[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Valaran]

So, if that's not accurate then, its only Libya which is an issue?

Yes, because Latin America has suddenly achieved peace since I said "Eh, semantics."

Are you blaming the failure of peace in Latin America on Clinton? If not, what's its relevance?

[Ngelmish]

Okay, you've got one area of policy. How about Clinton being to the left of Sanders on guns, immigration, and anti-scientific energy policies? And that's just the stuff where we don't have to debate about what the granular effects of, say, protectionism versus open markets have on the broader population. A little nuance is better for determining somebody's ideological positioning than sarcastic broadsides.

Nah, Democrats like Clinton won't make meaningful changes to the policies you listed, because they haven't. Though I do agree that Sanders doesn't fit my positions on a lot of policy a lot of the time. He's just lengths ahead of the field on everything.

Welcome to the internet! Nuance is a myth, especially when you've proven yourself to be a Fantastic Generalizer of Political Movements!

So we agree, Clinton is authentically to Sanders' left on certain issues.

The snark I'll leave to you.

[Kelinfort]

Mark my words here folks.

When the votes come in, Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island, Long Island, and areas around Buffalo will go Hillary.

The rest of the state will go Bernie, but those prior boroughs will be enough to let Hillary win by 8-12 points. Calling it right now.

Yeah, that's pretty much my view of it too.

Given 2008, I'd lean towards the higher side: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gu ... es/NY.html

[54e]

Nah, Democrats like Clinton won't make meaningful changes to the policies you listed, because they haven't. Though I do agree that Sanders doesn't fit my positions on a lot of policy a lot of the time. He's just lengths ahead of the field on everything.

Welcome to the internet! Nuance is a myth, especially when you've proven yourself to be a Fantastic Generalizer of Political Movements!

So we agree, Clinton is authentically to Sanders' left on certain issues.

The snark I'll leave to you.

Maybe technically and only in theory. So no. And thanks! I'll take it!

[Kelinfort]

If the Democratic Party is going to put up a conservative candidate like Hillary Clinton who is to the right of President Obama, then it has failed to be sufficiently liberal and should be dismantled. It's disgusting to live in a country where your choice for President is either a conservative or a super conservative.

I guess everyone to the right of you is conservative now.

[Ngelmish]

So we agree, Clinton is authentically to Sanders' left on certain issues.

The snark I'll leave to you.

Maybe technically and only in theory. So no. And thanks! I'll take it!

Technicality and theory are kind of important to any policies that ever are actually implemented. And what a person does, what their net policy effect is, is often a better way of determining ideology than how they pitch it. So I really fail to see how it's irrelevant to look at Clinton's positions in that light when Sanders is praised for his ideological consistency, largely on the basis of speeches.

[The Romulan Republic]

If the Democratic Party is going to put up a conservative candidate like Hillary Clinton who is to the right of President Obama, then it has failed to be sufficiently liberal and should be dismantled. It's disgusting to live in a country where your choice for President is either a conservative or a super conservative.

I guess everyone to the right of you is conservative now.

Hillary Clinton is neither Left nor Right. She is whatever it is convenient for her to be.

[Senkaku]

I guess everyone to the right of you is conservative now.

Hillary Clinton is neither Left nor Right. She is whatever it is convenient for her to be.

Penguin appears to disagree with you (although I'm sure he agrees she's also the Second Coming of Machiavelli or whatever).

[Kelinfort]

I guess everyone to the right of you is conservative now.

Hillary Clinton is neither Left nor Right. She is whatever it is convenient for her to be.

"X Politician isn neither left nor right. They're whatever you want to be"

Cookie cutter argument and, quite frankly, any politician could fit this definition. Unless, you include someone like Strom Thurmond.

[54e]

Maybe technically and only in theory. So no. And thanks! I'll take it!

Technicality and theory are kind of important to any policies that ever are actually implemented. And what a person does, what their net policy effect is, is often a better way of determining ideology than how they pitch it. So I really fail to see how it's irrelevant to look at Clinton's positions in that light when Sanders is praised for his ideological consistency, largely on the basis of speeches.

You can't see it? After all these years? All of the hundreds of millions of dollars? All of the actual destructive policy? I think you need better glasses. It's reasonable to be skeptical of any candidate, but this is Next Level willful ignorance.

[Kelinfort]

Hillary Clinton is neither Left nor Right. She is whatever it is convenient for her to be.

Penguin appears to disagree with you (although I'm sure he agrees she's also the Second Coming of Machiavelli or whatever).

No, she's Cthulhu in drag to them.

[Hillary Clinton 2016-2024]

Does anyone know when the results of the New York primary come in?

Probably the earliest 8-9pm.

never I rigged all the counting machines so we only get the results I want.

[Ngelmish]

Technicality and theory are kind of important to any policies that ever are actually implemented. And what a person does, what their net policy effect is, is often a better way of determining ideology than how they pitch it. So I really fail to see how it's irrelevant to look at Clinton's positions in that light when Sanders is praised for his ideological consistency, largely on the basis of speeches.

You can't see it? After all these years? All of the hundreds of millions of dollars? All of the actual destructive policy? I think you need better glasses. It's reasonable to be skeptical of any candidate, but this is Next Level willful ignorance.

Marginal differences matter. I apply the same level of scrutiny to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that I do to George Bush and Barack Obama. None of these people are exactly like the others, none of them would make exactly the same appointments, none of them believe exactly the same details on topics they do agree on.

Willful ignorance would be something like reducing relevant differences, theoretical, technical, or active, in the service of advancing a rhetorical argument.

[Theodolia]

Of course Clinton's "Left" stance on guns is stupid, and I'm not even remotely pro-gun. Being to the left isn't exactly always a good thing.

I've never understood why supporting much more restrictive guns laws was considered the more left wing position any way, other than people dumbing the issue down. The radical left is almost universally opposed to gun control at all, and honestly the whole debate seems like a way to avoid talking about solving the underlying issues with violent crime and mental healthcare(IIRC far more people commit suicide with guns than are murdered), because solving those problems involves spending money.

Honestly the whole issue is stupid. On the right, you have the NRA which used to be a respectable organization promoting gun safety and the like and now it's basically a mouthpiece for the gun industry that opposes even minimal changes.

[54e]

You can't see it? After all these years? All of the hundreds of millions of dollars? All of the actual destructive policy? I think you need better glasses. It's reasonable to be skeptical of any candidate, but this is Next Level willful ignorance.

Marginal differences matter. I apply the same level of scrutiny to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that I do to George Bush and Barack Obama. None of these people are exactly like the others, none of them would make exactly the same appointments, none of them believe exactly the same details on topics they do agree on.

Willful ignorance would be something like reducing relevant differences, theoretical, technical, or active, in the service of advancing a rhetorical argument.

Okay, so while you're busy scrutinizing the minutiae of campaign speech policy, you're missing that there was a LOT of carryover from Clinton to Bush to Obama, in both policies and appointments. Obviously nothing is exact, so what's your point?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hillary Clinton is neither Left nor Right. She is whatever it is convenient for her to be.

"X Politician isn neither left nor right. They're whatever you want to be"

Cookie cutter argument and, quite frankly, any politician could fit this definition. Unless, you include someone like Strom Thurmond.

It seems a valid critique of Clinton, and it doesn't not apply to all politicians, nor does it apply to those it does fit equally.

That "all politicians are the same" type of argument is either dishonesty or ignorance and laziness, and in my opinion serves only to encourage either apathy or extremism while letting people who mistake cynicism for insight and intelligence pat themselves on the back (I'm not saying that last bit applies to you, but this is my general experience). It also commits the unpardonable offence of normalizing political corruption and dishonesty, treating it as something to be taken for granted, in a flippant and off-hand manner, as if it is something that should be accepted as a natural part of the system rather than a flaw.

[AiliailiA]

Marginal differences matter. I apply the same level of scrutiny to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that I do to George Bush and Barack Obama. None of these people are exactly like the others, none of them would make exactly the same appointments, none of them believe exactly the same details on topics they do agree on.

Willful ignorance would be something like reducing relevant differences, theoretical, technical, or active, in the service of advancing a rhetorical argument.

Okay, so while you're busy scrutinizing the minutiae of campaign speech policy, you're missing that there was a LOT of carryover from Clinton to Bush to Obama, in both policies and appointments. Obviously nothing is exact, so what's your point?

Carry-over of policy is hardly surprising when Congressional control overlaps with Presidency. Republicans controlled the House for 12 years from Clinton's first midterm to Bush's second midterm (and controlled the Senate for 10 of those years). Then the Democrats held both until Obama's first midterm.

So the policy of bailouts for instance, in response to the GFC, is actually a Democratic policy begun before 2009 when Obama took office and continued after.

As to appointments, would you like to give examples?

[Ostroeuropa]

If the Democratic Party is going to put up a conservative candidate like Hillary Clinton who is to the right of President Obama, then it has failed to be sufficiently liberal and should be dismantled. It's disgusting to live in a country where your choice for President is either a conservative or a super conservative.

I guess everyone to the right of you is conservative now.

To be fair, the definition of right wing politics is that it views hierarchy as inevitable and desirable.
If you support capitalism, even a tempered one, you are right wing.
You might be on the left of the right wing, but nonetheless.

Ofcourse, academic definitions aren't really that relevant to contemporary politics.

But yes. Clinton is arguably right wing.
So is Sanders.

Right-wing politics hold that some forms of social stratification or social inequality are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition, Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10] or from competition in market economies.

They are left wing on certain issues:

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.

But right wing on economic policy. (Which is a lot of issues.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

So they're better understood as belonging to classical liberalisms tradition, rather than the left wing tradition. But the democratic party has NEVER been left wing in that sense.

[Ngelmish]

Marginal differences matter. I apply the same level of scrutiny to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that I do to George Bush and Barack Obama. None of these people are exactly like the others, none of them would make exactly the same appointments, none of them believe exactly the same details on topics they do agree on.

Willful ignorance would be something like reducing relevant differences, theoretical, technical, or active, in the service of advancing a rhetorical argument.

Okay, so while you're busy scrutinizing the minutiae of campaign speech policy, you're missing that there was a LOT of carryover from Clinton to Bush to Obama, in both policies and appointments. Obviously nothing is exact, so what's your point?

That there are important differences too.

Obviously there are areas of broad and disturbing continued trends, but to pretend that every economic similarity is equal is facile on its face. To pretend that intervention, whether or not you think there's been too much of it, is conducted equally under Bush and Obama is wrong. You can make the broader argument that you want to make a radical break on specific policies (for that, you'd likely need to do away with term limits), but that's not the same thing as taking irrelevant potshots at any candidate's ideological records.

Presidential candidates are rarely lying about what they repeatedly say they would like to do, and they have a lot of sway over the minute details of the regulatory apparatus. So I really don't think the differences are irrelevant.

[Corrian]

The fact voting is such a pain in the ass in some places is really upsetting to me. I don't care what side you're on, if you're voting Trump, Clinton, whatever, we should all be pissed off together that voting is such a hassle.

Of course, I've seen people that seem so uncaring about the issues in places like New York right now, which just frustrates the hell out of me.

Hell, at this point the freaking caucus was easier than the stress people have to deal with when their voter registrations are screwed with and just the whole ridiculousness of the closed primary in New York.

I hope that no matter what happens this election, we fight like hell for a better system, because I think it is absolutely pathetic how hard it seems to be to vote.

Of course, I'll probably try to do what I can to try and get the caucus systems to be gone, even though I haven't HATED it. I'd still rather vote and be done than sit for 2 hours, then if you're a delegate, for freaking 5 hours at the next place (Yes, I was there for 5 hours)

[Shrillland]

The fact voting is such a pain in the ass in some places is really upsetting to me. I don't care what side you're on, if you're voting Trump, Clinton, whatever, we should all be pissed off together that voting is such a hassle.

Of course, I've seen people that seem so uncaring about the issues in places like New York right now, which just frustrates the hell out of me.

Hell, at this point the freaking caucus was easier than the stress people have to deal with when their voter registrations are screwed with and just the whole ridiculousness of the closed primary in New York.

I hope that no matter what happens this election, we fight like hell for a better system, because I think it is absolutely pathetic how hard it seems to be to vote.

Of course, I'll probably try to do what I can to try and get the caucus systems to be gone, even though I haven't HATED it. I'd still rather vote and be done than sit for 2 hours, then if you're a delegate, for freaking 5 hours at the next place (Yes, I was there for 5 hours)

Dear God...there will be changes with all the horror stories that came out of this year, but I can't say for sure if they'll actually help people or merely entrench the existing rules because there are plenty of states that have leaders that are opposed to opening primaries or increasing polling places.

[AiliailiA]

The fact voting is such a pain in the ass in some places is really upsetting to me. I don't care what side you're on, if you're voting Trump, Clinton, whatever, we should all be pissed off together that voting is such a hassle.

Of course, I've seen people that seem so uncaring about the issues in places like New York right now, which just frustrates the hell out of me.

Hell, at this point the freaking caucus was easier than the stress people have to deal with when their voter registrations are screwed with and just the whole ridiculousness of the closed primary in New York.

I hope that no matter what happens this election, we fight like hell for a better system, because I think it is absolutely pathetic how hard it seems to be to vote.

Of course, I'll probably try to do what I can to try and get the caucus systems to be gone, even though I haven't HATED it. I'd still rather vote and be done than sit for 2 hours, then if you're a delegate, for freaking 5 hours at the next place (Yes, I was there for 5 hours)

Dear God...there will be changes with all the horror stories that came out of this year, but I can't say for sure if they'll actually help people or merely entrench the existing rules because there are plenty of states that have leaders that are opposed to opening primaries or increasing polling places.

Yep, it's a state issue. Perhaps the best to hope for is that states fix it themselves instead of shrugging and saying "it's a LOCAL issue".

[Indian Empire]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

[Shrillland]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

Well, I'm pretty sure we know who will win. Like I've said though, I think Bernie will keep his campaign going until DC in June, and then he'll stand behind Hillary the day afterwards. He's not a fool, he knows that it's better to show a united front in Philadelphia as the GOP tears itself to shreds in Cleveland.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

Clinton is the likely nominee regardless, but its close enough, and Sanders' campaign committed enough, that this'll probably drag out for months yet one way or another.

But I find the thought of Kasich winning being rather amusing.