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

The unrealism and optimism of youth actually leads to major changes in this country in generation after generation -- probably never 100% of what those optimistic youth wanted, but much better than what we'd get if we just went by the views of defeated middle-agers.

the thousands of concessions she’s made to the world as it is, rather than as we want it to be

projection projection projection

This smacks of "Deep In Their Hearts They're Actually SO Liberal" ive read heard about every big post-DLC Dem, which is almost always 1) unpersuasive and 2) irrelevant. As that HillaryBro Joan Crawford Loves Chachi says, it's not about your feelings.

it seems to me that bernie's made plenty of concessions to the world as it is, and that ppl who glibly caricature him as an ineffectual idealist are being disingenuous.

Middle-Age / Complacency '16! \/\/ 0 0 + !

I'm Resigned to H->illary!

btw Old Nixon told his last secretary re HRC "Watch out for that one!" thinking her a neo-Trotskyite. I think he wd've changed his mind by now.

i think it's more like - i have made decisions that involved compromise in my life where i gave up on dreams i had bc i felt i had more to gain (or less to lose) from the pragmatic decision. i don't actually know who would make a better president between the 2 of them. (i also don't know who stands a better chance of winning in nov.) on one hand i think there's something to be said for starting from a more radical position before compromising and that was one of my complaints of obama over his terms - that he seemed too ready to compromise his position out of some kind of generating good will, whether with the republicans on the sequester or with iran on the nuclear program. but even there he has had some serious successes and been a fairly transformative president - esp for my lifetime - so maybe he was right and i was wrong. this is why i'm not registering democratic and voting in the primary when the circus comes to town. let the rest of the party make up their mind and i'll vote for whoever they decide is best. part of this i guess is a luxury - my life is okay enough that i don't feel like it's a life-or-death decision between bernie + hillary, tho i certainly understand that for some ppl it is.

someone asked above if hillary would support single payer even if it just landed in her lap but isn't that what she campaigned on in 2008?

MRS. CLINTON: You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system. (The New York Times, March 27, 2008)

Oh right, the individual mandate.

i don't think it is "important" (as opposed to "historic") that there be a woman in the white house

thank you, Most Incoherent Critical Eminence of All Time, for going from A to Not-A there.

not only incoherent but jesus god what happened to marcus's prose? there are a few unparsable run-on sentences in that paragraph. i'll be charitable and assumed he dictated that into his iPhone while driving across the Bay Bridge

I asked that, upthread. And of course she didn't support it in the 90s either. So I know what position she supports. But the point I was (poorly) trying to make was that I still have no fucking clue what she actually wants. Presumably she went with the more compromised positions in the 90s and after Obama's election because she thought it was the only way it could pass. But in an ideal world, which system would she implement? Who knows. Most politicians are plagued by the same kind of wavering and positioning - but that's why Bernie sanders stands out and people like him

i think it's being very charitable to clinton to chalk up her many compromises and flip-flops and her rampant doublespeak to her "pragmatism". that's what she wants you to think; that she's had her eyes on the prize all these many decades and has just been bogged down by circumstance in the complexities of Getting Things Done. that's certainly true some of the time, but it overlooks the sheer personal opportunism and mendacity that has characterized the actions of both clintons for years, as well as the fact that it isn't just that she's "compromised with" corporate america but that she is very much a part of it.

btw didn't greil marcus think clinton was elvis or something?

And I guess you could counter that who cares about their ideal policies, we live in the real shitty world where pragmatism rules. And that's a legitimate position to hold. But I still think it's important to have an idea of what the candidate truly believes in

Xpost

russ feingold is an example of a legislator who has consistently made his principles clear while at the same time being a pretty effective, productive politician.

i think sanders has been somewhat effective to, but less at high-profile legislation than in adding progressive riders to big bills -- kind of stealth legislation. i don't know what that says about whether he'd be very effective and getting anything significant done with a republican congress (if anyone can do such a thing).

somehow i'd missed that feingold was running for the senate again, that's awesome

btw i want to repost this b/c i'm an asshole i think it's important

i think it's being very charitable to clinton to chalk up her many compromises and flip-flops and her rampant doublespeak to her "pragmatism". that's what she wants you to think; that she's had her eyes on the prize all these many decades and has just been bogged down by circumstance in the complexities of Getting Things Done. that's certainly true some of the time, but it overlooks the sheer personal opportunism and mendacity that has characterized the actions of both clintons for years, as well as the fact that it isn't just that she's "compromised with" corporate america but that she is very much a part of it.

i think to the extent we are discussing clinton's career largely in terms of "pragmatism" and "compromise" it means that she's taken control of the narrative. and maybe she should! but i think that this spin on her career, even though it's often cast in negative terms, is actually a very positive one relative to the critiques offered by michelle alexander and other progressives.

honestly i almost responded to that comment bc i think it's deeply unfair but idgaf and i know how things roll around here

i guess -- i don't jump down people's throats like other folks. i'd genuinely be interested to hear your take on it!

Trump and Cruz both threatening to sue each other. They shouldn't toy with us like that.

Karl's last few posts OTM. Saying my thoughts with his words.

Strumming your heart with his fingers?

I asked that, upthread. And of course she didn't support it in the 90s either. So I know what position she supports. But the point I was (poorly) trying to make was that I still have no fucking clue what she actually wants.

Hard to know what when she knows the Senate is the only legislative branch that may flip. One of those articles sourced by "senior campaign advisers" say she and Bill Clinton remain haunted by Reagan. A DLC-esque response is all she can muster.

TS: In a world where single-payer health magically became a politically viable option, what would Clinton think? Vs. If unicorns became real, would Clinton want their horns to be sparkly, or shimmery?

*became* real?

i'd genuinely be interested to hear your take on it

i think probably you could make any argument i'll make - i don't have any particularly unique insight. ultimately i think hillary (as well as prez obama) is a good person motivated by ideals of serving the american public. is hillary also motivated by other more craven things like getting elected? yes, of course, that's the measure of success for a professional politician. and has she done things i don't like? yes, again, as has every politician I've ever known anything about. but i don't feel like she's any more opportunistic or deceptive than other pols and probably much less. she seems to me like a good person working in a flawed system and i'd be v proud for her to be potus.

"Mika" and Scarborough lead a Mornign Joe town hall on MSNBC. Trump just said Obamacare is a disaster because it's a terrible plan. Three tautologies he unleashed in a roll, frustrating even Scarborough. He sounds like an imbecile, and Mika, to her credit, is not hiding her contempt.

i bet nobody on that stage could explain why obamacare is terrible. answers will range from "socialism!" to "it's terrible!"

also "obama!"

Ben Carson says brain surgery is much, much tougher than politics. And yet, he's really successful at brain surgery, while--spoiler alert--he's terrible at politics.

It's kinda hard to even pretend to be surprised about any aspect of Trump's campaign but there is definitely a small moment in every debate, when he goes "Obamacare is a disaster, and we're gonna replace it with something that works way better," and I really have to work to believe that there are people to whom this is a super compelling line. Oh, okay, way better. That's what we need. The other Republicans are only promising something better, and I'm sure the Democrats want something way worse, so Trump's the only one out there talking sense!

I know comparisons to middle school class president get thrown around a lot, but there's like, no space at all between the one and the other. How do you fight someone who doesn't even concede that "works way better" leaves more to be explained? The guy doesn't even have a health care section on his website. "Something better" is the program.

yeah, it's like trump was sent to earth as a litmus test of just how credulous a big segment of the american people is.

I get the sense credulity doesn't even factor into their support. Trump represents more like a giant "fuck you" vote, results be damned.

for some people, sure. for a lot of others, there seems to be some conviction that he's a guy who "gets things done," who thinks on the fly, who doesn't need a ton of advisors whispering into his ear now, because once he's in office he'll be able to sort things out. in short, they trust his judgement. which is terrifying. and hilarious. but mostly terrifying.

I also think a lot of it is the sort of long-delayed, inevitable end point of talking about "the economy" and "business" as if they're basically the same thing, so that a guy who "knows how to make deals" can just fix "the economy" by, I guess, making a deal with it. I mean I know he talks about making a better deal with China, making a better deal with Mexico, but the real idea is that he'll get in there and, y'know, fix the economy. He'll fix it. He doesn't have to actually explain anything he's going to do, or how it will lead to the desired results. This is only one of many reasons why I find the "Trump and Sanders, it's the year of outsider frustration" stories to be wildly off base - whatever it is that gets people excited about Sanders, it seems to be aided by, and certainly not stifled by, a guy explaining over and over a specific set of economic conditions that aren't acceptable to him, and a set of policies to address them. Whatever is that excites people about Trump, it's not that.

I'm excited to find out how he plans to build that wall and make Mexico pay for it.

A good deal. He's gonna make a great deal and we're gonna win. We don't win anymore.

Need to put the wall around New Mexico too. Just to be on the safe side

btw re middle-aged "resignation": a labor organizer friend of mine (he describes his job as witnessing the death rattle of the field) has been phonebanking for Bernie. He has a Tennessesee Valley Authority logo tattoo on his wrist. He's 37. On NH primary night he FB'd that another world is possible and "I never thought I'd be an idealist!"

So you see, there is hope. (For some of you maybe. Not me.)

i worry that the problem w/ idealism is that it's a short-term rush but has trouble surviving longterm and the problem w/ our politics in the US is not getting ppl excited every 4 or 8 years. it's having ongoing engagement from a larger % of the population every year and at every level of governance. a lot of the bernie enthusiasm reminds me of the obama enthusiasm. idk if "pragmatism" or whatever the alternative on offer is better (as it may lead to resignment as well) but the strength of the bernie "revolution" is not going to be measured this election even if he pulls off the upset and wins the nomination (which i don't think is too unlikely), it's going to be whether he can continue to bring ppl out over and over again even in the face of slow, dissatisfying results + setbacks.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7dpxc81pT1rq645g.gif

well, the key is obviously impressing on citizens YOUR JOB IS NOT OVER WHEN YOU'VE VOTED. Not making much headway i can see there; we'll see.

ICYMI, Chomsky said that Sanders is "an honest New Dealer" (anyone have the Eisenhower quote he mentions?) and that he would urge a vote for Clinton in November in swing states.

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

If anything I'm shifting a bit back toward idealism, in a twice-born, pragmatic under the surface sort of way.

There is plenty of room for the two perspectives to coexist in one person. You can always strive for the ideal and then, when the ideal slips from your grasp, accept the pragmatic and move ahead to the next fight.

yeah i mean i would be a lot more interested in someone who has really clear ideals, but recognizes the need to compromise and get shit done, than someone who really loves compromising and getting shit done for their own sake, and recognizes the need to announce some ideals. not saying the former is sanders but the latter is how i feel about hillary on a bad day. and maybe gets back to this thing of, does it matter what she sincerely believes. i kinda think it does.

my increased sense of mortality just makes me really not want to completely let go of idealism, to find a way to fit it into my adult life framework

i worry that the problem w/ idealism is that it's a short-term rush but has trouble surviving longterm and the problem w/ our politics in the US is not getting ppl excited every 4 or 8 years. it's having ongoing engagement from a larger % of the population every year and at every level of governance. a lot of the bernie enthusiasm reminds me of the obama enthusiasm. idk if "pragmatism" or whatever the alternative on offer is better (as it may lead to resignment as well) but the strength of the bernie "revolution" is not going to be measured this election even if he pulls off the upset and wins the nomination (which i don't think is too unlikely), it's going to be whether he can continue to bring ppl out over and over again even in the face of slow, dissatisfying results + setbacks.

― Mordy, Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:05 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think that's very true, it's just that the solution seems like it can't be "less idealism." It has to be more discipline, more long-term thinking, but not abandoning the ideals. Because otherwise "pragmatism" means we're just setting the bar lower and winding up in the same place or even worse.

otm

I tend to think conservatives are better than that, but I have an inferiority complex about a lot of things and I may just be imagining that.

*better AT that (better at the discipline and long-term thinking)

I don't think that's actually true