Campaign 2016

[SMiLE Brian]

Watch out for drunk bros in red trump hats!

[bluesno1fann]

Absolutely wonderful news that Bernie Sanders has won Indiana AND that ultra-religious nutjob Ted Cruz has finally called it quits!

[Emily]

Absolutely wonderful news that Bernie Sanders has won Indiana AND that ultra-religious nutjob Ted Cruz has finally called it quits!

Honestly, I got the support for Sanders; he's mildly more left than Clinton economically and as I'm further left than either economically, I would've been as OK with him as I am with her. But at this point, a vote for Sanders is a vote for Trump and I can not support that.

[Douchepool]

Bernie supporters are just as bad (and racist, believe it or not) as the Trump supporters for the most part. Hillary is the Democratic nominee; it's in the BAG, guys. Give it up. Trump will smash Hillary. Gods help us with either candidate...

[bluesno1fann]

Absolutely wonderful news that Bernie Sanders has won Indiana AND that ultra-religious nutjob Ted Cruz has finally called it quits!

Honestly, I got the support for Sanders; he's mildly more left than Clinton economically and as I'm further left than either economically, I would've been as OK with him as I am with her. But at this point, a vote for Sanders is a vote for Trump and I can not support that.

Until the general election period, I strongly disagree that a vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump..... Sure, at this point the chances of him winning is next to impossible, but his continued success shows that the Bern has not yet berned out completely

[bluesno1fann]

And John Kasich's also called it quits..... This just leaves three major candidates..... Bernie, a crook and a maniac

[Emily]

Ah, if you are of the 'crook' line of thinking and you see an equivalence between Clinton and Trump I can see why you think it's worth it. For Bernie to continue. I strongly disagree and think that Trump is extremely dangerous.

[bluesno1fann]

Ah, if you are of the 'crook' line of thinking and you see an equivalence between Clinton and Trump I can see why you think it's worth it. For Bernie to continue. I strongly disagree and think that Trump is extremely dangerous.

Oh don't get me wrong, as heavily flawed as Clinton is, and as much as she's untrustworthy, she's still a hell of a lot better than Trump. Cruz aside, Trump's by far the biggest lunatic running in this election, and if he wins the Presidency, it would be a catastrophe. A crook's still better than a fascist. But I'd still MUCH rather Bernie than either of them. As many people say, the only thing that's really stopping him from becoming President is Hillary....

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The problem is that the system is set up for Sanders to lose right now, even if his positions happen to align with a great many people.

I do agree with Emily that if it came down to a situation where, say, Sanders was running as an independent against Clinton and Trump then, yes, I would say that a vote for Sanders in a swing state would amount to a vote for Trump.

On the other hand, as an outsider, I would not say that I would be equally okay with Sanders and Clinton. I would be far more okay with Sanders, just as I'm far more okay with Clinton than Trump. But again, as was also mentioned above, I don't quite agree with any of the three on all issues and, in fact, stand to the left of both Sanders and Clinton.

[bluesno1fann]

I do agree with Emily that if it came down to a situation where, say, Sanders was running as an independent against Clinton and Trump then, yes, I would say that a vote for Sanders in a swing state would amount to a vote for Trump.

Well in that scenario I agree, though Sanders has made it clear that he would not run as an independent and would support Clinton if she does indeed become the nominee

[Douchepool]

That's all one needs to know about Bernie; he talks a big talk but he's just another politician.

[Emily]

A few things:
-Sanders has not had a campaign against him. No one has made a focus of pointing out his hypocrisies and ineffectiveness. The polls that put him against Trump are to the general population and so far, what they know about him is pretty much what his own campaign says. Clinton has had negative campaigns against her for 25 years. Her unfavorability is unlikely to go down, and Bernie's would be likely to go down in a general, so the argument that he'd be better able to beat Trump is weak. Yes, at this moment. But if Trump's campaign was aimed at him for 4-5 months, it would be a different scenario. Historically, people new to the national scene have diving favorability ratings after the convention if they make it to the general.
-He's fighting pretty dirty against Clinton. A vote for him now encourages him in that. If he were to stay in the race but speak positively about his own ideas and campaign against Trump, I'd be fine. But right now, he's weakening Clinton against Trump.
-Also I think he's kind of an egomaniac who looks at one thing and thinks it's 'wrong' when it works against him and 'right' when it works for him (i.e.  No complaints about the very undemocratic caucuses which supported him but whining about independents not voting in other states.) it makes me wonder about his vaunted integrity.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A few things:
-Sanders has not had a campaign against him. No one has made a focus of pointing out his hypocrisies and ineffectiveness. The polls that put him against Trump are to the general population and so far, what they know about him is pretty much what his own campaign says. Clinton has had negative campaigns against her for 25 years. Her unfavorability is unlikely to go down, and Bernie's would be likely to go down in a general, so the argument that he'd be better able to beat Trump is weak. Yes, at this moment. But if Trump's campaign was aimed at him for 4-5 months, it would be a different scenario. Historically, people new to the national scene have diving favorability ratings after the convention if they make it to the general.
-He's fighting pretty dirty against Clinton. A vote for him now encourages him in that. If he were to stay in the race but speak positively about his own ideas and campaign against Trump, I'd be fine. But right now, he's weakening Clinton against Trump.
-Also I think he's kind of an egomaniac who looks at one thing and thinks it's 'wrong' when it works against him and 'right' when it works for him (i.e.  No complaints about the very undemocratic caucuses which supported him but whining about independents not voting in other states.) it makes me wonder about his vaunted integrity.

I agree with your first point. As to your second point, perhaps I am not paying close enough attention, but while Sanders has been more critical lately, he went for quite a long time without saying a word against Clinton, which is something given the political discourse in the US. And, indeed, Sanders right now is up against Clinton and has to make a case why he would be a preferable candidate. Yes, it would be better if he did that by focusing primarily on his own policies (which has been his tactic for about 95% of this) but he's inevitably going to face questions that ask him to compare policies and as long as he's not resorting to lies or smears, I don't particularly have a big problem with that. But again, I could very well be unaware of what he's been saying lately.

As to your point about egomania, perhaps that's true. But again, I'd accept that one fault over the policy history of a candidate who is pro-corporate power and pro-war. Again, I'd much rather see Clinton in power than Trump but even Trump opposed the Iraq invasion (albeit, most likely, for problematic reasons), making Clinton the only candidate at this point who supported that atrocity at the time.

[Emily]

A few things:
-Sanders has not had a campaign against him. No one has made a focus of pointing out his hypocrisies and ineffectiveness. The polls that put him against Trump are to the general population and so far, what they know about him is pretty much what his own campaign says. Clinton has had negative campaigns against her for 25 years. Her unfavorability is unlikely to go down, and Bernie's would be likely to go down in a general, so the argument that he'd be better able to beat Trump is weak. Yes, at this moment. But if Trump's campaign was aimed at him for 4-5 months, it would be a different scenario. Historically, people new to the national scene have diving favorability ratings after the convention if they make it to the general.
-He's fighting pretty dirty against Clinton. A vote for him now encourages him in that. If he were to stay in the race but speak positively about his own ideas and campaign against Trump, I'd be fine. But right now, he's weakening Clinton against Trump.
-Also I think he's kind of an egomaniac who looks at one thing and thinks it's 'wrong' when it works against him and 'right' when it works for him (i.e.  No complaints about the very undemocratic caucuses which supported him but whining about independents not voting in other states.) it makes me wonder about his vaunted integrity.

I agree with your first point. As to your second point, perhaps I am not paying close enough attention, but while Sanders has been more critical lately, he went for quite a long time without saying a word against Clinton, which is something given the political discourse in the US. And, indeed, Sanders right now is up against Clinton and has to make a case why he would be a preferable candidate. Yes, it would be better if he did that by focusing primarily on his own policies (which has been his tactic for about 95% of this) but he's inevitably going to face questions that ask him to compare policies and as long as he's not resorting to lies or smears, I don't particularly have a big problem with that. But again, I could very well be unaware of what he's been saying lately.

As to your point about egomania, perhaps that's true. But again, I'd accept that one fault over the policy history of a candidate who is pro-corporate power and pro-war. Again, I'd much rather see Clinton in power than Trump but even Trump opposed the Iraq invasion (albeit, most likely, for problematic reasons), making Clinton the only candidate at this point who supported that atrocity at the time.

Trump did support the war until after it started. Sanders does not have a strong anti-war record (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/) and he has a very strong record of saying great things but not actually achieving anything. He and Trump both seem to think the President is King. Congress makes the laws and Sanders is not very good at getting things passed.
One of my problems with Sanders lately is that he did maintain the high road for a while and had me believing in his integrity until they got to New York. Then his integrity was out the window and he went personal against Clinton and started this 'open primaries not fair but caucuses are' campaign which establish to me that he has integrity when it's useful to him, which renders integrity meaningless. And his integrity was the most interesting thing about him.

[Emily]

This: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/opinions/bernie-sanders-begala/index.html

[SurfRiderHawaii]

And John Kasich's also called it quits..... This just leaves three major candidates..... Bernie, a crook and a maniac

Not a huge Hillary fan but a crook? I must have missed the trial.

Never seen such an organized campaign to sully a politician's reputation. Bengahzi,  fabricated. The email server, stupid maybe but a common practice for cabinet members. A crook? As the saaying goes, repeat a lie enough times, people start believing it. Faux News is proof of that!

[Emily]

And John Kasich's also called it quits..... This just leaves three major candidates..... Bernie, a crook and a maniac

Not a huge Hillary fan but a crook? I must have missed the trial.

Never seen such an organized campaign to sully a politician's reputation. Bengahzi,  fabricated. The email server, stupid maybe but a common practice for cabinet members. A crook? As the saaying goes, repeat a lie enough times, people start believing it. Faux News is proof of that!

Agreed. I was too tired today to get into another round about all the unsupported Clinton smears. 

[filledeplage]

And John Kasich's also called it quits..... This just leaves three major candidates..... Bernie, a crook and a maniac

Not a huge Hillary fan but a crook? I must have missed the trial.

Never seen such an organized campaign to sully a politician's reputation. Bengahzi,  fabricated. The email server, stupid maybe but a common practice for cabinet members. A crook? As the saaying goes, repeat a lie enough times, people start believing it. Faux News is proof of that!

Agreed. I was too tired today to get into another round about all the unsupported Clinton smears. 

Emily - Hillary needs to be more transparent.  She has not released the speeches before the bankers.  People want those released.  The miners who are out of work want answers and not double-talk from Hillary about closing the mines.

And there are about 150 FBI agents working on the email mess.  In the old days, you could get away with a lot more in politics.  With social media, that is now impossible.  I think that Cruz dropped out when the photo of his father with Oswald appeared. 

Do we want more of that dynastic structure in government?   We had 2 Bushes; do we need 2 Clintons?   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A few things:
-Sanders has not had a campaign against him. No one has made a focus of pointing out his hypocrisies and ineffectiveness. The polls that put him against Trump are to the general population and so far, what they know about him is pretty much what his own campaign says. Clinton has had negative campaigns against her for 25 years. Her unfavorability is unlikely to go down, and Bernie's would be likely to go down in a general, so the argument that he'd be better able to beat Trump is weak. Yes, at this moment. But if Trump's campaign was aimed at him for 4-5 months, it would be a different scenario. Historically, people new to the national scene have diving favorability ratings after the convention if they make it to the general.
-He's fighting pretty dirty against Clinton. A vote for him now encourages him in that. If he were to stay in the race but speak positively about his own ideas and campaign against Trump, I'd be fine. But right now, he's weakening Clinton against Trump.
-Also I think he's kind of an egomaniac who looks at one thing and thinks it's 'wrong' when it works against him and 'right' when it works for him (i.e.  No complaints about the very undemocratic caucuses which supported him but whining about independents not voting in other states.) it makes me wonder about his vaunted integrity.

I agree with your first point. As to your second point, perhaps I am not paying close enough attention, but while Sanders has been more critical lately, he went for quite a long time without saying a word against Clinton, which is something given the political discourse in the US. And, indeed, Sanders right now is up against Clinton and has to make a case why he would be a preferable candidate. Yes, it would be better if he did that by focusing primarily on his own policies (which has been his tactic for about 95% of this) but he's inevitably going to face questions that ask him to compare policies and as long as he's not resorting to lies or smears, I don't particularly have a big problem with that. But again, I could very well be unaware of what he's been saying lately.

As to your point about egomania, perhaps that's true. But again, I'd accept that one fault over the policy history of a candidate who is pro-corporate power and pro-war. Again, I'd much rather see Clinton in power than Trump but even Trump opposed the Iraq invasion (albeit, most likely, for problematic reasons), making Clinton the only candidate at this point who supported that atrocity at the time.

Trump did support the war until after it started. Sanders does not have a strong anti-war record (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/) and he has a very strong record of saying great things but not actually achieving anything. He and Trump both seem to think the President is King. Congress makes the laws and Sanders is not very good at getting things passed.
One of my problems with Sanders lately is that he did maintain the high road for a while and had me believing in his integrity until they got to New York. Then his integrity was out the window and he went personal against Clinton and started this 'open primaries not fair but caucuses are' campaign which establish to me that he has integrity when it's useful to him, which renders integrity meaningless. And his integrity was the most interesting thing about him.

Thanks for the info, Emily. I find Sanders' support for the Serbia campaign and the bill to support troops in Iraq to be a big problem and it should be a bigger issue.

I am, however, quite skeptical of the Begala article. As a fierce supporter of private power, his position on this does not surprise me a great deal.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Do we want more of that dynastic structure in government?   We had 2 Bushes; do we need 2 Clintons?   

Well, we need 2 Clintons more than we need 1 Trump, that's for sure.

[Emily]

A few things:
-Sanders has not had a campaign against him. No one has made a focus of pointing out his hypocrisies and ineffectiveness. The polls that put him against Trump are to the general population and so far, what they know about him is pretty much what his own campaign says. Clinton has had negative campaigns against her for 25 years. Her unfavorability is unlikely to go down, and Bernie's would be likely to go down in a general, so the argument that he'd be better able to beat Trump is weak. Yes, at this moment. But if Trump's campaign was aimed at him for 4-5 months, it would be a different scenario. Historically, people new to the national scene have diving favorability ratings after the convention if they make it to the general.
-He's fighting pretty dirty against Clinton. A vote for him now encourages him in that. If he were to stay in the race but speak positively about his own ideas and campaign against Trump, I'd be fine. But right now, he's weakening Clinton against Trump.
-Also I think he's kind of an egomaniac who looks at one thing and thinks it's 'wrong' when it works against him and 'right' when it works for him (i.e.  No complaints about the very undemocratic caucuses which supported him but whining about independents not voting in other states.) it makes me wonder about his vaunted integrity.

I agree with your first point. As to your second point, perhaps I am not paying close enough attention, but while Sanders has been more critical lately, he went for quite a long time without saying a word against Clinton, which is something given the political discourse in the US. And, indeed, Sanders right now is up against Clinton and has to make a case why he would be a preferable candidate. Yes, it would be better if he did that by focusing primarily on his own policies (which has been his tactic for about 95% of this) but he's inevitably going to face questions that ask him to compare policies and as long as he's not resorting to lies or smears, I don't particularly have a big problem with that. But again, I could very well be unaware of what he's been saying lately.

As to your point about egomania, perhaps that's true. But again, I'd accept that one fault over the policy history of a candidate who is pro-corporate power and pro-war. Again, I'd much rather see Clinton in power than Trump but even Trump opposed the Iraq invasion (albeit, most likely, for problematic reasons), making Clinton the only candidate at this point who supported that atrocity at the time.

Trump did support the war until after it started. Sanders does not have a strong anti-war record (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/) and he has a very strong record of saying great things but not actually achieving anything. He and Trump both seem to think the President is King. Congress makes the laws and Sanders is not very good at getting things passed.
One of my problems with Sanders lately is that he did maintain the high road for a while and had me believing in his integrity until they got to New York. Then his integrity was out the window and he went personal against Clinton and started this 'open primaries not fair but caucuses are' campaign which establish to me that he has integrity when it's useful to him, which renders integrity meaningless. And his integrity was the most interesting thing about him.

Thanks for the info, Emily. I find Sanders' support for the Serbia campaign and the bill to support troops in Iraq to be a big problem and it should be a bigger issue.

I am, however, quite skeptical of the Begala article. As a fierce supporter of private power, his position on this does not surprise me a great deal.

I'm with you in theory, CSM. I just think I'm not in practice. Pragmatically, my number 1 goal right now is stopping Trump with someone who's not as bad. Pragmatically, I also think Sanders would be completely ineffective as President. I think the best chance for anything moving infinitesimally in the right direction is for Sanders to focus on gathering support for his agenda while supporting Clinton and attacking Trump so that Clinton as president can use some of her legislative skills to get it passed.
I don't believe she is as right as I think you believe she is. I believe she's about as left as Sanders. But - I have little to put up to support that belief. It comes mainly from 30 years of reading interviews with and articles about her. She was openly significantly further left than Bill Clinton when they first appeared in '88. I think she's learned a lot from him about how to be successful and has sacrificed a lot of her policy stances in order to be successful. But I think her record shows that where she's seen the opportunity to get progressive legislation, or as Secretary of State to encourage progressive changes in other countries, she's done so. I think (hope, pray) that if she's elected and if Sanders has played his cards right, she will respond with passing as much of his agenda as she feasibly can. This is perhaps wishful thinking, but as someone who worked for Ted Kennedy and watched her really closely in the '90s, I don't think it's as absurd as you might think.
Now, if that were to happen, would I be satisfied? No. I think we need much more 'revolutionary' change. And, frankly, Sanders, for all his use of the word 'revolution' has not proposed that.
Sanders wants to make changes within the current structure. Such changes, even if passed, would amount to barely noticeable tweaks. The so-called 'left' is not developed enough to make serious change and until they are, there's a big risk of a reactionary Mussolini-like sweep from the right. My preference is to keep the brakes on the movement to the right until things are ready for a complete and dramatic leftward change. The risk otherwise is, and I really think this, is a fascist movement; and Trump has all the hallmarks.

[Emily]

In other words, maybe I'm being reactionary but I'm really really scared of Trump.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, I don't disagree, really. I think that Sanders would not be able to accomplish much as President. Ultimately, I could not agree more with your point about revolutionary change and Sanders' role in it. As I've said previously, I do ultimately think that Sanders is a moderate and even as a moderate, he'd be hard pressed to do much. The kinds of changes that need to be made must happen at the level of dedicated, popular activism, not at the level of political power, if they are to actually happen effectively.

Again, though, I'm not necessarily talking about Sanders as President. From Day 1 I have said that Sanders won't be in the final running for President and I haven't seen much to change my mind. Where we do disagree, then, is with our conceptions of Clinton who I do believe is further to the right of Sanders. Despite the above articles, I see her as being more hawkish and far more pro-big business. I think that if someone like Sanders can motivate Clinton to be more progressive then that will be helpful for when she ultimately does oppose Trump.

[Emily]

Well, I don't disagree, really. I think that Sanders would not be able to accomplish much as President. Ultimately, I could not agree more with your point about revolutionary change and Sanders' role in it. As I've said previously, I do ultimately think that Sanders is a moderate and even as a moderate, he'd be hard pressed to do much. The kinds of changes that need to be made must happen at the level of dedicated, popular activism, not at the level of political power, if they are to actually happen effectively.

Again, though, I'm not necessarily talking about Sanders as President. From Day 1 I have said that Sanders won't be in the final running for President and I haven't seen much to change my mind. Where we do disagree, then, is with our conceptions of Clinton who I do believe is further to the right of Sanders. Despite the above articles, I see her as being more hawkish and far more pro-big business. I think that if someone like Sanders can motivate Clinton to be more progressive then that will be helpful for when she ultimately does oppose Trump.

I can't provide any evidence that you're incorrect and strongly suspect I'm engaged in wishful thinking but I have to hope within the tiny window that I can. It's all so discouraging.

[filledeplage]

In other words, maybe I'm being reactionary but I'm really really scared of Trump.

Emily - Trump has not been a politician.  He now has a professional campaign manager.  Being a politician is a "learned behavior." He has been at it for 10 months.  So, now he has to learn to dial-it-back and behave more as a statesman.  I would rather someone who is "out with his thoughts" than a sneak who is restrained and has an agenda.

With Trump, what-you-see-is-what-you-get. With Hillary, we have too many unknowns.