2016 Election Thread (My God Kill Me Now)

[Freed Roger]

Mark me as preferring Trump to Cruz. Both as a nominee and as a president.

Yep.

I guess we should stop and just be glad the 3 of us agree that we prefer Trump over Cruz, rather than quibble over reasons why and whether we are eyeballing how much we have in 401K* should we want to move to another country if the disaster scenario of Trump/Cruz (Rubio too for me) winning presidency comes to fruition.

*not enough in my 401K

[Michael]

I've seen that poll. I think that Bernie's candidacy has changed the conversation since then.

I'm really glad to see that 92% of people would vote for a woman, but I'm more worried about how latent sexist tendencies--like a lot of the criticisms surrounding her presentation-- would affect her.

I admit Bernie's socialism has baggage. I also know that Hillary has baggage. Trump and Cruz have baggage. Posturing is pointless, and we should vote for the candidate we think is best.

He hasn't even started the conversation. America see Atheists and Muslims (not that there's anything wrong with them) more favorably than socialists. Think about that and really let it sink in. I respect the hell out of Sanders, but he's a horrible presidential candidate and may open the door for something crazy.

[Schlich]

The matchup stuff means nothing at this point. As always, see Dukakis, Michael and look at the 17 point lead he had in August.
Sanders is not electable. Of all the candidates, the one with the experience and manners closest to a President is Hillary. Barring some unforeseen event, she will win.

Having said that, work for Sanders, get to know the other people working for Sanders, organize and start grooming the best possible candidates for local and state offices and then work to get them elected. Do that for a decade or two and then you could be able to elect someone with Bernie's agenda that would actually have a chance of getting that agenda made into law.

Goldwater lost in a landslide but Reagan won 16 years later. Learn from that.

Okay, let me spell this out again. GE polls have no predictive power or forecasting ability. Got it. They are still a sampling of current public opinion about the candidates, and we should treat them that way. Bernie Sanders' socialism is not enough, on it's own, to completely knock him out of the conversation. Do you think there's a person in the country, right now, who knows his name but doesn't know that he's a "socialist?"

Have we even started talking about favorability ratings, where Sanders is the only candidate on the race on either side with a net positive one?

Are we going to completely dismiss the voter turnout argument? Or are we going to realize that Sanders' proven ability to raise voter turnout is how the Democrats stand the greatest chance of winning decisively like Obama did?

You realize that the "start local, work up" is exactly what Sanders has done his whole career and is how he got to the position he is?

And don't give me that "he has no chance to get any of his ideas passed" crap. He has a prolific 30 year history in politics and a 20 year history in congress. Look at it.

Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word,” McCain said. “But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented.

“In fairness, they fled communism. There is social democracy, right, like you see in Europe, where government provides for every aspect of your life, but there’s consequence to that. They fled communism, which is beyond socialism, obviously where government controls society, but also government controls politics, life, the banning of religion, people were being executed.

“What I appreciate about Bernie is he’s not trying to shirk from it. It’s what he believes in. He’s honest about it… I don’t personally have a problem with [Sanders] because he’s being honest about what he believes in. I’d love to have that debate.”

“Bernie Sanders is unique,” Inhofe says, “in that most of the Democrats I know in the Senate vote liberal and press-release conservative. Not Bernie. He’s a proud, in-the-heart, sincere liberal. I’ve never heard him once say something that didn’t come from his heart. That’s not true with all the people running for president, Democrats and Republican. I hold him in high regard.”

“I learned early on not to be auto­mat­ic­ally dis­missive of a Bernie Sanders ini­ti­at­ive or amend­ment.”

“I think he’s very out­spoken in terms of where he is ideo­lo­gic­ally. But when he gets down to the need to get le­gis­la­tion in­to law, then I find him to be one who’s will­ing to sit down and com­prom­ise and ne­go­ti­ate to get to a final product.”

“He is very open and honest as he goes through the process,” Miller said. “You know where Bernie is coming from.”

Find me similar quotes from Republican officials about Hillary and then we can talk about who will work better with them in Congress.

[Jocephus]

i think its a valid concern but for the wrong reasons. the reasons being people don't know what the word means and the right (and hillary) have no problem demonizing it and spreading fear. plus any elected official is gonna get co-opted some how.

its strange, for me, when people imply that a "businessman/woman" or "strong ceo" from a candidate, as if thats some sort of benefit.

[Michael]

i think its a valid concern but for the wrong reasons. the reasons being people don't know what the word means and the right (and hillary) have no problem demonizing it and spreading fear.

I don't disagree with this, but that's reality.

Do you think there's a person in the country, right now, who knows his name but doesn't know that he's a "socialist?"

I don't think America is intimately familiar with Sanders and he hasn't yet received that major scrutiny that a nominee gets. He will absolutely get hammered in a way you haven't yet seen.

Find me similar quotes from Republican officials about Hillary and then we can talk about who will work better with them in Congress.

Republicans desperately want Bern to get the nomination?

[Schlich]

I've seen that poll. I think that Bernie's candidacy has changed the conversation since then.

I'm really glad to see that 92% of people would vote for a woman, but I'm more worried about how latent sexist tendencies--like a lot of the criticisms surrounding her presentation-- would affect her.

I admit Bernie's socialism has baggage. I also know that Hillary has baggage. Trump and Cruz have baggage. Posturing is pointless, and we should vote for the candidate we think is best.

He hasn't even started the conversation. America see Atheists and Muslims (not that there's anything wrong with them) more favorably than socialists. Think about that and really let it sink in. I respect the hell out of Sanders, but he's a horrible presidential candidate and may open the door for something crazy.

I will gladly cherry pick the poll data from a poll about a specific person that is a week old instead of a poll that speaks in generalities about a poll that is more than 6 months old.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Goldwater lost in a landslide but Reagan won 16 years later. Learn from that.

But what lesson do you draw from that? Nominating Goldwater was a mistake or a step towards victory?

There is a great American Experience episode about 1964 that I would recommend to everyone. It spends a lot of time detailing how it not only was the start of what we typically remember as the 60's - hippies, civil rights, Vietnam, rock and roll, etc - but also how the 64 election spurred a host of young conservatives into action. It was an eye opener for me. Most of the big names of the neo-con revolution looked at that election as their first exposure to politics and what motivated them to participate in the process that culminated in the Reagan revolution and the current dominance of the Republican party in state legislatures and Congress. I would LOVE to see the same thing happen this year with all the people excited about Sanders.

[Schlich]

i think its a valid concern but for the wrong reasons. the reasons being people don't know what the word means and the right (and hillary) have no problem demonizing it and spreading fear.

I don't disagree with this, but that's reality.

Do you think there's a person in the country, right now, who knows his name but doesn't know that he's a "socialist?"

I don't think America is intimately familiar with Sanders and he hasn't yet received that major scrutiny that a nominee gets. He will absolutely get hammered in a way you haven't yet seen.

On what?

[Michael]

i think its a valid concern but for the wrong reasons. the reasons being people don't know what the word means and the right (and hillary) have no problem demonizing it and spreading fear.

I don't disagree with this, but that's reality.

Do you think there's a person in the country, right now, who knows his name but doesn't know that he's a "socialist?"

I don't think America is intimately familiar with Sanders and he hasn't yet received that major scrutiny that a nominee gets. He will absolutely get hammered in a way you haven't yet seen.

On what?

The fact that's he's a super leftist socialist.

[Schlich]

Everyone already knows that. Those who don't will find out that he's actually not a super leftist socialist and would have passed for a republican in the 60's--i.e. the good old days.