US Politics

[TheRevanchist]

Of those left, for me, the top two are Sanders and then Clinton.  No one else is worth looking at, except Kasich.  

 

I think Kasich has less publicity because of the lack of insane behavior.  It's a shame when a sound mind is your worst enemy when being elected a major world leader.

[Mal]

You all need to have HIGH ENERGY.

[FredEffinChopin]

The animal kingdom has chosen its candidate

 

 

[FredEffinChopin]

Pardon the double, but I forgot to post the video, which is nothing short of adorable. Also this person won Twitter today (I don't know, for some reason the image refuses to load in a post). 

 

[Thursday Next]

Wherein America has become Ancient Rome.

 

[deanb]

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/usa

 

Foreign Office have updated their USA travel advice to include a section for LGBT to avoid North Carolina and Mississippi.

[Mister Jack]

Hear about how Harriet Tubman is replacing Jackson on the 20?

 

[FredEffinChopin]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-stanford/

 

"Lucifer in the flesh," Boehner told Stanford's David Kennedy, a history professor emeritus, according to the Stanford Daily. "I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.

 

lol. It's not the best time for American politics, but sometimes it's the little things in life that you need to bring a smile to your face. 

 

In all seriousness though, the Republican party might be history in all but name. I'm not sure the Democratic party is very far behind though, as there might be a left-leaning tea party brewing right now, readying itself to swallow the party in similar fashion. Perhaps these are the ashes from which a viable third party rises... One can only hope.

[TheMightyEthan]

The problem is with the way our elections work you can have more than 2 nationally viable parties for any extended period of time.

[Mal]

A viable third (or fourth) party in this day and age, even for a limited amount of time, might get the dialog going for a better system. Having the establishment toss a relatively viable candidate around is shit but so is having radical elements battling for (and winning) the control for a nationally viable party.

[TheMightyEthan]

Meh, there have been party deaths before, and they didn't change the system.  Do maybe one or both of the current parties will die and be replaced, but ultimately we'll still have two major parties when the dust settles.  Don't get me wrong, hitting reset on the current two parties would be a good thing I think, but I just don't see any systemic changes being made to do away with the inherent two-party nature.

[Thursday Next]

We could always invade and stuff? Then you can have two and a bit parties and a royal family?

[deanb]

And the commonwealth games, and proper electric kettles. And the BS1363.

[deanb]

Thoughts n prayers with you America.

[Mal]

Yeah, seems like with Cruz's departure the GOP gave up. Still... wait till November before praying over our corpse.

[TheMightyEthan]

I fervently hope, but have very little actual confidence, that Clinton will beat Trump in the general.

[Mr. GOH!]

I'd give Hillary 2:1 odds to beat Trump. The demographics alone make it difficult to Trump; if Hillary wins all the states that have gone Democratic in the past six elections plus the states that went blue four or more times (or just Florida, or just Ohio and VA) in those same elections, she'll be the President specter of massive Republican defection to a third party or even Hillary in swing states. Trump has to persuade big electoral vota states to flip red and I don't see that happening. The vast majority of well-educated people will never vote for him, and neither will minorities or women. There is talk that, in the event of a third party challenger to Trump's right, even TX could go blue.

[TheMightyEthan]

Well I just checked gambling odds at a bunch of places, because historically that's the most accurate indicator of presidential outcomes, and currently they have the odds between Clinton and Trump ~70/30 in favor of Clinton.  Dear lord I hope that bears out.

 

*Edit - Thing thing I read about it was around the 2012 election, but essentially they believe the reason they're so much more accurate is because people have actual money riding on it and they do a better job of taking into account things like voter suppression and that kind of stuff that's kind of outside the normal method of polls+likely turnout.

[deanb]

Yeah, Cruz was crap and it's sorta good he's gone since he at least might have had voters n resonated with core republicans. But Trump is still pretty crazy. Be fun in a TV show maybe, but not for real laws n real people. I think those on the fence given the choice between Hilary or Trump are probably gonna go with Hilary.

 

A global super power lead by a reality tv show host isn't going to inspire confidence on the global stage at the very least. Diplomacy requires he be invited out to all the global leader shindigs, but it's likely he'll be heavily sidelined, but I suspect your own people will make sure he's out the way of the "real" talks.

 

This isn't going to happen with Trump

 

Speaking as an outsider of course. Overall my only major concerns on US political system is that in the future it'd be nice to take my kids to disneyworld.

 

I guess for the most part if it comes down to Clinton v Trump, the November elections will likely be some kind of IQ test. It's actually kinda funny, Clinton is a Democrat, but Trump is pretty much his own party, Republicans just lost their last candidate from the race. The "grand old party" might just have died of old age. At least on the Executive ring, pretty solid in the other two arms of power.

[Mr. GOH!]

I think the argument in support of prediction markets ("gambling sites" is a disfavored term among the folks writing about these issues), is that folks who put their money where their mouth is generally do so using information that is not accessible to pollsters, just like in other exchange-based markets (e.g., the stock market). Sure, some people are losers, but the common, cautious wisdom bears out.

 

A close look at the history of markets, however, bears out that bubbles are possible when there's mass delusion. I do not think that's the case with Hillary and Trump, however.

 

There are tons of Republicans in swing states who will vote for Hillary or stay home instead of voting for Trump or, notably, donating money to the RNC and Trump. Trump has a very solid foundation among angry white males making less than $50k and their spouses, but that's it. There are millions of those sorts of voters in the U.S., and they are overrepresented in GOP primaries. But they are a minority.

[TheMightyEthan]

And then there was one.

[Mr. GOH!]

Good riddance. Now it's up to the dems to tear Trump apart.

[TheMightyEthan]

I wish I had your confidence.

[Mal]

The GOP could, you know, not have a candidate. There's no fooling anybody that the party is not fractured. As for how the vote will go down, I'm not beyond believing that Trump could win. I'm from a state where the Governator was elected twice. Unlike Donald though, Arnold is actually a likeable guy (but not fit for office). Donald is not fit for office and he is a loathsome human being. I really hope most people can see Trump for who he is.

 

It's going to be kind of odd to abstain from voting for a president (that could realistically be elected) if it comes down to Hillary and Trump.

[FredEffinChopin]

I agree that Trump can win. This entire primary has been an exercise in removing our collective foot from our mouths every time we write his candidacy off. I've been told for a year now that he can't win anything, and that it's going to be over any minute, yet here we are. He's tapped into a new (for our time/setting), unique blend of political discontent and, simultaneously somehow, political and social ignorance. Conventional wisdom has gone out of so many windows in this election that it barely has a pulse at this point as far as I can tell. It should be getting carried around the woods or snow somewhere, searching for a three-eyed raven. 

 

I understand that the Republican electorate hardly represents the political landscape in America, but he seems to be galvanizing a portion of it that was largely inactive until now. Republican turnout so far is the highest it's been in my lifetime, and the presumptive Democratic nominee's campaign has managed to alienate a large portion of its base, and underwhelm much of the rest of it to boot. When your PACs are paying people to pretend that they like you on the internet, you have a problem.

 

The thing is, Trump actually has a platform. It's mostly incoherent, and he constantly contradicts itself when he tries to articulate it, but it's enough. This vague notion of restoring America to some unnamed point in time has resonated with people, and excited them. It's the prospect of change. Clinton is trying to sell the country on the idea of incremental progress at best, and a fight for the status quo at the worst. Her single strongest selling point might actually be Donald Trump's candidacy at this point, and it's admittedly a potent one, as there is constantly talk about this or that Republican considering voting Clinton in the general. It seems to me though, that this doesn't bode well in terms of a strong Democratic turnout. A lot of voters might find their couch to be the most compelling item on their minds after work on election day. 

 

None of this even considers how the actual campaigns leading up to the general will play out. For all the braindead comparisons that have been made between the Sanders and Trump campaigns, one true common characteristic that they share is a portion of the electorate who are primarily fed up with what they perceive as corrupt and exclusive political establishment that mainly works to serve the donor class. Clinton has become the posterchild for that status quo for many voters. Sanders talks about it constantly, but his approach limits the rhetorical force that a more direct, personal attack against his opponent would have. Donald Trump does not pull punches though, and if there is a person who is situated in a better vantage point from which to attack that weak spot than the candidate who donated, not just to political campaigns, but to HER political campaigns, I can't imagine who that person is. He can make up whatever narrative he wants around the donations, it doesn't matter. What matters is how he hammers it home as he continues to position himself as the anti-establishment candidate as he calls Clinton out for claiming to regulate the interests that facilitate her candidacy. Even something like pointing out their shared Delaware tax haven is something that helps him in this regard. He doesn't have to adhere to the same standards that other politicians do. He's a "businessman," and his supporters can overlook any behavior that is done legally for the purpose of maximizing his profit. It doesn't work so well for a candidate that is struggling to convince the progressive portion of her party that she's going to make the nation's wealthiest pay their fair share in taxes. 

 

And how can we anticipate her responding to this? Sanders' assault represents the mildest forms of political attacks that I've seen, despite their potency. His offensive largely amounted to identifying items on Clinton's record/history and contrasting it to his own, as well as framing her as representative of our corrupt campaign finance system. The response from the Clinton camp mainly amounted to screaming bloody murder and flailing in every direction. Are we going to see a Trump Bros meme pop up? Can we expect that to be effective? His voters don't register that frequency at all, and she's cried wolf enough in the primary that people who are disenchanted by her primary strategy might stop listening by then. 

 

I don't know, she seems incredibly vulnerable in this election. She has problems with likability and trustworthiness, she's mired in scandal, and she excites almost nobody. The DNC's support has been a tremendous asset in her primary race, but I'm not sure how helpful it's going to be in a general election.