[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[Eol Sha]

Yeah it did. They took over the House and the Senate and came closer to defeating President Obama in 2012 than in 2008. They have the largest House majority since, like, the 1950s. They've profited quite well on the last eight years.

Wasn't because of the base, and they lost 2012 fairly solidly. I remember quite plainly, they thought they'd win just due to mobilising that core base, and were quite shocked when that didn't work. And have a look at the effects of such a policy now.

What do you mean it "wasn't because of the base"? The party base, on both sides, are the most likely to vote in low-turnout midterms.

Even so, they closed the gap by a five million votes. Granted, most of those votes were lost Obama votes, but still.

The only tangible effect I see is a near-stagnant Presidency and many more congressional and state-level Republicans. That isn't a failing strategy.

[Conserative Morality]

Are they not? The democrats are working on winning over the Latino population (though Trump is helping greatly there).

They provide a better alternative. Your mileage may vary regarding whether the Dems are improving on the economy, healthcare, and income inequality or just repeating the lines of the past decade.

[MERIZoC]

Wasn't because of the base, and they lost 2012 fairly solidly. I remember quite plainly, they thought they'd win just due to mobilising that core base, and were quite shocked when that didn't work. And have a look at the effects of such a policy now.

They lost in 2012 because the only demographics they reliably win are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. Dems need to focus on their growing demographics that are reliably Dem.

Indeed. Turnout is the democrats' biggest weapon at this point. I find myself wondering if the republicans can actually win a presidential election anymore, given that they've only won the popular vote once in over 25 years.

[Valaran]

Wasn't because of the base, and they lost 2012 fairly solidly. I remember quite plainly, they thought they'd win just due to mobilising that core base, and were quite shocked when that didn't work. And have a look at the effects of such a policy now.

What do you mean it "wasn't because of the base"? The party base, on both sides, are the most likely to vote in low-turnout midterms.

Even so, they closed the gap by a five million votes. Granted, most of those votes were lost Obama votes, but still.

The only tangible effect I see is a near-stagnant Presidency and many more congressional and state-level Republicans. That isn't a failing strategy.

Yep, and yep, to your first points.

How's that pandering to the Tea party and voter anger holding up for them now? Two people came along who tapped into that better than their leadership, beat them at their own game, so to speak.

[Conserative Morality]

Fairly certain it was a bit more than this, and if that was the main reason, then 2014 truly be some weird aberration.

Dem demographics (minorities and youth) tend not to turn out for midterms.

[Eol Sha]

They lost in 2012 because the only demographics they reliably win are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. Dems need to focus on their growing demographics that are reliably Dem.

Are they not? The democrats are working on winning over the Latino population (though Trump is helping greatly there).

The Latino-American voter base still has lower levels of turnout than most of the voting groups other than Asian-Americans, I believe. Something that is compounded in midterms.

[Napkiraly]

I guess if you don't care about the suffering of tens of millions that will occur, then sure it's the best time to be partisan and make your stand.

However, if you happen to care about what progress has been made and not wish to see it get worse for tens of millions, it is definitely not the time to make that stand.

>Implying we don't think the status quo contributes to that suffering

Oh it does, certainly. It'll be worse under the GOP however.

[Valaran]

Fairly certain it was a bit more than this, and if that was the main reason, then 2014 truly be some weird aberration.

Dem demographics (minorities and youth) tend not to turn out for midterms.

Indeed. Hence, this point:

The Democratic demographic is arguably not as reliable as the 2010 GOP demographic was. Not least since we're having an argument about supporting a likely Democratic candidate for the highest elected office.

[Side note: I'll be back in 30 mins or so].

[Conserative Morality]

Dem demographics (minorities and youth) tend not to turn out for midterms.

Indeed. Hence, this point:

The Democratic demographic is arguably not as reliable as the 2010 GOP demographic was. Not least since we're having an argument about supporting a likely Democratic candidate for the highest elected office.

Which is precisely why motivating the base is so important. Dems could easily sweep the elections if only they motivated their base to turn out like the GOP's demographics reliably do year after year.

[Eol Sha]

What do you mean it "wasn't because of the base"? The party base, on both sides, are the most likely to vote in low-turnout midterms.

Even so, they closed the gap by a five million votes. Granted, most of those votes were lost Obama votes, but still.

The only tangible effect I see is a near-stagnant Presidency and many more congressional and state-level Republicans. That isn't a failing strategy.

Yep, and yep, to your first points.

How's that pandering to the Tea party and voter anger holding up for them now? Two people came along who tapped into that better than their leadership, beat them at their own game, so to speak.

Even if it doesn't win them the presidency, and I'd still say that's somewhat in the air, it's still worked out quite well for them given the often-underestimated importance of state governments.

[Napkiraly]

I guess if you don't care about the suffering of tens of millions that will occur, then sure it's the best time to be partisan and make your stand.

However, if you happen to care about what progress has been made and not wish to see it get worse for tens of millions, it is definitely not the time to make that stand.

We're among those tens of millions, you know. Things usually get worse before they get better - the American Revolution owes much to the increasing exertion of power by Britain over the colonies, slavery would not have been abolished had things not built to a head, without the Turkish War of Independence, Turkey would still be Ottoman ruled, and so on.

All of those are, of course, extreme examples, but I already used '48/Great Depression/Women's Suffrage earlier.

Yes, extreme examples and thus requiring different strategies. Force change after the presidential election, as has happened in the GOP. Don't make things harder and worse, therefore making it actually harder to get the change you'll want.

[MERIZoC]

>Implying we don't think the status quo contributes to that suffering

Oh it does, certainly. It'll be worse under the GOP however.

Then take a risk. Nothing gets better if nobody does.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, extreme examples and thus requiring different strategies. Force change after the presidential election, as has happened in the GOP. Don't make things harder and worse, therefore making it actually harder to get the change you'll want.

On the contrary, changing one's own side is much harder than beating the opposition.

[Khadgar]

Are they not? The democrats are working on winning over the Latino population (though Trump is helping greatly there).

The Latino-American voter base still has lower levels of turnout than most of the voting groups other than Asian-Americans, I believe. Something that is compounded in midterms.

True but I wonder how much of that has to do with the Republicans pet talking heads screaming every election cycle about how this is the big one and Democrats are going to destroy the nation if they don't vote. When it comes to histrionics you can't be the AM radio crowd and liberals don't have a similar chorus urging us to the polls.

[Zurkerx]

Yeah, Hillary.....

You don't seem enthused

She's better than Sanders, who's feeling the Bern right now

[Eol Sha]

Indeed. Hence, this point:

Which is precisely why motivating the base is so important. Dems could easily sweep the elections if only they motivated their base to turn out like the GOP's demographics reliably do year after year.

Well, it's easier to do that when a Republican is the President. The paradox is amazing, really. The offices that actually make government work are left to the mercy of the opposition because Democrats feel content with just having the Presidency.

[Napkiraly]

Oh it does, certainly. It'll be worse under the GOP however.

Then take a risk. Nothing gets better if nobody does.

It's not just a risk, it's an act of ideological blindness that will not end the way you think it will. It's not simply the Presidency at stake this year. The issue over SCOTUS is probably the most important thing this year, since that will have ramifications for decades.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I said I'd wait until after New York, I said if he could get within 5 points in New York, I said that while basically improbable, I'd wait until the results came in because remembering Michigan...surprises happen. But I knew the demographics, I knew it was a closed primary, and I knew the voter history. The results are in, and I accept them.

Therefore, in the interest of promoting the ideals of democracy within the democratic party, and with every intention to prevent a Republican from succeeding President Obama. I'm changing my candidate, and I'm throwing myself behind Secretary Clinton.

She will be our nominee, and in the interest of the millions of Americans who aren't millionaires or billionaires, who are women, who are racial minorities, who are gay, and who are anything but Christian...the people who are traditionally fucked over by Republican policies...I can't see how I can put ideology ahead of actual people. She will be the most qualified person to enter the Oval Office, other than a Vice President since....ever. She is a liberal, perhaps not as progressive as Bernie Sanders, but that is a benchmark that is hard to meet because his views trend towards the extreme left. She has spent her life, fighting for women and children. When she was a young woman in Arkansas, she was apart of thee Children's defense fund. In spite of advice from her husband, the President of the United States, and in defiance of the Government of China, she stood on live television and declared before the world "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights!" Standing in a country, notorious for it's awful human rights record. When she was a Senator, she had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. She was no Barack Obama, or Ted Kennedy, or Bernie Sanders...but she was no coward. She would very loudly and very often make her disagreements with the decisions of the Bush administration known. She didn't have the best record on Wall Street, it didn't take an economist to know that our economy was heading towards recession. However, when it did, she voted for every single piece of legislation necessary for America to rebound. She stood with President Obama and American workers when they saved the auto industry, she stood with President Bush and small business owners when she voted to save the financial sector, and she stood with President Obama while he was pursuing a foreign policy that would ultimately make the world a more stable place even with the rise of Islamic radicalism. When the party was coming apart in 2008, she dismissed the "PUMAs" and gave Barack Obama the best endorsement of any other politician, because she knew the importance of putting a person of principle behind the Resolute desk.

Hillary is everything that the Republicans are not, she has everything that they lack. She accepts the science of climate change, and she is willing to act because she knows that it is the greatest threat of our lifetime. She understands that all Americans are equal, that LGBTQ+ Americans deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else. She recognizes that healthcare is a human right, and she is going to fight to strengthen the President's healthcare law in the hopes that it can become more like the systems in Western Europe. She knows that Black Americans don't want to live in fear of the police, have limited economic opportunities, and she knows that Latino Americans don't want to be demonized by their government, or disadvantaged by an economic system and a justice system that makes them losers more often than winners. She knows that we have to not only fight ISIS, but fight radical Islamic terrorism. She knows that the best way to prevent terror, is not to carpet bomb civilians, but to change ideas through education and eliminating poverty. She knows that sustained economic growth is not accomplished through the voodoo economics of high defense spending, low taxes, low regulation, and cuts to our safety nets. She knows that the best investment we can make in America is to invest in our youth, and that means making college affordable for every child in America who wants to live up to their God given potential. She knows that a woman has a right to make her own medical decisions, and that means funding planned parenthood and enforcing the laws of this country. She knows that no American, should work 40 hours a week to make poverty wages, so she supports a $12 minimum wage with room to grow. She knows that the people on Wall Street and K Street have been giving Americans a raw deal, and she believes that no bank is too big to jail and no executive is too powerful to jail. She understands the importance of appointing Supreme Court Justices who aren't compromises, but who are liberal and can't be bought. She understands the importance, of reforming our campaign finance system and killing Citizens United.

I could go all day. Hillary is well qualified, she is a liberal, and she will be an improvement on the legacies of her husband and Barack Obama. She will win the primaries, and she must win in November. I believe that Bernie Sanders should stay in the race, he makes her a better candidate, but I have accepted reality. He will not win, he is a loser in delegates and the popular vote. If you have to pick over how the count should count caucuses and "voter fraud" and all these incremental things in order to argue that your candidate should be the nominee...you've already lost. The system is not rigged, the system is working. People have voted, and the party has chosen. Furthermore, his supporters, a very specific few on this forum, I find truly repulsive. Knowing that they supported a candidate that I supported, made me question my own choices. The kind of ugliness, hypocrisy, self-righteousness,pettiness, bitterness, and inability to overcome this unearned persecution complex...it was a major turn off. If it had not been for them, perhaps I could have made it until June. But now, I understand the gravity of this race. Will we risk fucking over millions of Americans to make an ideological point that amounts to sour grapes that will leave the country in worse shape than when THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED IN 2000. Or will we accept Hillary, understanding that she is not a democratic socialist, but she is in the right place on nearly every issue. I choose Hillary Every time.

I will enthusiastically support her, I will volunteer for her in the general, and I'll do anything and everything I can to make sure that she become the 45th President of the United States.

Hillary 2016!

[Washington Resistance Army]

That all depends on what you see as progress really.

I'd imagine we have some ideological differences on this, no?

I meant progress of the sort that Sanders favours, and by extensions a chunk of the NSG Democratic Supporters rather than universially supported progress

I'd imagine so. Clinton wants to fuck me over far too much for me to consider it progress, but that's just me.

With any luck if she wins the GOP will come out in force and keep control of other things.

[The Carlisle]

Oh it does, certainly. It'll be worse under the GOP however.

Then take a risk. Nothing gets better if nobody does.

I would like to let you know that taking that risk puts me in direct harms way. Given that I'm transgender, having a GOP dominated government would more than likely make life more difficult for me for the next decade. Not to mention all the latino families across the USA who are directly at risk of a Trump presidency given his deportation happy agenda.

But go ahead, throw away your vote in a vain effort for your ideology and let people like me get fucked over by your "risk-taking". I appreciate it greatly.

[Kelinfort]

Have a goddamned party then.

Will do.

Funniest part is, I'm in the same boat as you. I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Hillary if it wasn't for her supporters.

i'm the opposite. Even if Sanders supporters were perfect, I wouldn't vote for him.

[Khadgar]

Then take a risk. Nothing gets better if nobody does.

It's not just a risk, it's an act of ideological blindness that will not end the way you think it will. It's not simply the Presidency at stake this year. The issue over SCOTUS is probably the most important thing this year, since that will have ramifications for decades.

We're gonna jump off this building and hope someone comes along with a trampoline. Sure prudence says this is likely suicidal, but you don't really know until you take a risk.

[Conserative Morality]

It's not just a risk, it's an act of ideological blindness that will not end the way you think it will. It's not simply the Presidency at stake this year. The issue over SCOTUS is probably the most important thing this year, since that will have ramifications for decades.

Pretty sure that's true most every election because the members of SCOTUS are generally old as hell and there are only 9 members so every one counts.

[Napkiraly]

Then take a risk. Nothing gets better if nobody does.

I would like to let you know that taking that risk puts me in direct harms way. Given that I'm transgender, having a GOP dominated government would more than likely make life more difficult for me for the next decade. Not to mention all the latino families across the USA who are directly at risk of a Trump presidency given his deportation happy agenda.

But go ahead, throw away your vote in a vain effort for your ideology and let people like me get fucked over by your "risk-taking". I appreciate it greatly.

Remember, your suffering is needed for them to proudly hold onto their ideological purity.

[Khadgar]

It's not just a risk, it's an act of ideological blindness that will not end the way you think it will. It's not simply the Presidency at stake this year. The issue over SCOTUS is probably the most important thing this year, since that will have ramifications for decades.

Pretty sure that's true most every election because the members of SCOTUS are generally old as hell and there are only 9 members so every one counts.

Well it's true every presidential election.