[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[Myrensis]

Like a bad case of the clap.

Is there a good case of the clap?

The Infant Sorrow one isn't too bad.

[Uiiop]

And your evidence for this or them being crazy is...?

Apparently Mike the "Progressive" hates progressives.

TBF maybe he hates a type of Progressive that he thinks these two fit the bill.. I doubt we have enough info to rescind his Progressiveness since that would be about what he believes not what he thinks what other people are like(That being in/accurate does not in itself give the amount of info we need) .

[The Romulan Republic]

I could see it having something to do with the fact that she had to fight in a stupid war that Clinton voted on. I could see some moral reasons why Gabbard would not want to vote for Clinton under any circumstances.

Well, I don't know if "Had to" is the right word, but she certainly did fight in the Iraq war.

Or more generally, Clinton is considered something of a hawk. Gabbard definitely isn't, from what I've seen.

I don't know, but that seems a plausible reason.

[Camicon]

I could see it having something to do with the fact that she had to fight in a stupid war that Clinton voted on. I could see some moral reasons why Gabbard would not want to vote for Clinton under any circumstances.

Well, I don't know if "Had to" is the right word, but she certainly did fight in the Iraq war.

Or more generally, Clinton is considered something of a hawk. Gabbard definitely isn't, from what I've seen.

I don't know, but that seems a plausible reason.

And I'm sure that having DWS strong-arm her didn't do anything to improve her impression of the Clinton camp.

[UED]

And your evidence for this or them being crazy is...?

Apparently Mike the "Progressive" hates progressives.

[Maurepas]

Apparently Mike the "Progressive" hates progressives.

I guess maybe you guys don't remember him, but, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's meant to be an ironic title.

[Othelos]

While I supported Sanders sometimes the reality is you need to cast your lot with the lesser of evils. Given my options, the reality is Democrats need to accept that Trump is a possibility and not play the game where "anyone but my candidate is equally as bad". That's just not true. There's a not great candidate, and a truly horrific one. So given my options, despite my preferences, I will vote for the person I feel is best given the cards dealt.

And that person is Hillary Clinton.

No, it's not. Both are really awful, but in different areas.

Clinton will preserve global order, but will bring in more corruption and problems into our own system, while Trump will put america first, but will be unpredictable (often in destabilizing ways) and generally bad at his job because he's winging it.

[Corrian]

I guess maybe you guys don't remember him, but, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's meant to be an ironic title.

I always kind of figured that, but I never really knew for a fact.

Also, I never liked him, either, so I may be getting a bit too much of a grudge against them.

[USS Monitor]

While I supported Sanders sometimes the reality is you need to cast your lot with the lesser of evils. Given my options, the reality is Democrats need to accept that Trump is a possibility and not play the game where "anyone but my candidate is equally as bad". That's just not true. There's a not great candidate, and a truly horrific one. So given my options, despite my preferences, I will vote for the person I feel is best given the cards dealt.

And that person is Hillary Clinton.

No, it's not. Both are really awful, but in different areas.

Clinton will preserve global order, but will bring in more corruption and problems into our own system, while Trump will put america first, but will be unpredictable (often in destabilizing ways) and generally bad at his job because he's winging it.

Trump would bring in more corruption. He's sleazy.

[Stucco Houses]

While I supported Sanders sometimes the reality is you need to cast your lot with the lesser of evils. Given my options, the reality is Democrats need to accept that Trump is a possibility and not play the game where "anyone but my candidate is equally as bad". That's just not true. There's a not great candidate, and a truly horrific one. So given my options, despite my preferences, I will vote for the person I feel is best given the cards dealt.

And that person is Hillary Clinton.

No, it's not. Both are really awful, but in different areas.

Clinton will preserve global order, but will bring in more corruption and problems into our own system, while Trump will put america first, but will be unpredictable (often in destabilizing ways) and generally bad at his job because he's winging it.

Let's not confuse it for a minute, the facts are that Clinton is a moderate with an iffy-to-minor history of ignoring rules and taking money from corporate donors, something considered absolutely necessary at her level of politics barring a Sanders-esque mega-fundraising strategy, while Trump is a far-right neofascist with often openly racist views and a dangerously nationalistic approach to policy-making and international events.

No doubt Clinton is not extremely friendly to the Democratic base and in some of her actions often clearly contrary to their wishes, but she is not offensive to anywhere near the point of Trump and to vote against her out of spite is to put America one vote closer to the highest office in the land being controlled by someone who has considered straight-up banning a religion and disallowing the entry of those who follow it. No amount of soft, Clintonian "corruption" can be worse than inquisition.

[USS Monitor]

No, it's not. Both are really awful, but in different areas.

Clinton will preserve global order, but will bring in more corruption and problems into our own system, while Trump will put america first, but will be unpredictable (often in destabilizing ways) and generally bad at his job because he's winging it.

Let's not confuse it for a minute, the facts are that Clinton is a moderate with an iffy-to-minor history of ignoring rules and taking money from corporate donors, something considered absolutely necessary at her level of politics barring a Sanders-esque mega-fundraising strategy, while Trump is a far-right neofascist with often openly racist views and a dangerously nationalistic approach to policy-making and international events.

No doubt Clinton is not extremely friendly to the Democratic base and in some of her actions often clearly contrary to their wishes, but she is not offensive to anywhere near the point of Trump and to vote against her out of spite is to put America one vote closer to the highest office in the land being controlled by someone who has considered straight-up banning a religion and disallowing the entry of those who follow it. No amount of soft, Clintonian "corruption" can be worse than inquisition.

Some of us are voting for Johnson or Stein because we actually prefer them.

[Stucco Houses]

Let's not confuse it for a minute, the facts are that Clinton is a moderate with an iffy-to-minor history of ignoring rules and taking money from corporate donors, something considered absolutely necessary at her level of politics barring a Sanders-esque mega-fundraising strategy, while Trump is a far-right neofascist with often openly racist views and a dangerously nationalistic approach to policy-making and international events.

No doubt Clinton is not extremely friendly to the Democratic base and in some of her actions often clearly contrary to their wishes, but she is not offensive to anywhere near the point of Trump and to vote against her out of spite is to put America one vote closer to the highest office in the land being controlled by someone who has considered straight-up banning a religion and disallowing the entry of those who follow it. No amount of soft, Clintonian "corruption" can be worse than inquisition.

Some of us are voting for Johnson or Stein because we actually prefer them.

And that's your right. Lots of people voted for Nader in 2000 and they ended up working for Bush. It's an unfortunate part of a first-past-the-post system, but as a rational actor, it is unproductive to cast a protest vote or vote on principle exclusively rather than based on a cost-benefit analysis of policy-making and electoral likelihoods. With regard to the Presidential race, your vote may or may not count, dependent on state, but it's generally a good idea, unfortunately, to vote against the party you don't want rather than for the one you really do want.

[Corrian]

And that's your right. Lots of people voted for Nader in 2000 and they ended up working for Bush. It's an unfortunate part of a first-past-the-post system, but as a rational actor, it is unproductive to cast a protest vote or vote on principle exclusively rather than based on a cost-benefit analysis of policy-making and electoral likelihoods. With regard to the Presidential race, your vote may or may not count, dependent on state, but it's generally a good idea, unfortunately, to vote against the party you don't want rather than for the one you really do want.

My dad doesn't even consider his vote for a 3rd party to be a protest vote at this point. He considers it a vote for someone he doesn't consider to be a terrible candidate.

[Stucco Houses]

And that's your right. Lots of people voted for Nader in 2000 and they ended up working for Bush. It's an unfortunate part of a first-past-the-post system, but as a rational actor, it is unproductive to cast a protest vote or vote on principle exclusively rather than based on a cost-benefit analysis of policy-making and electoral likelihoods. With regard to the Presidential race, your vote may or may not count, dependent on state, but it's generally a good idea, unfortunately, to vote against the party you don't want rather than for the one you really do want.

My dad doesn't even consider his vote for a 3rd party to be a protest vote at this point. He considers it a vote for someone he doesn't consider to be a terrible candidate.

That's understandable, but if he was more likely to support one party's positions, he has taken a vote from that party. It's not the two-vote swing that switching parties would constitute, but it's exactly half of that.

At the risk of sounding like a ***shill***, I would say that Clinton's repugnance has been overstated by a zealous media with twenty years of ammunition and emphasized by one of the most effective Democratic base primary runs in modern history from the Sanders campaign. Her policy proposals are largely a continuation of Obama's center-left internationalist agenda status-quo. Maybe not ideal, but not Trump. If everyone holding their noses and voting for another Clinton is what needs to happen to prevent white nationalism from sweeping into the White House, I think that's what ought to happen.

[Guy]

I don't think it will actually go away, anymore than racism will ever actually go away. But I want it to no longer be a tenable political position. I want them to realize that in order to win they'll have to latch onto something else.

I think there is a possibility to have a mutually agreed upon position, I personally like to say legal personhood should be tied to brain function(it is for dying) which would provide for Abortion staying legal. But I'm not wanting to threadjack this into an abortion debate, what I'm expressing is a desire for the social issues to change, they've been the same damn thing for two long and I think the majority of the US is reaching a consensus on them, and I merely await the Supreme Court to reflect that consensus.

*shrug*

Support for both unrestricted and reasonably restricted abortion has been flatlined for the last decade, and fallen significantly since the early Nineties. I don't think you'll see it going anywhere either, as support for unrestricted abortion has been going through a hole in the floor for Americans under 30- it's at only 66% of what it was two decades ago.

Honestly, I think my side is winning that culture war. But you feel free to keep hoping

You are just factually wrong.

Given these polls are infrequent, most movements that don't stick to form a trend are probably noise, responses to minor issues of the day, or mere statistical errors.

Going to the most detailed tables, apart from a slightly higher period of support around 1990-95, support for abortion to be "legal in all circumstances" is near its absolute highest levels. Two decades ago, in 1996, support was actually significantly lower.

Adding "legal in all circumstances" to "legal in most", there have been very consistent results over the past 23 years, with support around 35-40%. We are at one of its highest levels in the recent polls.

So no, there simply haven't been significant changes in public opinion at all, and generally right now is actually a period with slightly above-average support.

[Guy]

My dad doesn't even consider his vote for a 3rd party to be a protest vote at this point. He considers it a vote for someone he doesn't consider to be a terrible candidate.

That's understandable, but if he was more likely to support one party's positions, he has taken a vote from that party. It's not the two-vote swing that switching parties would constitute, but it's exactly half of that.

At the risk of sounding like a ***shill***, I would say that Clinton's repugnance has been overstated by a zealous media with twenty years of ammunition and emphasized by one of the most effective Democratic base primary runs in modern history from the Sanders campaign. Her policy proposals are largely a continuation of Obama's center-left internationalist agenda status-quo. Maybe not ideal, but not Trump. If everyone holding their noses and voting for another Clinton is what needs to happen to prevent white nationalism from sweeping into the White House, I think that's what ought to happen.

Clinton has actually been quite consistently to the left of Obama on a range of issues - including ones that he has flipped flopped on. Remember when he completely rejected Clinton's more progressive healthcare plan, saying that an individual mandate is a terrible idea?

Remember how he pandered to the liberal elite, while she was winning the votes of many of today's "Berners" -- lower to middle class Whites?

Much of the irrational opposition to Obama has been due to his race, but it's mostly limited to certain demographics (you know them). With Clinton, it seems like misogyny is far more pervasive than many people would have thought.

[Stucco Houses]

That's understandable, but if he was more likely to support one party's positions, he has taken a vote from that party. It's not the two-vote swing that switching parties would constitute, but it's exactly half of that.

At the risk of sounding like a ***shill***, I would say that Clinton's repugnance has been overstated by a zealous media with twenty years of ammunition and emphasized by one of the most effective Democratic base primary runs in modern history from the Sanders campaign. Her policy proposals are largely a continuation of Obama's center-left internationalist agenda status-quo. Maybe not ideal, but not Trump. If everyone holding their noses and voting for another Clinton is what needs to happen to prevent white nationalism from sweeping into the White House, I think that's what ought to happen.

Clinton has actually been quite consistently to the left of Obama on a range of issues - including ones that he has flipped flopped on. Remember when he completely rejected Clinton's more progressive healthcare plan, saying that an individual mandate is a terrible idea?

Remember how he pandered to the liberal elite, while she was winning the votes of many of today's "Berners" -- lower to middle class Whites?

Much of the irrational opposition to Obama has been due to his race, but it's mostly limited to certain demographics (you know them). With Clinton, it seems like misogyny is far more pervasive than many people would have thought.

I may not remember correctly, but wasn't Obama for single-payer but pivoted to Clinton's mandate system after it seemed that single-payer was politically insolvent?

The misogyny aimed at Clinton this race has been subtle, decidedly non-subtle, and everywhere in between. It's been gross to watch the attacks pile on and there to be no defense from the far left, many of whom seem to have converted to South Park Republicanism in deciding to eat the sour grapes. I guess if it's not Bernie, we might just bust, so it seems.

That said, Clinton is very likely to win in the fall and be like Obama, a decidedly above-average to rather good progressive internationalist with iffy stances on foreign trade and intervention. Ho hum.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's understandable, but if he was more likely to support one party's positions, he has taken a vote from that party. It's not the two-vote swing that switching parties would constitute, but it's exactly half of that.

At the risk of sounding like a ***shill***, I would say that Clinton's repugnance has been overstated by a zealous media with twenty years of ammunition and emphasized by one of the most effective Democratic base primary runs in modern history from the Sanders campaign. Her policy proposals are largely a continuation of Obama's center-left internationalist agenda status-quo. Maybe not ideal, but not Trump. If everyone holding their noses and voting for another Clinton is what needs to happen to prevent white nationalism from sweeping into the White House, I think that's what ought to happen.

Clinton has actually been quite consistently to the left of Obama on a range of issues - including ones that he has flipped flopped on. Remember when he completely rejected Clinton's more progressive healthcare plan, saying that an individual mandate is a terrible idea?

Remember how he pandered to the liberal elite, while she was winning the votes of many of today's "Berners" -- lower to middle class Whites?

Much of the irrational opposition to Obama has been due to his race, but it's mostly limited to certain demographics (you know them). With Clinton, it seems like misogyny is far more pervasive than many people would have thought.

Misogyny, and right-wing media repeating the same talking points for so long that the mainstream media starts to unconsciously accept the narrative, meaning that mainstream voters do, as well.

[Guy]

Clinton has actually been quite consistently to the left of Obama on a range of issues - including ones that he has flipped flopped on. Remember when he completely rejected Clinton's more progressive healthcare plan, saying that an individual mandate is a terrible idea?

Remember how he pandered to the liberal elite, while she was winning the votes of many of today's "Berners" -- lower to middle class Whites?

Much of the irrational opposition to Obama has been due to his race, but it's mostly limited to certain demographics (you know them). With Clinton, it seems like misogyny is far more pervasive than many people would have thought.

I may not remember correctly, but wasn't Obama for single-payer but pivoted to Clinton's mandate system after it seemed that single-payer was politically insolvent?

The misogyny aimed at Clinton this race has been subtle, decidedly non-subtle, and everywhere in between. It's been gross to watch the attacks pile on and there to be no defense from the far left, many of whom seem to have converted to South Park Republicanism in deciding to eat the sour grapes. I guess if it's not Bernie, we might just bust, so it seems.

That said, Clinton is very likely to win in the fall and be like Obama, a decidedly above-average to rather good progressive internationalist with iffy stances on foreign trade and intervention. Ho hum.

Obama's plan all throughout the 2008 campaign was broadly similar to 'Obamacare' that we have now, except without an individual mandate. Hillary's, though, was far more similar. Most notably, the absence of the individual mandate would have rendered the whole plan unworkable - remember how fiercely they defended in from a constitutional challenge?

Source 1 (general election) 2 (primary).

[Stucco Houses]

I may not remember correctly, but wasn't Obama for single-payer but pivoted to Clinton's mandate system after it seemed that single-payer was politically insolvent?

The misogyny aimed at Clinton this race has been subtle, decidedly non-subtle, and everywhere in between. It's been gross to watch the attacks pile on and there to be no defense from the far left, many of whom seem to have converted to South Park Republicanism in deciding to eat the sour grapes. I guess if it's not Bernie, we might just bust, so it seems.

That said, Clinton is very likely to win in the fall and be like Obama, a decidedly above-average to rather good progressive internationalist with iffy stances on foreign trade and intervention. Ho hum.

Obama's plan all throughout the 2008 campaign was broadly similar to 'Obamacare' that we have now, except without an individual mandate. Hillary's, though, was far more similar. Most notably, the absence of the individual mandate would have rendered the whole plan unworkable - remember how fiercely they defended in from a constitutional challenge?

Source 1 (general election) 2 (primary).

That's interesting, wasn't there some way in which a single-payer discussion entered the conversation that year? Forgive me, I forget that far back.

[Guy]

Obama's plan all throughout the 2008 campaign was broadly similar to 'Obamacare' that we have now, except without an individual mandate. Hillary's, though, was far more similar. Most notably, the absence of the individual mandate would have rendered the whole plan unworkable - remember how fiercely they defended in from a constitutional challenge?

Source 1 (general election) 2 (primary).

That's interesting, wasn't there some way in which a single-payer discussion entered the conversation that year? Forgive me, I forget that far back.

I had to Google that one to see if he didn't make comments supportive of single-payer, despite having a more 'centrist' position than Hillary on healthcare. According to Politifact, he hasn't spoken in favour of single-payer since at least 2003.

[USS Monitor]

That's understandable, but if he was more likely to support one party's positions, he has taken a vote from that party. It's not the two-vote swing that switching parties would constitute, but it's exactly half of that.

At the risk of sounding like a ***shill***, I would say that Clinton's repugnance has been overstated by a zealous media with twenty years of ammunition and emphasized by one of the most effective Democratic base primary runs in modern history from the Sanders campaign. Her policy proposals are largely a continuation of Obama's center-left internationalist agenda status-quo. Maybe not ideal, but not Trump. If everyone holding their noses and voting for another Clinton is what needs to happen to prevent white nationalism from sweeping into the White House, I think that's what ought to happen.

Clinton has actually been quite consistently to the left of Obama on a range of issues - including ones that he has flipped flopped on. Remember when he completely rejected Clinton's more progressive healthcare plan, saying that an individual mandate is a terrible idea?

Remember how he pandered to the liberal elite, while she was winning the votes of many of today's "Berners" -- lower to middle class Whites?

Much of the irrational opposition to Obama has been due to his race, but it's mostly limited to certain demographics (you know them). With Clinton, it seems like misogyny is far more pervasive than many people would have thought.

More like Clinton's campaign tactics are giving men good reason to dislike her, as well as being awfully insulting to women who preferred other candidates for whatever reason.

Obama never made a big deal about his race as much as Clinton has about her gender. That was something I liked about him. He talked about it sometimes cos stuff just came up, but he knew when to back off and leave racial politics to the side. I think he might talk about it more once he leaves office and doesn't have to worry as much about pissing people off, but I don't really know.

[USS Monitor]

Obama's plan all throughout the 2008 campaign was broadly similar to 'Obamacare' that we have now, except without an individual mandate. Hillary's, though, was far more similar. Most notably, the absence of the individual mandate would have rendered the whole plan unworkable - remember how fiercely they defended in from a constitutional challenge?

Source 1 (general election) 2 (primary).

That's interesting, wasn't there some way in which a single-payer discussion entered the conversation that year? Forgive me, I forget that far back.

He wanted to have a public option as part of Obamacare, but that would have been just one option alongside the ones offered by private insurers.

[Ashmoria]

Like a bad case of the clap.

Is there a good case of the clap?

the one your ex boyfriend got from that slut he was cheating on you with that he didn't pass on to you.

...

the clap not the slut

[Mike the Progressive]

I guess maybe you guys don't remember him, but, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's meant to be an ironic title.

Eh. When I originally created this account I identified as a progressive. To some extent I still do.