Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Again people are underestimating how much hatred there is of Hillary. Every single poll out there has Kasich beating her. A guy who can't even get any State besides his own to vote for him.

If Hillary wins it's not because she's inevitable or because anyone is voting for her. It's because the other party is in shambles.

There is hatred for Obama. There was hatred for Bill. There was hatred for Carter. Hillary's been around...so there's hatred for her too. If somebody else won the nomination...guess what, there'd be hatred for them. Liberals and moderates are behind her in the same numbers as they were behind any of these other dem candidates.

Rover

She won the 1%ers. Bernie won the little people. Or, each won their constituencies.

Bernie wins in states with least income inequality, Clinton in states with most.

Clinton is winning in diverse areas. That means cities. That means areas where there's money. That doesn't necessarily mean she's in anyones pocket...she is just getting support from minorities.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

You've made a fool of yourself the past few months. You've absorbed Clinton's electioneering strategy and rhetoric as if they were facts. Rookie mistake. A campaign is about perception, not fact, and you're old enough to know better.

However, the people in charge of Hillary's and Sanders' campaign are serious, experienced, and professional, and over the next few months they'll make the pivot to unity. Bernie will have a major speech at the convention and unleash a can of whup-as-s painting the GOP as the Official Spokesmen of Plutocracy, something Hillary could not do without drawing guffaws. Hillary will continue to back channel signal to Wall Street that she's house broken and won't upset their crime syndicate, and will probably wind up getting almost as much in contributions from them as the Republican since really what choice do they have? In so doing, we will nullify one of the major systemic advantages the GOP typically enjoys.

Now yes, it would be nice to have a liberal VP to balance the ticket, but we don't want to lose any Senate seats by doing it, so I'm not sure who that leaves for Hillary to pick. Has the country grown up enough to have two women, or do we need another round of avuncular old white guy to step in if the Student Driver gets careless? Good question.

The only things that matter between now and November are winning the White House, retaking the Senate, and closing the GOP House lead to where it can be drowned in a bathtub.

Kep its not my fault Bernie got his yellow teeth kicked in so I'm not sure where all your anger is coming from. What you don't seem to get is that its not possible to accommodate Sanders because he and his platform are absurd and he's spent the last month calling her corrupt and evil. You should have learned this lesson on the playground 50 years ago which amazes me about your attitude sometimes. Bernie made his bed by calling everybody corrupt who didn't agree with him. Now he gets to own that while Hillary makes her deal with the far more effective Warren who we both happen to like. Its his fault he's radioactive thanks to the way he's conducted his campaign.

Regarding VP's, I've heard Franken's name thrown around which would be interesting. No Sherrod Brown because that gives up a seat otherwise he'd be perfect. Could go Hickenlooper in CO if you don't mind the weird last name.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Doesn't the 20th Amendment say something about that?

Doesn't appear to be any term limits on VP's.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I know he's no progressive like Warren, but what if we just went with good old Uncle Joe as a VP again? It doesn't remove an incumbent senator from office, so there is no risk in losing a seat. He is an old white guy. He isn't running for president, but would have given different family circumstances so he isn't ready to retire from politics. He's experienced, and would be able to step right in when Hillary goes to jail!

I'm OK with it; I doubt he would be.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

People seem to not understand the Hillary phenomenon. Its very simple. Obama won the US election with 39% of whites. Let that sink in.

So now take just the democrat half of the US. The dominance of minorities in the democratic party is absolutely overwhelming at this point. With Hillary's support from minorities, frankly Sanders had no chance. None. He did as well as he has because minorities just don't show to the same extent in primaries that they do/will in the general election.

Frankly a Sanders nomination would have been very risky. Would minorities turn out?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Again people are underestimating how much hatred there is of Hillary. Every single poll out there has Kasich beating her. A guy who can't even get any State besides his own to vote for him.

If Hillary wins it's not because she's inevitable or because anyone is voting for her. It's because the other party is in shambles.

Which is what most of us have been saying from the beginning. (you know the people who think, not Rover ) No one likes Hillary, but they dont hate her as much as Cruz and Drumpf. (or Carson, iCarly, Walker...etc) The GOP has completely blown this one.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The dominance of minorities in the democratic party is absolutely overwhelming at this point.

In 2013 (the last year I could find a chart), 60% of the Democratic party was Non-Hispanic White.

Granted, if you're coming from the Country Club, your reaction to most places in America is going to be, "my God what's with all the coloreds here!"

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

People seem to not understand the Hillary phenomenon. Its very simple. Obama won the US election with 39% of whites. Let that sink in.

So now take just the democrat half of the US. The dominance of minorities in the democratic party is absolutely overwhelming at this point. With Hillary's support from minorities, frankly Sanders had no chance. None. He did as well as he has because minorities just don't show to the same extent in primaries that they do/will in the general election.

Frankly a Sanders nomination would have been very risky. Would minorities turn out?

A very good point. One of the many issues I've had with Sanders backers is the idea that they somehow count more than Clinton backers. So, Hillary is supposed to adopt Sanders platform to win the backing of his people. Where does that leave the 11M people that voted for her instead of him most likely because they liked her better on the issues? As you correctly state, if minorities stay home we can kiss off states like NV, FL, OH, etc - places the Dems need to win.

Lastly other people have mentioned this but I can't believe college educated people are still trotting out the "oh if Kasich was the nominee blah blah blah". Scooby & Handy, Kasich has the same chance of being the nominee as Scott Walker. The "white knight" of the GOP is now Paul Ryan, who will get slaughtered in the general election. Might was well roll the dice with Trump.

EDIT: Charlie Pierce weighs in: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44155/trump-clinton-win-new-york/

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Nobody's laid a finger on Kasich in the GOP race. If he were actually to be nominated the DNC would have turned him into the Joker before the week was out.

If there's one thing Dukakis and Gore should have taught us it's if you're a technocrat you had better be bringing extra helpings of charisma.

I really don't know what those dopes are going to do. There's rumblings that they'll just throw the White House and double down on keeping Congress and then stalling for yet another 4 years. I'd like to think the public wouldn't put up with that, but after Dubya the GOP shouldn't have been able to win any election for the next fifty years, and here we are with orc majorities in both chambers.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

In 2013 (the last year I could find a chart), 60% of the Democratic party was Non-Hispanic White.

Granted, if you're coming from the Country Club, your reaction to most places in America is going to be, "my God what's with all the coloreds here!"

Substitute party with voters and your results change drastically. To put another way, there are many liberal whites and many conservative whites. Minorities are the swing group...which is now so large that they will easily determine the election.

White liberals are the most reliable liberal voters. They will vote in any election. Minorities are not reliable and a Sanders election would put that turnout into serious question.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

We live in interesting times.

The chairman of the Senate Republican campaign arm told reporters he was advising colleagues facing tough contests for re-election to stay away from the GOP convention in Cleveland this summer, The Hill reported Tuesday.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) told reporters that his colleagues shouldn't participate in a fight for delegates among Republican presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Donald Trump.

“If there’s going to be a brouhaha, I’m advising candidates to be present for more unifying events,” Wicker said, according to The Hill.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was the first GOP senator to say he won't attend the convention and instead plans to focus on his re-election campaign. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also has said he won't attend in order to work on his own re-election.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Substitute party with voters and your results change drastically.

I don't understand what you mean. I'm not being snarky; I'm just not following.

The poor (because they're shlepping rich folks' sh-t around all day and good god we wouldn't want election day to be a holiday no siree bob) and the young (because they're f-cking stupid and distracted by shiny objects) are the unreliable voting blocs.

I agree though for different reasosn that Clinton will have a better GOTV than Sanders. She's intertwined with the party machine and she's been trading in favors for decades. This Election Day is probably going to be the first since JFK when the Dems actually cheat as much as the GOP.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Far be it for me to give advice to the GOP, but here goes:

They need to sink or swim with Trump. He's too far ahead in the primary race and his chief rival is more unelectable than he is. Furthermore, there's no reason for him to play ball if he gets boned out of the nomination. If his supporters stay home, GOP's hold on the House even comes into question. What the GOP needs out of him is a Bob Dole like run - yeah he loses but he doesn't kill you down ballot. While I'm doubtful Trump can pull that off, there's no choice at this point. Either give him the nomination or watch the eventual 10M votes he wins screw the Republican party out of spite.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Its not self designated democrats (the party) that matter, its those voting for democrats.

The poor, as you put it, don't turn out very well because they're typically minority. Rural constituencies turn out just fine. And rural Kansas is not full of not rich minorities. Minority turnout has been determining elections and if this is a competitive election, it will do so again. Hillary unlocks that.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Far be it for me to give advice to the GOP, but here goes:

They need to sink or swim with Trump. He's too far ahead in the primary race and his chief rival is more unelectable than he is. Furthermore, there's no reason for him to play ball if he gets boned out of the nomination. If his supporters stay home, GOP's hold on the House even comes into question. What the GOP needs out of him is a Bob Dole like run - yeah he loses but he doesn't kill you down ballot. While I'm doubtful Trump can pull that off, there's no choice at this point. Either give him the nomination or watch the eventual 10M votes he wins screw the Republican party out of spite.

Trump's changing his team. His campaign as he put it is 'in transition'. His language is changing. As of last night, he's not taking personal shots at Cruz. He's reaching out to Sanders votes.

The great Trump pivot has begun.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The poor, as you put it, don't turn out very well because they're typically minority. Rural constituencies turn out just fine.

I don't know which of us is right, but at least this is testable. Which factor is more important in turnout: race or wealth? From an exhaustive 3 minute internet search I don't see any study that measures one while controlling for the other, despite it seeming like a pretty obvious question.

In general, I believe that American racial disparities are really class disparities in disguise. Even racism in America is in my view actually a class issue, because people are taking the mental short cut and assuming class characteristics when they see race (expectation states theory 101). It's not that America treats black people like crap. It's that we treat poor people like crap, and because there's an overlap of poor and black we just go ahead and treat black people like crap to save time.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Frankly a Sanders nomination would have been very risky. Would minorities turn out?

Why wouldn't they? He is for more free money/food than Billery is.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Trump's changing his team. His campaign as he put it is 'in transition'. His language is changing. As of last night, he's not taking personal shots at Cruz. He's reaching out to Sanders votes.

The great Trump pivot has begun.

Love her or hate her, but Hillary is the only candidate who's run her primary race with the notion that she'll have to face a general election contest. Trump and Cruz based on past statements are dead to women and minorities. Sanders blasted Planned Parenthood and labeled all Southern Dems as irrelevant because they're conservatives which I'm sure blacks are thrilled about. Whining about independents being disenfranchised from voting because they can't join the Dem race last minute is also tone deaf as all hell.

My first indication that Hillary's team knew what they were doing was when she stayed campaigning in New Hampshire all week even though she had to know she was going to get blown out. Shows that she had an eye on November.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Why wouldn't they? He is for more free money/food than Billery is.

As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."

The GOP bribes voters every bit as much as the Dems, my friend. They just use different narratives, but in the end it's the same game.

Or did you mean to imply that only minorities respond to "free stuff"? Nah... that couldn't be it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Whining about independents being disenfranchised from voting because they can't join the Dem race last minute is also tone deaf as all hell.

I vowed I wouldn't respond to your trolling anymore but for FDR's sake at least be logically consistent. Your thesis is a candidate may act in ways in the primary which also look forward to the general. Sanders' appeal to the inclusion of independents is a perfect example of that: broadening appeal despite it not necessarily paying off immediately in the nomination round.

Your adolescent poutrage is getting in the way of your own arguments, silly.