[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[Washington Resistance Army]

She can botch it by simply being Hillary Clinton. Even 538 dropped her chances of winning by almost 10% this week.

I keep hearing both Trump and Clinton have lost their chances of winning this week, but where the fuck are these percentages going to?

538's election forecasts, from what people say they have quite the track record of being accurate.

[Neutraligon]

I can't trust or entirely forgive anyone who chooses to have an R after their name. Not when the Republican Party is endorsing Trump as its nominee, and advancing such an abhorrent platform, following nearly a decade of fervent obstructionism and toleration of extremist, sometimes violent elements.

By remaining a Republican, you are endorsing them.

I basically speak well about both parties' candidates, and talk shit equally about them.

Kim Davis was a Democrat, and she was a fucking idiot. So Democrats also got a lot of bad apples at the local level, too. They do much better at the national level though and I tend to put my hat at the national level for democrat candidates at the top ballot since none of the Republicans (up until Kasich) align with my views. Trump doesn't align with my views, Clinton does somewhat, even if I think some of her ideas are dumb, at least they're not an economic threat.

Trump's the exact opposite. Too many flawed ideas and policies, and on the few things he and I would agree on, I feel he's mostly an economic threat because he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.

My problem with Trump is that I view him as not only an economic threat, I also view him as a threat to international diplomacy. Whether we like it or not, we as a country greatly effect and are strongly tied to different countries around the world. I feel Trump already has greatly harmed how we in the US are viewed around the world. President Obama did a lot to improve our image world wide after Bush, and while he made many mistakes in foreign policy, that improvement still remains. With the issues that are happening in Europe right now, we need a president that can and does have diplomacy, something Trump entirely lacks.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I basically speak well about both parties' candidates, and talk shit equally about them.

Kim Davis was a Democrat, and she was a fucking idiot. So Democrats also got a lot of bad apples at the local level, too. They do much better at the national level though and I tend to put my hat at the national level for democrat candidates at the top ballot since none of the Republicans (up until Kasich) align with my views. Trump doesn't align with my views, Clinton does somewhat, even if I think some of her ideas are dumb, at least they're not an economic threat.

Trump's the exact opposite. Too many flawed ideas and policies, and on the few things he and I would agree on, I feel he's mostly an economic threat because he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.

My problem with Trump is that I view him as not only an economic threat, I also view him as a threat to international diplomacy. Whether we like it or not, we as a country greatly effect and are strongly tied to different countries around the world. I feel Trump already has greatly harmed how we in the US are viewed around the world. President Obama did a lot to improve our image world wide after Bush, and while he made many mistakes in foreign policy, that improvement still remains. With the issues that are happening in Europe right now, we need a president that can and does have diplomacy, something Trump entirely lacks.

To me international diplomacy is also tied to the economy.

If we lose our diplomatic standing in the world to a blowhard, there goes our economy. To me, it all ties back to money and how our pockets will suffer as a result of it. Sure, I'm a dude down in Texas whose still going to earn 20-25 dollars an hour at the end of the day, but the price of what I end up purchasing is going to be much higher based on the conditions of the world tomorrow. And in this economy? It's really not worth it. Maybe Brexit didn't impact every market in the UK, but our national economy is tightly tied together to the point of just a drought in California can spike the price of produce in Texas, as a result we're a much more volatile economy.

[Freefall11111]

To me, it all ties back to money and how our pockets will suffer as a result of it.

Someone said something about this once. What was it.. oh, yes.

"The economy, stupid." - James Carville, 1992

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To me, it all ties back to money and how our pockets will suffer as a result of it.

Someone said something about this once. What was it.. oh, yes.

"The economy, stupid." - James Carville, 1992

He isn't entirely wrong though.

In the end, what most of us care about is "how much is that going to cost?"

[Freefall11111]

Someone said something about this once. What was it.. oh, yes.

"The economy, stupid." - James Carville, 1992

He isn't entirely wrong though.

In the end, what most of us care about is "how is that going to cost?"

I should clarify: I completely agree. Standards of living, which are driven by the economy, determine basically everything.

[USS Monitor]

I don't know.

Bernie came a lot closer, I think, than a lot of people realize. Had some things played out slightly differently, he might very well be the nominee. If he'd done better in some key early contests, built more momentum. If he hadn't been running against someone with near-universal backing from the party establishment from the get-go. If Clinton had been indicted. If more states had open or semi-open primaries.

We can go with all the what-ifs all day long and how Bernie was close to it. All of it doesn't matter in the end, though, because there's no other major candidate that hit the nation by storm like Sanders did. Jill Stein and Sanders are similar in outlook, but Sanders wants party unity, not dissention and loss to Trump.

Stein is not a good substitute for Sanders cos she doesn't have the experience and credibility that come with being a Senator, or even a former mayor of Burlington. She also has ballot access issues.

[Neutraligon]

My problem with Trump is that I view him as not only an economic threat, I also view him as a threat to international diplomacy. Whether we like it or not, we as a country greatly effect and are strongly tied to different countries around the world. I feel Trump already has greatly harmed how we in the US are viewed around the world. President Obama did a lot to improve our image world wide after Bush, and while he made many mistakes in foreign policy, that improvement still remains. With the issues that are happening in Europe right now, we need a president that can and does have diplomacy, something Trump entirely lacks.

To me international diplomacy is also tied to the economy.

If we lose our diplomatic standing in the world to a blowhard, there goes our economy. To me, it all ties back to money and how our pockets will suffer as a result of it. Sure, I'm a dude down in Texas whose still going to earn 20-25 dollars an hour at the end of the day, but the price of what I end up purchasing is going to be much higher based on the conditions of the world tomorrow. And in this economy? It's really not worth it. Maybe Brexit didn't impact every market in the UK, but our national economy is tightly tied together to the point of just a drought in California can spike the price of produce in Texas, as a result we're a much more volatile economy.

I agree that international relations is tied to the economy, but that is not all it effects. I have family and friends that are soldiers, which while it would of course effect the economy, it also is a matter of life and death.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know.

Bernie came a lot closer, I think, than a lot of people realize. Had some things played out slightly differently, he might very well be the nominee. If he'd done better in some key early contests, built more momentum. If he hadn't been running against someone with near-universal backing from the party establishment from the get-go. If Clinton had been indicted. If more states had open or semi-open primaries.

We can go with all the what-ifs all day long and how Bernie was close to it. All of it doesn't matter in the end, though, because there's no other major candidate that hit the nation by storm like Sanders did. Jill Stein and Sanders are similar in outlook, but Sanders wants party unity, not dissention and loss to Trump.

The point, obviously, is that it needn't take twenty years for major change to happen. We were so very close to getting a real progressive candidate for the Democrats this year that it could very easily have gone the other way in a slightly alternate universe. And Sanders still got a hell of a lot in the platform.

Its not just millennials who supported him either. He won pretty solidly under... what was it, 35?

There are lots of people in Sanders' organization who will be running in this election or over the next eight years. If some of them win Congressional seats now or in 2018 or 2020, some of them could be very well placed to make a bid for the Presidency in 2024.

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

[Draymond]

Maybe the biggest obstacle to the neo-Stein supporters will be her lack of ballot access in 23 states.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Maybe the biggest obstacle to the neo-Stein supporters will be her lack of ballot access in 23 states.

Is it really that many? I knew the Green Party had some issues with ballot access, but I didn't know it was so many states.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe the biggest obstacle to the neo-Stein supporters will be her lack of ballot access in 23 states.

Jill Stein and the Greens are a bad joke.

I particular the resent the way that Stein has been trying to drive a wedge between Sanders supporters and Clinton and get Sanders supporters to come over to her campaign. All this would do, if it actually succeeded on a large enough scale, is help Trump, undermine the progressive cause, marginalize progressives politically, and undo everything Bernie Sanders and his supporters have worked for.

I heard that she even offered to step aside if Bernie would run for the Greens, which seems really gracious until you realize that a) anyone who knows anything about Bernie knows he wouldn't take her up on it, b) it allows her to portray Bernie as a traitor to progressives to his own supporters when he inevitably ignores her as the joke that she is, and c) it is insulting to Bernie to suggest that he would be dishonest and opportunistic enough to stab the Democratic Party in the back and break his word on endorsing Clinton like that, or stupid enough to waste his political capital on such an empty stunt.

Thank God most Sanders supporters don't seem to be listening.

Essentially, Jill Stein is running to be Nader in 2000, only more so.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Maybe the biggest obstacle to the neo-Stein supporters will be her lack of ballot access in 23 states.

Jill Stein and the Greens are a bad joke.

I particular the resent the way that Stein has been trying to drive a wedge between Sanders supporters and Clinton and get Sanders supporters to come over to her campaign. All this would do, if it actually succeeded on a large enough scale, is help Trump, undermine the progressive cause, marginalize progressives politically, and undo everything Bernie Sanders and his supporters have worked for.

I heard that she even offered to step aside if Bernie would run for the Greens, which seems really gracious until you realize that a) anyone who knows anything about Bernie knows he wouldn't take her up on it, b) it allows her to portray Bernie as a traitor to progressives to his own supporters when he inevitably ignores her as the joke that she is, and c) it is insulting to Bernie to suggest that he would be dishonest and opportunistic enough to stab the Democratic Party in the back and break his word on endorsing Clinton like that, or stupid enough to waste his political capital on such an empty stunt.

Thank God most Sanders supporters don't seem to be listening.

Essentially, Jill Stein is running to be Nader in 2000, only more so.

Even as someone that was in the BernieOrBust camp, I think it's just as well he didn't take her up on that.

I actually think he played his hand pretty well, apart from not managing to win the nomination. It made sense for him to hold out for some concessions, but once he got them, it made sense to stand down and endorse Clinton. This way he gets to keep some clout within the party and will have an easier time getting people to cooperate with him in the Senate.

[Guy]

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

Gabbard certainly has the ideology to be the successor Presidential candidate. While running as a Representative, even with 10 years of experience, is a tad unusual, that's not my main qualm with her.

The question for me is whether she is the right person to be President. Can we agree that part of the reason why Obama was a better Pres than W. is not just his ideology, but his capabilities and character as well? I've seen Gabbard here and there, and my feelings have been decidedly mixed at best.

I also don't think that support for Clinton should exclude someone from a tilt at the Presidency. Not that I necessarily think he'd be good, but Peter Shumlin would ideologically be as progressive as most Sanders supporters. Same thing for, say, Tom Harkin back in the day (shoulda been Pres in '92 ;_;).

[The Romulan Republic]

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

Gabbard certainly has the ideology to be the successor Presidential candidate. While running as a Representative, even with 10 years of experience, is a tad unusual, that's not my main qualm with her.

She's also a veteran and former Vice Chair of the DNC. And she could easily acquire a more diverse resume in the next eight years.

The question for me is whether she is the right person to be President. Can we agree that part of the reason why Obama was a better Pres than W. is not just his ideology, but his capabilities and character as well? I've seen Gabbard here and there, and my feelings have been decidedly mixed at best.

Gabbard resigned her post as Vice Chair of the DNC to campaign for Sanders despite the odds against him, rather than putting her position first or abusing her position in the DNC to favour Sanders (the way Shultz did for Clinton). That demonstrates conviction, courage, selflessness, and integrity.

I also don't think that support for Clinton should exclude someone from a tilt at the Presidency. Not that I necessarily think he'd be good, but Peter Shumlin would ideologically be as progressive as most Sanders supporters. Same thing for, say, Tom Harkin back in the day (shoulda been Pres in '92 ;_;).

I don't think we're in any disagreement here. Indeed, my single biggest reservation about Gabbard may be her reluctance to endorse Clinton, as it leads me to question her judgement and her ability to compromise when necessary.

[Mike the Progressive]

The problem with that kind of thinking is that a lot of people think that Trump is the answer.

I understand their anger, don't get me wrong. I'd like to see change in Washington too. But I know that that's not likely this election, or the next one, or the next one. Change won't happen until millennials are old enough to take the reins of the current establishment.

So I give it around 20 or so years before we can see millennial candidates whose turn will be to make a change in politics.

I don't know.

Bernie came a lot closer, I think, than a lot of people realize. Had some things played out slightly differently, he might very well be the nominee. If he'd done better in some key early contests, built more momentum. If he hadn't been running against someone with near-universal backing from the party establishment from the get-go. If Clinton had been indicted. If more states had open or semi-open primaries.

The world are full of "ifs"

[Ngelmish]

We can go with all the what-ifs all day long and how Bernie was close to it. All of it doesn't matter in the end, though, because there's no other major candidate that hit the nation by storm like Sanders did. Jill Stein and Sanders are similar in outlook, but Sanders wants party unity, not dissention and loss to Trump.

The point, obviously, is that it needn't take twenty years for major change to happen. We were so very close to getting a real progressive candidate for the Democrats this year that it could very easily have gone the other way in a slightly alternate universe. And Sanders still got a hell of a lot in the platform.

Its not just millennials who supported him either. He won pretty solidly under... what was it, 35?

There are lots of people in Sanders' organization who will be running in this election or over the next eight years. If some of them win Congressional seats now or in 2018 or 2020, some of them could be very well placed to make a bid for the Presidency in 2024.

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

It's a bit premature to conclude that there will be a powerful, Sanders-affiliated group winning elections in the immediate short-term future although it's possible. Neither Dean nor Obama were able to translate their grassroots organization into much beyond advocacy groups.

I also think that the litmus test for progressivism in America shouldn't be how closely a candidate hugs Sanders or his movement; there are other accomplished progressives out there and what anybody, Sanders supporter or not, has to say about policy is the most important qualification in those terms.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We can go with all the what-ifs all day long and how Bernie was close to it. All of it doesn't matter in the end, though, because there's no other major candidate that hit the nation by storm like Sanders did. Jill Stein and Sanders are similar in outlook, but Sanders wants party unity, not dissention and loss to Trump.

The point, obviously, is that it needn't take twenty years for major change to happen. We were so very close to getting a real progressive candidate for the Democrats this year that it could very easily have gone the other way in a slightly alternate universe. And Sanders still got a hell of a lot in the platform.

Its not just millennials who supported him either. He won pretty solidly under... what was it, 35?

There are lots of people in Sanders' organization who will be running in this election or over the next eight years. If some of them win Congressional seats now or in 2018 or 2020, some of them could be very well placed to make a bid for the Presidency in 2024.

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

I'm 27, so my cohort is late 20s to mid 30s.

While I found Sanders a breath of fresh air, the point is that it'll take years before change happens in our lifetimes, if it even happens.

You're counting on fast-acting change, but that hasn't happened under the direction of the current generation in politics. Why should it happen, say, right now?

[The Romulan Republic]

The point, obviously, is that it needn't take twenty years for major change to happen. We were so very close to getting a real progressive candidate for the Democrats this year that it could very easily have gone the other way in a slightly alternate universe. And Sanders still got a hell of a lot in the platform.

Its not just millennials who supported him either. He won pretty solidly under... what was it, 35?

There are lots of people in Sanders' organization who will be running in this election or over the next eight years. If some of them win Congressional seats now or in 2018 or 2020, some of them could be very well placed to make a bid for the Presidency in 2024.

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

I'm 27, so my cohort is late 20s to mid 30s.

While I found Sanders a breath of fresh air, the point is that it'll take years before change happens in our lifetimes, if it even happens.

You're counting on fast-acting change, but that hasn't happened under the direction of the current generation in politics. Why should it happen, say, right now?

Incorrect.

I think major change would take time even with the right candidates. But I think we could potentially get the ball rolling in a major way in the next four-ten years.

[The Romulan Republic]

The point, obviously, is that it needn't take twenty years for major change to happen. We were so very close to getting a real progressive candidate for the Democrats this year that it could very easily have gone the other way in a slightly alternate universe. And Sanders still got a hell of a lot in the platform.

Its not just millennials who supported him either. He won pretty solidly under... what was it, 35?

There are lots of people in Sanders' organization who will be running in this election or over the next eight years. If some of them win Congressional seats now or in 2018 or 2020, some of them could be very well placed to make a bid for the Presidency in 2024.

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

It's a bit premature to conclude that there will be a powerful, Sanders-affiliated group winning elections in the immediate short-term future although it's possible. Neither Dean nor Obama were able to translate their grassroots organization into much beyond advocacy groups.

Never said it was certain. Just possible.

I also think that the litmus test for progressivism in America shouldn't be how closely a candidate hugs Sanders or his movement; there are other accomplished progressives out there and what anybody, Sanders supporter or not, has to say about policy is the most important qualification in those terms.

True enough.

But the fact remains that Sanders has become the most prominent and influential spokesman and rallying point for progressives, although Warren could have been and could yet regain that role.

[USS Monitor]

Hell, there's already at least one name among the Sanders ranks that I could see as a candidate in 2024, if things go right. That being Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

Gabbard certainly has the ideology to be the successor Presidential candidate. While running as a Representative, even with 10 years of experience, is a tad unusual, that's not my main qualm with her.

The question for me is whether she is the right person to be President. Can we agree that part of the reason why Obama was a better Pres than W. is not just his ideology, but his capabilities and character as well? I've seen Gabbard here and there, and my feelings have been decidedly mixed at best.

I also don't think that support for Clinton should exclude someone from a tilt at the Presidency. Not that I necessarily think he'd be good, but Peter Shumlin would ideologically be as progressive as most Sanders supporters. Same thing for, say, Tom Harkin back in the day (shoulda been Pres in '92 ;_;).

What's Shumlin's position on guns? As much as I love Vermont and its gun fetish, it tends to trip people up in Democratic primaries.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Gabbard certainly has the ideology to be the successor Presidential candidate. While running as a Representative, even with 10 years of experience, is a tad unusual, that's not my main qualm with her.

The question for me is whether she is the right person to be President. Can we agree that part of the reason why Obama was a better Pres than W. is not just his ideology, but his capabilities and character as well? I've seen Gabbard here and there, and my feelings have been decidedly mixed at best.

I also don't think that support for Clinton should exclude someone from a tilt at the Presidency. Not that I necessarily think he'd be good, but Peter Shumlin would ideologically be as progressive as most Sanders supporters. Same thing for, say, Tom Harkin back in the day (shoulda been Pres in '92 ;_;).

What's Shumlin's position on guns?

It was very pro-gun.
He's recently been (rhetorically) a bit more in-line with Democrat orthodoxy.

[Ngelmish]

It's a bit premature to conclude that there will be a powerful, Sanders-affiliated group winning elections in the immediate short-term future although it's possible. Neither Dean nor Obama were able to translate their grassroots organization into much beyond advocacy groups.

Never said it was certain. Just possible.

I also think that the litmus test for progressivism in America shouldn't be how closely a candidate hugs Sanders or his movement; there are other accomplished progressives out there and what anybody, Sanders supporter or not, has to say about policy is the most important qualification in those terms.

True enough.

But the fact remains that Sanders has become the most prominent and influential spokesman and rallying point for progressives, although Warren could have been and could yet regain that role.

The fact that whether or not potential future candidates backed Sanders or have his explicit endorsement (or that of his still nebulous and poorly defined movement) is already starting emerge as a potential litmus test is a bit alarming to me. It suggests that everything I detest in primary politics (personality over policy, symbols over substance) is coming home to roost on the side of the party that I most identify with in policy terms. Granted, it's early days yet, but I don't feel that the search for progressive standard-bearers should be in any way Sanders-centric.

[Ashmoria]

I also hope that Hillary doesn't completely botch her campaign either. Otherwise, a Trump presidency could leave America permanently scarred.

I don't even know how she can botch her campaign.

She just has to let Trump talk and for her to remain blithely moderate throughout the campaign and deflecting controversy attacks from Trump. At this point, the only way Clinton can fuck up is if she decides to not let Trump do all the work for her of discrediting him.

did you see the ad where they had wide eyed kids watching trump on tv?

she is going hard at the middle class mom demographic.

[Marylandonia]

I am the Trumpence ~ (apologies to The Beatles)

I am me and you hate me the GOP
And we are not together
See how it's done like fake holes in one
See how they lie
Denying

Sitting on a Jeff Flake
Waiting for McCain to come
Nomination T-shirt, stupid bloody Christie
Pence you've been a naughty boy
You let your polls go down

I am the pagan
They are the pagans
I am the Trumpence
Goo go git Jeb

In the city policeman sitting
Cleveland lots of policemen in a row
CBS eye like Romney's the guy
See who they'll run
They're lying
Denying, denying, denying

Yellow chicken bastards
Talking bout me vilified
Grabbing all the long knives
Demographic Priebus
Trump, you've been a whiny bitch
You've let the big bucks down

I am the pagan
They are the pagans
I am George Wallace
Goo go git Jeb

Thinking of the Nixon pardon
Wishing for Reagan
If Reagan don't come you get a man
commanding a distinguished name

I am the pagan
("How do you win, sir")
He is the pagan
("The man maintains a fortune")
I hate the congress
Goo goo git Jeb Goo Goo Go git Jeb

Party stalwarts, smoke room jokers
Don't you think the voters laugh at you
(Ho ho ho hee hee hee hah hah hah)
See them smile like pigs in a sty
See Trump shanghaied
Decrying

A Political graveyard
Tearing down the old Trump tower
Military doctrines sorry Obama
Man, you should have seen them kicking
Hillary Clinton

I am the Pagan
He is the pagan
I lose the congress
Goo go git Jeb
Goo goo go git Jeb
Goo go git Jeb
Goo goo go git jeb
Goo go
Jeba Jeba Jeb a
Jeba Jeba Jeb a
Jeba Jeba Jeb a
Jeba Jeb a...

Despot despot...
Everybody despot
Despot despot...
Everybody despot

Despot despot...
Everybody despot
Despot despot...
Everybody despot

Despot despot
Everybody despot...

(Oh thy tired, servicable villain
Sent down b'father, f#ck you)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IpP3bc4AU0