I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

xp (thx)

admit that I lean that way (though the whole process thus far has been dispiriting, and I've remained only distantly engaged), but tired of the challopsy bar setting for HRC and glib throwing about of terms like disastrous re: her tenure as SoS.

Michelle Goldberg explains why she'll vote for Clinton.

Perhaps most significantly, Clinton is running against a very different opponent this time around. Barack Obama is an epochal political talent who promised to expand the Democratic coalition. Bernie Sanders is a mensch whose politics are more or less my own, but I’m convinced he’d be eviscerated in a general election. I know that the Sanders camp believes they can turn out people who’ve become alienated from the political process. As long as I’ve been following politics, it has been a left-wing fantasy that legions of disconnected non-voters will suddenly flood the polls if they’re offered a sufficiently progressive candidate. I’ve never seen anything save wishful thinking to back it up.

boils down to this + she thinks hillary's sufficiently changed in the past 8 years

Again, what makes her more likely to win a presidential race? How is she "pragmatic" and all that?

Washington (CNN)Ben Carson said Wednesday he will be staying in the Republican race, despite a poor showing in New Hampshire, and is hoping to win big in South Carolina.

"I'm not getting any pressure from our millions of supporters (to leave the race). I'm getting a lot of pressure to make sure I stay in the race," Carson told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead." "You know, they're reminding me that I'm here because I responded to their imploring me to get involved. And I respect that and I'm not just going to walk away from the millions of people who are supporting me."

Carson came in second-to-last place Tuesday night, beating only former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. His decision to stick in the race comes even as two candidates who beat him there, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie, announced Wednesday they were ending their bids.

But Carson, who at one point attracted strong support from evangelical voters, said he expected to do well in South Carolina.

"I think I can win South Carolina. We're going to be putting a lot of time resources and effort here," Carson said.

I'm kind of concerned about the quality & competence of the eventual Clinton appointees. Like, we're already kind of on the C/D-list of the Obama-era appointment talent pool. One of my biggest disappointments with this administration is in its appointee selections - shit, Chris Hayes wrote his goddamn book about it and the book's *subtitle* was America After Meritocracy - and a Clinton administration is going to bring in a lot of senior officials who roll at about the same level of competence as her State Department staff. We are going to be dialing down the overall competence of federal leadership from a 6 to about a 4.

So what I just said is that this really is going to suck no matter who wins. Lesser of two evils indeed, possibly like I've never experienced.

As long as I’ve been following politics, it has been a left-wing fantasy that legions of disconnected non-voters will suddenly flood the polls if they’re offered a sufficiently progressive candidate. I’ve never seen anything save wishful thinking to back it up.

this kinda did happen, then these fuckin' people DID NOT VOTE in 2010 (and any election except maybe 2012) and we got hard core gerrymandering and GOP control of 37 states.

which is why the bernie bros on reddit can fuck right off, imo

Oh and just for some extra doomsayin' if you thought the gross insubordination and other general bullshit from our boys in uniform has been disgusting under Obama, hoo boy are we in for a treat under HC

It's definitely true that if poor people in this country voted at the same rates as the well-off, the political landscape would look a lot different than it does now. I don't believe any one candidate, no matter who progressive their message is, is going to change that though. A small, symbolic financial penalty for not voting would be awesome, and having elections on a Saturday (or better yet a national holiday) would help too.

Again, what makes her more likely to win a presidential race? How is she "pragmatic" and all that?

I think it's pretty simple actually. Bernie is too far left. There's no way the country is going to elect a self-described socialist. It will not happen.

I'm not referring to Sanders. His self-professed mild socialism doesn't by default make HRC the more formidable candidate. She's a weak general election candidate.

"I think I can win South Carolina. We're going to be putting a lot of time resources and effort here," Carson said.

I would be super excited to see Ben Carson win South Carolina and Cruz take a beating there as a result! Make it so, Ben. I'm very ready for that particular chaos to happen.

Barack Obama is an epochal political talent

has she been smoking the same shit for 8 years? he's been good at winning elections and there it stops.

His self-professed mild socialism doesn't by default make HRC the more formidable candidate.

It's not just that he uses the term "socialist". I think his specific policies, as a whole, are just too far left to be viable in a national election. I think that does by default make HRC a better candidate. Her policy goals are more realistic.

the ones she's borrowed from Sanders?

i'm moving to the moon due to this election

or becoming a caveman. not sure which

the ones she's borrowed from Sanders?

Not sure which ones in particular you're referring to. I think she could afford to move a bit to the left to hopefully peel off some of Sanders support in the primary, without moving so far so as to endanger her chances in the general, but it would be a delicate balancing act.

she is the most transparent windchecking pol i can ever, ever recall.

I predict DNC institutional power shenanigans here. Sanders performs strong due to an unexpected upswell of support around the country (unexpected since the media doesn't bother to talk to Average Joe Slob except when a dead body shows up in a river), Hillary wins on bullshit institutional politics (or enough of an appearance of), Bernie supporters boycott the election, and we get ourselves a President Trump/Cruz. I'll throw $20 on that.

she is the most transparent windchecking pol i can ever, ever recall.

Sanders on electoral reform (from his "Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy" page, which, like his stump speeches, focuses mainly on the big-money stuff):

Getting big money out of politics is vital, but much more needs to be done to restore our democracy. Notably, we must ensure that all Americans are guaranteed an effective right to vote. Campaign finance reform must be accompanied by efforts to strengthen voting rights – restoring the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, expanding early voting and vote-by-mail, implementing automatic voter registration, ending gerrymandering and making Election Day a national holiday, among others. When nearly two-thirds of the electorate did not vote in 2014 midterm elections, it is clear we need radical change to bring more people into the political system. Our democracy cannot be truly representative unless elected officials hear from all of their constituents, not just the wealthy and the powerful.

A start, anyway! I think we need much more - instant-runoff voting and ultimately some form of proportional representation - but those would be long, very long campaigns that currently don't have much of a groundswell behind them, and I think Sanders is positing this as a spree of pull-us-back-from-the-brink emergency measures. Punting Columbus Day in favor of a federal Election Day holiday - which could be done by ordinary legislation, no constitution-amending required - could do wonders by itself. I do think financially penalizing non-voters would be pretty fucked though in a lot of ways.

btw i totally support what sanders is doing and will vote for him as i've said many times but man i cannot wait to collect that $20

I do think financially penalizing non-voters would be pretty fucked though in a lot of ways.

That might be too extreme (although they do it in Australia, something like $26 for not voting, unless you request an exemption), but as you pointed out, there's a lot more we could be doing to encourage voting even without that.

i still refuse to believe Trump or Cruz can/will be nominated. The Republicans may be incompetent national campaigners, but they've avoided downballot suicide so far. Kasich by default?

yeah i mean to me the main problems would be (a) for it to be remotely fair we'd have to already have the world where nobody faces any penalties for voting, plus it's like, y'know, if you get strep throat or something i think it's pretty cool to stay the fuck home. and maybe more importantly, it seems like choosing not to vote is a legitimate form of speech and being compelled to vote would appear to be another way in which the panoptic state draws you in with its greedy administrative tentacles and denies any outside to itself, etc.

"I think she could afford to move a bit to the left to hopefully peel off some of Sanders support in the primary, without moving so far so as to endanger her chances in the general, but it would be a delicate balancing act."

Yes if this primary season has proven anything it's that people are desperate for triangulating politicians.

just mail everyone a ballot

just mail everyone a ballot

feel like we have to get through at least a couple more primaries before we actually give kasich any shot at the big prize - afaict he actually personally visited something like 75% of new hampshire voters at their front doors and presented them with small gift bags containing homemade fudge and a maze on the back for the kids. he definitely benefited from rubio flaming out horribly in the last debate, and of course bush spent over an absolute fortune in new hampshire and still came in fourth ... but i'll believe kasich has suddenly become the favored nominee of non-lunatic asshole fans when he actually repeats this stunt somewhere else. it's not impossible but it strikes me as a real longshot. he has got to have the worst name recognition of any of these guys except jim gilmore.

mailed-ballot scheme strikes me as even more vulnerable to schemes and dirty tricks than the system we have now - - - - just imagine the phony balony ballot done up to LOOK like one but described in tiny print at the bottom as a "pre-election preference survey" or whatever. god help us.

Yes if this primary season has proven anything it's that people are desperate for triangulating politicians.

I don't know. Trump is about as nakedly calculating as you can get, and he seems to be doing just fine.

Trump doesn't triangulate: he decapitates.

If by some horrible twist of fate, he actually gets the nom, I expect him to swing to the center so fast it will make heads spin.

Oh and just for some extra doomsayin' if you thought the gross insubordination and other general bullshit from our boys in uniform has been disgusting under Obama, hoo boy are we in for a treat under HC

― Sith Dog (El Tomboto), Wednesday, February 10, 2016 9:02 PM

really? i mean yeah she's a broad and too smart etc. but is that worse than being black/HUSSEIN/secretly hating america?

here they all are at the Swinging Center

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/GTY_trump_wedding_clintons_jef_150806_16x9_992.jpg

I know that the Sanders camp believes they can turn out people who’ve become alienated from the political process. As long as I’ve been following politics, it has been a left-wing fantasy that legions of disconnected non-voters will suddenly flood the polls if they’re offered a sufficiently progressive candidate. I’ve never seen anything save wishful thinking to back it up.

tbh i mostly believe this. left-wingers like to imagine that there’s this huge demographic of disaffected people who are natural progressives but just don’t realize it yet. i have a lot less faith in people than these folks, i guess.

So what I just said is that this really is going to suck no matter who wins. Lesser of two evils indeed, possibly like I've never experienced.
― Sith Dog (El Tomboto), Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:41 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yup. i’m already gearing up for the most depressing general presidential election since i started voting.

btw, thought experiment: if term limits weren’t a thing, obama would win a third term, wouldn’t he? even though his numbers are kind of low right now.

^^^
possibly!

wow, david mamet has endorsed cruz? i knew he had passed through the looking glass, but wow.

seems fitting that most of trump's celebrity support comes from other megalomaniacal, macho types.

you know i rly used to think this

It's not just that he uses the term "socialist". I think his specific policies, as a whole, are just too far left to be viable in a national election. I think that does by default make HRC a better candidate. Her policy goals are more realistic.

― o. nate, Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:22 PM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but the gop is literally throwing up donald fucking trump and ted cruz, a man unloved in all his life's endeavors. at this point the winner of the dem nomination is the likely winning candidate. i know that his far leftism will get trashed but cruz and trump are such fucking easy targets! it doesnt even matter! this is a weird election! embrace this shit! the gop is not going to nominate a "safe" choice this year, so rolling the dice with bernie is a worthwhile bet.

like cruz is repulsive on a molecular level and the anti-trump animus is so strong that no amount of centrist pivoting will work, the gop brand is so fucked

this. the most mystifying thing to me in this whole campaign is the assumption (even by sanders! at least publicly) that hillary clinton is this extremely accomplished, long-serving politician. she was barely in the senate longer than obama (and never held elected office before that, unlike him), she was a shitty cabinet member, what else...? i guess her just being in the public eye for so long has fooled people into thinking that amounts to something more than it does.

― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, February 10, 2016 5:12 PM

c'mon now. she lived in the fucking white house for eight years, she's been a senator and a secretary of state, and no one has ever accused her of being dumb. you can argue that she was no good at those roles and you can argue that that experience does not necessarily translate to being a good 'decider-in-chief', but tbph she knows more about the way the federal government works than basically any non-incumbent ever

there are plenty of reasons not to vote for her, but disdaining her qualifications is bullshit

most of Sanders' Big Ideas were advocated somewhere on the mainstream political spectrum in 1966-76. I know you ppl who weren't alive don't quite believe it even tho you've read books about it, but it's true.

which is why I don't consider him a socialist!

i know, youre ok

i think you could recognize that living in the white house and being a senator give you a lot of insight into how the federal government works, and also believe, fairly, that someone could have done those things and still not be an "extremely accomplished, long-serving politician."

Could Eleanor Roosevelt have made a good president? Who knows.

Yeah, he doesn't want to socialize the means of production. Is it basically a strategic move on his part? "Own it before they try to tar you with it"?

3xp

he calls himself a democratic socialist