Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[Chou Toshio]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Since the election-season started, Obama's approval ratings have only continued to rise. As of 7/29/2016, his approval rating sits at 54%, the highest since January 2013, when he was re-inaugurated.

Complacency will get the Clinton campaign nowhere, but the idea that the electorate dislikes Obama, or that Clinton is somehow mistaken in associating herself with the president, is ridiculous

Between 95% of the media out there, whether it be mainstream for the easy ratings, conservative as opposition to the current administration, or more out there anti-establishment sites that are naturally, well, anti-establishment, you're gonna get alot of doom and gloom peddled to you.

Jon Stewart's speech starting from the relevant part. Basically discusses that the idea that the world is ending every day is utter bs.

Clinton needs to be addressing concerns that are happening, but the idea that aligning with Obama is bad for the campaign is ridiculous.

Give most people a time machine, and they wouldn't really go back. It was only a little more than a year ago that gay marriage wasnt legal across the USA. The world as a whole is progressing.

This isn't me trying to dismiss the concerns that come up, believe, Clinton isn't my ideal candidate, but the situation as a whole has been improving overall, and will continue to improve overall

Obama and Clinton are fundamentally different

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Since the election-season started, Obama's approval ratings have only continued to rise. As of 7/29/2016, his approval rating sits at 54%, the highest since January 2013, when he was re-inaugurated.

Complacency will get the Clinton campaign nowhere, but the idea that the electorate dislikes Obama, or that Clinton is somehow mistaken in associating herself with the president, is ridiculous

Between 95% of the media out there, whether it be mainstream for the easy ratings, conservative as opposition to the current administration, or more out there anti-establishment sites that are naturally, well, anti-establishment, you're gonna get alot of doom and gloom peddled to you.

Jon Stewart's speech starting from the relevant part. Basically discusses that the idea that the world is ending every day is utter bs.

Clinton needs to be addressing concerns that are happening, but the idea that aligning with Obama is bad for the campaign is ridiculous.

Give most people a time machine, and they wouldn't really go back. It was only a little more than a year ago that gay marriage wasnt legal across the USA. The world as a whole is progressing.

This isn't me trying to dismiss the concerns that come up, believe, Clinton isn't my ideal candidate, but the situation as a whole has been improving overall, and will continue to improve overall

My point--which started this back and forth--was not that aligning with Obama is a bad idea; it's a very good idea for all the reasons you mentioned-- including that Obama's ratings are so high.

My point was that both Obama and Clinton should not be running her campaign on the premise that things are great and that they'll get better if we just go as is.

While Obama was a concession maker and incremental changer, there was never question to his commitment to progressive issues. As Bass said, 54% Obama approval doesn't mean a 54% contentment with status quo-- there are a lot of folks who see Obama as a figure who did his best to take us to a better place from a very very dark place, and in many ways succeeded. Obviously, we are not there yet-- and we have not done everything that "Yes we still think we can". Obama moved the ball forward, but I don't think he or anyone else should be disillusioned to think that the situation is one to be satisfied with.

I other words, Obama is a change agent, and his mettle there is proven. Hillary of course also has a long history of different accomplishments for progressive causes, but she's also fighting against her Husband's drug laws, removing Glass Steigall, Foreign Trade Policies, and her relationship with Wall Street (why can't we just see the damn speech transcripts??).

On the campaign trail, Obama was never a preacher for the status quo, even when he was waving his own accomplishments.

"Yes We Can" is a much much different campaign slogan than "Stronger Together" or "America is already great", both of which seem both suicidal and incredibly morally flawed.

 

[Bughouse]

My numbers are not based on fantasy at all, but since it is impossible to talk with you Bass, let's just say I'm done responding and we'll see who's right in November.

 

[sunny004]

The democratic party had this exact line of thinking in 2014. Let's not cater to young and progressive voters because they never vote, so they won't matter anyway! Oh wait, I have some news for you. They lost. Wait, let me repeat that because apparently that reality hasn't sunk in. They fucking lost. Turnout, especially among the youth, was abysmal in that election. This arrogance towards disenfranchised voters is precisely why the GOP has been able to maintain an iron grip on our legislative branch. You can attempt to cherry pick numbers to come up with some convoluted narrative that comforts you into thinking Clinton can easily win without these votes, but that realty won't change. If you seriously believe that democrats have been losing due to failing to appeal to the so-called "center-left" swing voters and not because of horrendous turnout, then you are beyond lost.


I don't even know where to begin. Your math lies on many shaky assumptions, so I'll list a few of them. For one thing, do you seriously think turnout will be the same as in 2008? Are you not aware that Obama generated historic turnouts, especially among young voters? Do you not realize that Obama's approval ratings have and continue to remain far better than Clinton's AND Trump's, again particularly among young people? Do you think a general election between two very unpopular candidates will result in the same turnout as an election where a young, charismatic candidate had the potential to be the first African American president and bring a tide of liberalism after the long GOP stranglehold of Bush? Sorry, I don't think so. The only thing in your favor here is that the turnout should be higher than 2014 since this is a presidential election, but that's about it.

You also again act as if minority voters will greatly help Clinton this election. Hate to burst your bubble there, but even though it's true that Latinos are among the the most rapidly growing demographic, this is mainly taking place in solidly blue states with the exception of Arizona, which is still probably safely Trump territory. My last and final point of criticism is your conclusion assumes that only young voters are disenfranchised. Again, while young voters were Bernie's strongest demographic, it's not like Clinton won older voters by equally large margins. In general, democrats have and are continuing to neglect working class white voters of all ages, while Trump is catering to them much more aggressively. No matter how you slice it, the fact that current polling between Clinton and a guy who has practically no substance is even close should be alarming, not a sigh of relief. I am willing to bet that Clinton would lose in a landslide if Trump switched places with Gary Johnson as the Republican nominee. Think about that for a moment, and then ask yourself whether taking things for granted and just hoping that things work out as usual for you is a good long-term strategy. As a young voter who feels disenfranchised, I find such a thing to be both insulting and out of touch with reality. Would it really kill our elected officials, to you know, actually take us seriously?

TBH at this point I think we should make voting compulsory. It would solve so many problems with turnout issues on both sides of the aisle while simultaneously making politicians actually fight for their positions instead of relying on poor voter turnout to remain in office.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

TBH at this point I think we should make voting compulsory. It would solve so many problems with turnout issues on both sides of the aisle while simultaneously making politicians actually fight for their positions instead of relying on poor voter turnout to remain in office.

Sorry bro, but compulsory voting isn't going to fix shit. Disengaged youth aren't going to suddenly become engaged with politics if you make it mandatory to vote. For a second, let's look at Australia, which has compulsory voting: Ballots in Australia have a "none of the above" option just for people who are voting simply because they're required to. Is voting "none of the above" not functionally the same as staying home? Instead of staying home, disengaged youth will by and large just end up casting "none of the above" ballots. This would especially be prevalent in this election with the #NeverHillary and #NeverTrump camps hanging aroud (which is why Gary Johnson is managing to poll so much better than he did in 2012)

Also, it's important to note that any attempt to enforce compulsory voting in the United States would see constitutional challenges, which wouldn't be surprising seeing as it would essentially be mandatory speech - which violates the First Amendment because freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. The fact of the matter is, unless you want a constitutional amendment, any effort to improve voter turnout in the United States can't include compulsory voting. There's also just the fact that Americans culturally hate being told what to do.

 

[Bass]

My numbers are not based on fantasy at all, but since it is impossible to talk with you Bass, let's just say I'm done responding and we'll see who's right in November.

Look, I am not even implying Trump is the favorite. All I am saying is that this will probably be a close election as things currently stands, close enough to the point that neither side should take voters for granted. What you seem to be implying is that Clinton will win rather easily if she just sticks to the usual political script, the same one that got the democrats their asses kicked in 2014. Like you, Nate Silver also used numbers to be dismissive of Trump's chances in the GOP primary. He was wrong. So stop treating this election like any other.

 

[JES]

TBH at this point I think we should make voting compulsory. It would solve so many problems with turnout issues on both sides of the aisle while simultaneously making politicians actually fight for their positions instead of relying on poor voter turnout to remain in office.

That wouldn't solve the problem that many people are uninformed (the popularity of Trump is the proof in the pudding), and that the corporate media perpetuates this.

Politicians need to be able to explain every single controversial stance take and every single controversy and scandal they have been involved in, rather than being able to just get by because the media ignores or shrugs them off as crazy conspiracy theories.

There is also the problem that the media should be eating Trump up alive like a swarm of piranhas, but aren't doing a good job at actually damaging him politically for every terrible thing he does, for whatever reason.

 

[Oddish is the best]

I'm just gonna say for the record the things Trump has said over the past 3 days have been disturbing to say the least.

 

[JES]

I'm just gonna say for the record the things Trump has said over the past 3 days have been disturbing to say the least.

Tell us something we don't know. Thankfully, it looks like he's finally gone too far this time. :p

 

[atomicllamas]

Look, I am not even implying Trump is the favorite. All I am saying is that this will probably be a close election as things currently stands, close enough to the point that neither side should take voters for granted. What you seem to be implying is that Clinton will win rather easily if she just sticks to the usual political script, the same one that got the democrats their asses kicked in 2014. Like you, Nate Silver also used numbers to be dismissive of Trump's chances in the GOP primary. He was wrong. So stop treating this election like any other.

The demographics that vote in off presidential years (2014) are not the same as those that vote in presidential years (lower voter turn out favors republicans). I agree that Clinton can't sit on her ass, but pointing to an off presidential year as proof that their platform is no longer appealing enough to win the election is ignoring what was probably a larger factor.

 

[elcheeso]

Sorry bro, but compulsory voting isn't going to fix shit. Disengaged youth aren't going to suddenly become engaged with politics if you make it mandatory to vote. For a second, let's look at Australia, which has compulsory voting: Ballots in Australia have a "none of the above" option just for people who are voting simply because they're required to. Is voting "none of the above" not functionally the same as staying home?

Who told you this? Have they actually ever voted in an Australian election before? I'd love to know where these none of the above options have been in the last 32 years I've been voting.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Who told you this? Have they actually ever voted in an Australian election before? I'd love to know where these none of the above options have been in the last 32 years I've been voting.

I read it in one of my political science textbooks. Maybe it's not an explicitly stated option, but people cast blank or otherwise invalid ballots (ex: drawing penises all over the ballot) all the time, so this is probably the "none of the above" they referred to.

EDIT: Also, seriously, are you people still parroting the line of "Republicans win when voter turnout is low"? Voter turnout was similarly low in 2006 and the Democrats won Congress that year. They also won on low voter turnout in 1990 and 1986. Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996 on lower voter turnout than Bush had in 2004. As far as I can tell, there isn't any correlation, which would explain why the claim that there's a correlation between voter turnout and which party wins has been repeatedly debunked by fact-checkers.

 

[elcheeso]

I read it in one of my political science textbooks. Maybe it's not an explicitly stated option, but people cast blank or otherwise invalid ballots (ex: drawing penises all over the ballot) all the time, so this is probably the "none of the above" they referred to.

Well yeah, it's definitely not explicitly stated and it is possible to shit up your ballot, but the people that do represent a pretty small minority. 5% of eligible voters, last I checked. It becomes larger when you include people who don't show up and those who are eligible but don't get on the roll, but even then you'd still end up with 20% more of the eligible voter population casting a legitimate vote (assuming American trends mirror Australian ones)... so it doesn't really work that well as a defence. Acting like it's super widespread doesn't do you any favours when you compare overall turnout in the US (~60% in 2008) to Australia's (81% in 2010). Stick with whether it's constitutional or not, yo.

Though it's kinda interesting, apparently Nevada has had a none of the above option for quite a while and it has won a few primaries before? Must suck to lose to that shit, hahaha.

Also whoops looks like I made myself look way older than I am, 22 years*.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

Way older indeed, 32 years of voting indicates an opinion I might respect. Just messing with ya, seriously all this left/right bashing gets us nowhere people. We ALL know neither candidate is fit for what WE THE PEOPLE need to be done. One candidate has been publicly deceiving us since the 90's, along with the lying husband. The other candidate is an egomaniac and will do what's best for them, not WE THE PEOPLE. I don't see a solution.

 

[KM]

Way older indeed, 32 years of voting indicates an opinion I might respect. Just messing with ya, seriously all this left/right bashing gets us nowhere people. We ALL know neither candidate is fit for what WE THE PEOPLE need to be done. One candidate has been publicly deceiving us since the 90's, along with the lying husband. The other candidate is an egomaniac and will do what's best for them, not WE THE PEOPLE. I don't see a solution.

i mean one solution would be to stop capitalizing things like a 64-year old fisherman ranting on Facebook, but in terms of actually addressing this it's worth noting that once you stop eating up the "HILLARY IS A DIRTY CROOKED LIAR" propaganda she's literally lied less than any other candidate in the entire presidential election.

 

[JES]

i mean one solution would be to stop capitalizing things like a 64-year old fisherman ranting on Facebook, but in terms of actually addressing this it's worth noting that once you stop eating up the "HILLARY IS A DIRTY CROOKED LIAR" propaganda she's literally lied less than any other candidate in the entire presidential election.

It'd be even better if she lied less than any other Democratic candidate in history. I won't include the Republicans, since I think they're all mostly lying sacks of shit anyways.

The point I'm trying to make is that people want someone who will be honest. To win over undecided independents, Hillary will have to somehow convince them that is what she'll be in office, or they'll vote for who they trust, electoral voting system be damned.

Whether they'll blame it on themselves or on the system and other circumstances if Trump gets elected will hopefully be something we won't have to find out.

 

[Oddish is the best]

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fa...-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

Whoops (FTR Her, Bernie, and Obama are all about the same and are all MUCH farther ahead then any GOP candidate)

 

[Jellicent]

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fa...-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

Whoops (FTR Her, Bernie, and Obama are all about the same and are all MUCH farther ahead then any GOP candidate)

That only looks at the candidates' most contentious statements and checks them for accuracy. In other words, Clinton's team has done the best research. While being knowledgeable is certainly a good trait for a leader, it's unrelated to integrity. Reading a textbook out loud can be factually accurate. That doesn't make your professor an honest person.

 

[Oddish is the best]

My point is moreso that she's as "honesty" with statements and campaign stuff and pledges as the other democrats who have run while the republicans are the ones who lie a lot more in speechs and other campaign events. It's not even close when you compare Clinton with Trump. Most people who come up with the accusations are just taking her opinions over time which have evolved and change with public opinion (as has the ENTIRE democratic party including Bernie/Obama/Biden). It just seems like most of the claims "she's not an honest person" are just opinions that actually aren't backed up by any facts out there, just right wing propganda over literal decades of time.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

The clearly partisan agenda being carried out through this thread is heartbreaking.

Hillary defenders: are you truly so geopolitically uneducated that you really believe the lies? Hillary doesn't care about anyone but herself!! Do you really believe the rhetoric of the Democratic Party that much?? Do you really think Hillary gives a damn about equality or helping the poor? Do you know what her cabal has done to Haiti over the past couple decades?

Trump is a dangerous man. He is literally unpredictable, however his business sense does give him a clear advantage here. If anyone can get USA out of debt it would be him. I'm afraid if he acquires the power he is running for then he will do a complete 180 and say screw the people like almost every single politician since JFK. I can't support the man with a vote because he seems like the type of person that would definitely let the power go to their head. This is a lose-lose situation.

I don't have any answer but maybe my observations will help someone see more clearly.

 

[Bughouse]

Yes I'm sure the contribution of someone who says that the contributions of our last 9 presidents (i.e. since JFK) have all been "screw the people" will help someone see more clearly.

Since JFK, who btw typically ranks as worse than his successor, we have had several presidents from both parties, who most sensible people would be willing to agree did more good than harm - LBJ, Clinton, and Obama from the Ds and Reagan and Bush Sr. from the Rs - and who historians rank as above average presidents. Yes, that's right, 5 of our last 9 presidents have been above average. 4 have been below (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Jr.) Clearly we've really had a disastrous streak. We need to get back to the days of Coolidge or Buchanan. I mean really, for as bad as most everyone agrees Bush Jr. was, historians still rank 8-10 other guys behind him.

I'm really sick of the enormous amount of cynicism (and often vitriol) and the lack of any historical perspective in the modern political system. It's not even a strictly US thing. I follow many other countries' politics too and I see it there as well.

 

[RoadsterUFO]

The last few posts, too much Hillary/Trump. :I

CNN's #LibTownHall one-hour episode with Gary Johnson & Bill Weld was the number one trend on Twitter in the United States. Gary will be having his first rally on Friday at the University of Nevada & another rally on Saturday at the University of Utah.

On August 17th CNN will be hosting a Green Town Hall one-hour episode with Jill Stein & her running mate.

 

[JES]

For a change, I'm going to bash that rip-off artist-turned-politician, who has stated his most dangerous comment yet.

Yes, he just stated that the election might be rigged against him. Now, I've stated that the election was rigged against Bernie in many ways (woefully undertrained poll workers and possible electoral machine hacking being the biggies), but even if Bernie found out, he'd handle it responsibly, and tell his supporters to be patient and use peaceful methods to get things done if the justice and political system decides it doesn't want to work. I don't think I need to say that I would NOT tolerate violence unless we were given no choice because authorities responded to our activities with violence.

Trump would no doubt tell his loyal, foaming-at-the-mouth followers to pick up their assault rifles, pitchforks, and torches, go out, and revolt. Perhaps storm Capitol Hill and shut down the government. I don't think I need to say what the consequences on activist politics could be if his crazy followers even halfway succeed.

I think Trump is just determined to ruin it for everyone, and not even tearing out his damned tongue might do anything but make him a martyr at this point.

Edit: And this seems a sneak peek like the sort of behavior we might have to prepare for, one way or another.

 

[Alfalfa]

Yes I'm sure the contribution of someone who says that the contributions of our last 9 presidents (i.e. since JFK) have all been "screw the people" will help someone see more clearly.

Since JFK, who btw typically ranks as worse than his successor, we have had several presidents from both parties, who most sensible people would be willing to agree did more good than harm - LBJ, Clinton, and Obama from the Ds and Reagan and Bush Sr. from the Rs - and who historians rank as above average presidents. Yes, that's right, 5 of our last 9 presidents have been above average. 4 have been below (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Jr.) Clearly we've really had a disastrous streak. We need to get back to the days of Coolidge or Buchanan. I mean really, for as bad as most everyone agrees Bush Jr. was, historians still rank 8-10 other guys behind him.

I'm really sick of the enormous amount of cynicism (and often vitriol) and the lack of any historical perspective in the modern political system. It's not even a strictly US thing. I follow many other countries' politics too and I see it there as well.

Can you at least provide sources to prove your point? I have heard claims on Cong that people believed rather easily but were unsourced and thus naturally had much skepticism from me. If you can provide at least two, I will shut up about this.

 

[Bughouse]

Literally google presidential rankings. Many groups and scholars have done them and most agree pretty well with each other. There's even a wiki page.

 

[Chou Toshio]

For a change, I'm going to bash that rip-off artist-turned-politician, who has stated his most dangerous comment yet.

Yes, he just stated that the election might be rigged against him. Now, I've stated that the election was rigged against Bernie in many ways (woefully undertrained poll workers and possible electoral machine hacking being the biggies), but even if Bernie found out, he'd handle it responsibly, and tell his supporters to be patient and use peaceful methods to get things done if the justice and political system decides it doesn't want to work. I don't think I need to say that I would NOT tolerate violence unless we were given no choice because authorities responded to our activities with violence.

Trump would no doubt tell his loyal, foaming-at-the-mouth followers to pick up their assault rifles, pitchforks, and torches, go out, and revolt. Perhaps storm Capitol Hill and shut down the government. I don't think I need to say what the consequences on activist politics could be if his crazy followers even halfway succeed.

I think Trump is just determined to ruin it for everyone, and not even tearing out his damned tongue might do anything but make him a martyr at this point.

Edit: And this seems a sneak peek like the sort of behavior we might have to prepare for, one way or another.

Trump is just setting up his out/excuse, so that even after he loses by sabotaging his own campaign, he can maintain his "winner" image and all the brand loyalty from all of his blue-collar customer base, and cleanly conclude what is clearly the most successful marketing campaign in the history of everything.

lol