delegates. Argues against the whole concept of delegates and for elimination of the electoral college.

I'm sure there are other issues.

[vendic]

I agree with you

And ranting is healthy. Sometimes its the only thing that stops you spiraling into a world of despair and depression.

[Cyborg Girl]

Hey @vendic and @SFC, I think y'all will like this.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... e-20160224

Yes, that's Matt Taibi. Read it anyway, it makes a lot of (really disturbing) sense.

[Yosh]

If y'all want to rant about US election problems, here's some suggested topics:

1). Voter ID laws. A lot of states have passed onerous laws that restrict which IDs are acceptable for voting and some have cut back on places where you can obtain a state ID (drivers license or non-driver ID). Those cutbacks have been largely in rural, minority districts and tend - more than tend - to make it harder for Democrats to vote. The excuse for these laws has been the boogeyman of voter fraud, even though no such significant fraud has ever been shown to happen in modern times anywhere in this country.

2) Voting machines. If you were in this country and of voting age 2000, you know what this means. We still haven't fixed the problems.

3) Advance voting. Another favorite for the GOP shenanigans. Seems that more Democrats vote in advance because more of them have trouble getting off work and traveling to the polling place during designated election hours. So Republican legislatures have cut back on this obviously beneficial public service.

4) Winner take all primary and general election delegates. This is big. Someone could win a state by literally a single vote and yet reap the entire load of delegates. Argues against the whole concept of delegates and for elimination of the electoral college.

I'm sure there are other issues.

I agree with everything except doing away with the electoral college.

Based on population distribution of the country in 2015, Presidential candidates would only need to campaign in 14 states in order to reach a little over 200 million citizens. They could basically blow off everywhere else, perhaps except for major urban centers in the remaining states...and not very many of those. What is airily dismissed by the chattering classes as "fly over country" would essentially be disenfranchised from our presidential election process.

I cannot think of anything, short of the downfall of our current method of government, that would have such a damaging social and political effect. It would make the partisan divide we have now look like a garden furrow.

[SciFi Chick]

Based on population distribution of the country in 2015, Presidential candidates would only need to campaign in 14 states in order to reach a little over 200 million citizens. They could basically blow off everywhere else, perhaps except for major urban centers in the remaining states...and not very many of those. What is airily dismissed by the chattering classes as "fly over country" would essentially be disenfranchised from our presidential election process.

So? With the media that we have, why do they need to specifically campaign everywhere? They already do that to a certain degree. The electoral college is not democratic. I'm sorry that less people live in the county than in the city, but I don't see why we need to cater specifically to them. Having lived in the country for the last five years, I can tell you that no one else does.

I cannot think of anything, short of the downfall of our current method of government, that would have such a damaging social and political effect. It would make the partisan divide we have now look like a garden furrow.

How so? That's a huge statement you're making, and it may be obvious to you, but it seems absurd to me.

[Rommie]

I'm going to agree with SFC on this one. Right now, pretty much all campaigning in the general election focuses on the "swing states" anyway for the most part- I don't think anyone ever campaigns in New York or Nebraska because we know just how those states will vote. And those states are probably even fewer than 14 states, with a smaller fraction of the population- this map showing where money and campaign stops happened in 2004 confirms it.

I really don't see how amending this dooms us to hell in a handbasket.

[geonuc]

Having presidential candidates campaign in your city/town/village is overrated. If you live in BFE and can't figure out what the candidates are about without their having personally stumped in your state then I don't feel bad about your getting 'disenfranchised'. It's pretty easy to figure out who to vote for.

Besides, if you live in Mogollon, New Mexico, why should a candidate's appearance in Albuquerque mean more to you than one in Tucson? If you answer by saying you want to know what candidate X will do for 'your' state, I say the president serves the country as a whole and a citizen (voter) should care about fair and equitable policies for everyone.

One person, one vote. Representative democracy is designed to have everyone's particular issues addressed in the House of Representatives, not the presidency.

In case it's not obvious or you didn't know from previous rants, I have little regard for states rights.

[Yosh]

Everyone's going on about the Presidential position, but the real wild card is that a *huge* amount of congressional seats (in both houses) are up for (re)election as well.

*That* wild card is going to be the thing that frames the coming Presidency.

Think about the variables:

Pubbies keep the House and take the Senate, with a Pubbie in the White House? Stock up on canned foods and shotgun shells.

Dems win back the House, or at least a big chunk of it, and keep...or improve...their position in the Senate, and we get a Pubbie in the WH? Grid-lock, for a while at least.

Converse of the second scenario is also Grid Lock (i.e., Pubbie owned Legislature with a Dem President)...same as we've been seeing these last few years.

Dems take back a big chunk of the House and keep (or improve) the Senate, with a Dem in the WH...could be interesting.

[SciFi Chick]

Converse of the second scenario is also Grid Lock (i.e., Pubbie owned Legislature with a Dem President)...same as we've been seeing these last few years.

Depends. Sanders has a proven track record working with Republicans and Democrats. He's not Black. And he's not Hillary.

[Rommie]

Converse of the second scenario is also Grid Lock (i.e., Pubbie owned Legislature with a Dem President)...same as we've been seeing these last few years.

Depends. Sanders has a proven track record working with Republicans and Democrats. He's not Black. And he's not Hillary.

He's also not going to win, sorry.

Personally I think the reason you don't hear about it much yet is a lot of this really depends on who the two nominees ultimately are. A guy like Trump would prompt a lot of Republicans to stay at home/ a lot of people to come out to vote against him, and thus any Republican on the ballot would take a hit IMO.

[Swift]

I can't imagine the Democrats taking the House; the Republicans have spent 20 years gerrymandering districts such that it would be almost impossible.

The Senate could be a toss-up, and I could see the Dems taking it back.