General American Politics Thread

[Seattleite]

You from one of the mentioned states? Maybe even also from Colorado?

[Heliocentrical]

No, I just wanted to say hi.

[R3ANIM4T0R]

People say Trump voters are stupid an they vote for Sanders - man who has no clue how economy works and one of his promises is double minimal wage. Even corrupt oligarchs from third world countries do not promise shit like that. Hilary ir corporations whore, in best case scenario she would do nothing, like Obama. Obama managed to do absolutely nothing in 10 years of service.

So we have Trump. No he is not perfect in any way. But western world needs something fresh, something new. Need some patriotism, nationalism, need to become great again. Europe is also electing more and more right politicians, because of what insane nonsense idiotic leftists have done.

Shit like that: https://www.facebook.com/1609776849267928/videos/1691436504435295/

 

West will be great again. Btw, I'm from Europe.

[Blightmare]

Obama managed to do absolutely nothing in 10 years of service.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Here's an extremely long list, complete with source links to .gov websites that tell otherwise. No one has to like a president but this whole thing of "he did nothing" gets very tiresome after 8* years.

 

Alternatively, http://wtfhasobamadonesofar.com/

 

As for Trump, he is the last thing America needs. America, let alone anywhere on the planet, does not need a leader who consistently lies through his teeth saying only what he needs to further his goal(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8 but it's made using things trump has said.), nor does it need his shameless racism and sexism. 1, 2, 3, 4

 

I would also like to point out that a large portion of the active userbase in this subforum are on the left viewtopic.php?f=55&t=7976 and I like to think the average user here is above how you described us.

[rairii]

People say Trump voters are stupid an they vote for Sanders - man who has no clue how economy works and one of his promises is double minimal wage. Even corrupt oligarchs from third world countries do not promise shit like that. Hilary ir corporations whore, in best case scenario she would do nothing, like Obama. Obama managed to do absolutely nothing in 10 years of service.

So we have Trump. No he is not perfect in any way. But western world needs something fresh, something new. Need some patriotism, nationalism, need to become great again. Europe is also electing more and more right politicians, because of what insane nonsense idiotic leftists have done.

Shit like that: https://www.facebook.com/1609776849267928/videos/1691436504435295/

 

West will be great again. Btw, I'm from Europe.

 

Trump has shown time and time again that he simply does not care about his constituents, and people just write this off as "finally, a candidate who speaks his mind!"

Sanders is definitely a candidate who speaks his mind, and I'm voting for him because while I don't entirely agree with his economics, I know he's a candidate willing to listen to his supporters and non-supporters alike and is willing to provide help to the people who absolutely need it. He's stood by the economically struggling and socially marginalized for decades and he has my vote.

[Seattleite]

Username, please. While I agree with you politically, I would ask that you please not feed the blatant troll. I don't want a flame war in a thread I'm posting in.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Jeb_CC]

Seattleite, we're not retards. We have a reason for every little thing we do. We don't go handing warnings around for the fun of it.

 

OT: I haven't heard much about who the other candidates are. All I know is that there's a few weirdos in the bunch and I feel kinda sorry for America at the moment. XD

[Seattleite]

I didn't say Username was stupid, I just don't think he/she realises that guy's a troll. It can be hard to tell sometimes, there's no shame in it.

 

EDIT:

Boy, did I ever misread that? No, I'm not calling you stupid. I don't believe you are. Why you'd think that, when I've already said my piece on the matter in PM, I don't know. Maybe you didn't read it. But this isn't the time or the place, and I should have kept that comment to myself anyway, despite its veracity. I have now retracted it. So I'm going to stop talking about this now in this thread, and if you want to talk about it, PM me, but I'd prefer you didn't. I DON'T want to talk about it, I've already said everything I want to on the matter.

 

OT:

Basically right now we have one guy who wants to bring the US up to date with the rest of the civilized world (Sanders), one self-serving sellout who only cares about her career (Clinton), one billionaire who uses reality show tactics and wants the position to further the powerful (Trump), one right-wing religious lunatic who wants to turn us into a theocracy (Cruz), a glitchy corporate robot (Rubio), a boring old man who wants the status quo because he can't take change but otherwise is the most reasonable person on his side, if only he wasn't more painful to listen to than Joe Biden on Ambien (Kasich) and one loony tune who thinks the pyramids were biblical grain silos and Vladimir Putin "is a one horse country, oil and energy" (Carson).

 

Only the first three are still relevant, though. Seems like an easy choice to me.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

Problem is, I can not in good conscience vote for anyone that supports abortion... That automatically removes ALL democrats from the lineup, leaving me with whatever is on the other side of the equation.

[Seattleite]

So basically, you're saying you're a one-issue voter? I'm not going to debate with you the ethics of abortion, but is that really the most important issue to you? More important than all other domestic and foreign policies? You understand that Trump will be the republican nominee. Judging by your statements, you really don't like him either. Wouldn't the reasonable thing be to abstain, then? Or maybe protest with a write-in candidate? I'm sure Rand Paul wouldn't mind getting votes despite not being in the race, he might even use it as a talking point in 2020.

[Epsilon]

Despite his.... debatable economic policies, I voted for Sanders on Tuesday simply because:

 

1. Clinton has proved herself to be terribly capricious and never maintains one platform for long.

2. Trump is a pig-headed simpleton (I think mostly everyone here will agree with this). Admittedly prone to hyperbole and "playing to people's fantasies."

3. Rand Paul has suspended his campaign, and I disliked most of his stances on social issues anyway.

4. Ron Paul is retired.

 

The first election in which I'm legally eligible to vote is the one in which none of the candidates's words resound with me much at all.

 

I do agree with Username, however, that he (Sanders) is the greatest champion of the socioeconomically downtrodden of all those currently running. Why anyone feels that Trump would empathize with the middle class is beyond me...

[BTGBullseye]

So basically, you're saying you're a one-issue voter?

No, but that is one non-negotiable issue.

 

I'm not going to debate with you the ethics of abortion, but is that really the most important issue to you? More important than all other domestic and foreign policies?

I feel legalized murder to be wrong, and far more important than money any day. Abortion is legalized murder, and currently government sponsored. (even to the point of forcing certain establishments to provide abortions in order to be funded in any way by the government, including using Medicaid/Medicare to pay for services)

 

You understand that Trump will be the republican nominee.

I do.

 

Judging by your statements, you really don't like him either.

I have a suspicion that he's playing a role at this point, and will do something very different once in office.

 

Wouldn't the reasonable thing be to abstain, then? Or maybe protest with a write-in candidate?

I would rather vote for the worst possible candidate that is against abortion, than throw away my vote. It's voting against abortion rather than for a particular candidate.

 

I'm sure Rand Paul wouldn't mind getting votes despite not being in the race, he might even use it as a talking point in 2020.

Wasn't really blown away by him either... None of the candidates are any good when they're stuck in this 2-party system.

[Seattleite]

Hillary just got very badly Berned yesterday. I mean, historically Berned. As in, Bernie pulled the biggest upset in primary history yesterday, and that is NOT hyperbole. He overcame an 22-point disadvantage and won by almost 2. That is a TWENTY FOUR POINT upset. That is ENORMOUS. It also throws into question literally every poll that shows Hillary with an advantage, especially since although he lost the other two states he also did better than expected by double digits, because she doesn't *have* any enormous leads anywhere else, and if he keeps beating polls by the current average of 20, he's splitting the delegates in Illinois and Florida, where her lead is the largest, and beating her literally everywhere else.

 

So, I'm going to call it early. Bernie Sanders is the new favourite. He'll overcome Hillary's win within the month, and stay in the lead clear through California. The super-delegates are still a problem, as that won't necessarily be enough to overcome their influence, as they are 15% of the vote. But most of them probably *won't* be willing to vote for her if she's down by more than about 5, because that would be an enormous scandal that would scorn the democratic party and possibly lead to the removal of the undemocratic super-delegate system. And if he wins by even more, say 10, and they still override the votes of the american people, the democratic party will suffer such a hit that the super-delegate system is going to have to be sacrificed to save the DNC.

 

And on the GOP side, Cruz is making up a little bit of Trump's lead, which is unfortunate because Cruz is literally the only politician running who is worse than Trump. I mean, he is the fundamentalist candidate, this election cycle's Rick Santorum, basically the slightly softer Christian version of Salman Al Saud. Trump would be a disaster, but Cruz would be a catastrophe. Unless you like the idea of the US being pushed towards theocratic government and the robber baron economic model, which I sure as hell don't.

 

Still, to beat trump at this point the GOP would have to make Kasich and Rubio drop out, and have them both endorse Cruz. That is unlikely, because they would massively prefer Rubio and since Cruz will never drop out, ever, even if he falls to 1%, they can't get Rubio. By the time they realize they can't wait for Rubio to suddenly recover, it'll be too late. As for their contested convention plan, that's an entirely unrealistic plan and it has never worked.

 

So it's looking even more like it'll be Trump vs Sanders. And the polling shows him with an 8-point lead (as opposed to Hillary's 5-point lead). And if it's Cruz vs Sanders, the victory is an even larger 9.7-point lead, which is odd because according to Realclearpolitics, Hillary is actually *losing* to Cruz in that match-up by 1.5 points. Even if Rubio managed to be the candidate, Sanders beats him by a comfortable 3.3 while Hillary loses by a significant 5. So whoever it is that ends up being the republican nominee, if Sanders wins the democratic primary he WILL be the next president of the United States. But if Clinton is the democratic nominee, she's likely to lose.

 

We'll have to wait and see, but this is exciting.

[BTGBullseye]

Well, I just got an interesting look at the campaign financing for the candidates...

 

1. Trump. The most likely Republican to win. Also has the lowest funding of all [possible to elect] candidates on either side, and seems to be nickeled and dimed to his current finances. (apart from his own personal $17m input, he has the lowest maximum donation of any candidate) The majority of his (non personal) funds are from small business. Total campaign funds: ~$27.4m.

2. Clinton. Has the most money, and most of that has come from investment firms and people that are linked to being part of the cause of the 'financial crisis'. Total campaign funds: over $188m.

3. Sanders. The majority of his money is coming from various Universities, tech companies, and the US government. Total campaign funds: ~$96.3m.

4. Cruz. Most of his money is coming from investment firms. (the same ones that took bailout money) Total campaign funds: ~$96.5m.

5. Rubio. Lots of big donations from companies with a history of questionable business practices. (like Oracle and several hedge fund corporations) Total campaign funds: ~$69m.

6. Kasich. Funds primarily coming from banks, and bank holding companies. Total campaign funds: ~$15.4m.

 

Also, Trump has the honor of having the most money spent to target him in a negative light. (over $35m, about 10x the amount spent on any other candidate)

 

[EDIT] Corrected for inaccurate information in relation to Sanders funding.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Seattleite]

3. Sanders. Almost all of his money comes from the Unions. Total campaign funds: ~$96.3m.

 

This is not true. Sanders gets most of his money from small, private donations. The list you're looking at omits those private donations, and is all his lifetime donations rather than what he's received specifically for the presidential election. This guy's average donation size is $27.

[RandomGuy]

I do agree with Username, however, that he (Sanders) is the greatest champion of the socioeconomically downtrodden of all those currently running.

Sanders is the champion of two groups: young middle class white liberals (e.g. college students, particularly men), and angry factory workers who have been obsoleted by the modern economy (again mostly middle class, mostly white, mostly men). His support for the former manifests in pointlessly expensive policies that benefit only them, like free tuition, while his support for the latter manifests itself in long-debunked anti-free trade, anti-immigration economic protectionism/populism that is opposed by almost every mainstream economist (he's gotta get that union money somehow). This is why he loses the black and Latino votes by anywhere between 3-1 and 8-1 in every state (e.g. Texas, where Sanders tied with Clinton for the white male vote, but Clinton got 83% of black voters, 71% of Latinos, and 70% of women). In addition to minorities, he also lags with women voters and voters above the age of 40, though it's not nearly as huge as the disparity of his support among racial minorities. Even in Michigan, which was hailed by Sanders supporters as his breakthrough to minority voters, Clinton got 68% of the African-American vote to Sanders' 28% vote according to the exit polls. Sanders barely squeezed through via his dominance of the white male vote (62% v 36%).

 

Speaking of which, Clinton swept Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, and seems to be pulling a thin win in Illinois. 538's projections are roughly accurate so far. Missouri is still too close to call according to CNN, though so far it looks like Sanders is leading by a few points (538 projected an effective tie). He'll probably win it.

 

I await the inevitable cries from Bernie Bros of "corporate shills" or "low information minorities".

 

Hang on, I had some useful images for this subject last Tuesday. The exit polls for the four most populous states being voted on, from all across the country, from the deep south to the middle south swing state to New England to the Mexican-heavy southwest:

 

Here's Texas:

Virginia:

Massachusetts:

Georgia:

As you can see, if only white men were allowed to vote, Sanders would have won all these states. Instead he lost them by:

 

Texas: 66-33

Georgia: 71-28

Virginia: 64-35

Massachusetts: 50-48

 

Sanders' issue for the whole campaign has been that he has been unable to dominate any group besides young middle class whites. I'll wait for the exit polls this time around, but I doubt that's changed this week.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

3. Sanders. Almost all of his money comes from the Unions. Total campaign funds: ~$96.3m.

 

This is not true. Sanders gets most of his money from small, private donations. The list you're looking at omits those private donations, and is all his lifetime donations rather than what he's received specifically for the presidential election. This guy's average donation size is $27.

Actually, I was looking specifically at his 2016 campaign donors... Over 80% of his 2016 funding is coming from Unions.

[RandomGuy]

3. Sanders. Almost all of his money comes from the Unions. Total campaign funds: ~$96.3m.

 

This is not true. Sanders gets most of his money from small, private donations. The list you're looking at omits those private donations, and is all his lifetime donations rather than what he's received specifically for the presidential election. This guy's average donation size is $27.

Actually, I was looking specifically at his 2016 campaign donors... Over 80% of his 2016 funding is coming from Unions.

Citation?

[BTGBullseye]

Ah, sorry... Was looking at some sort of state data on another site, I think... Will update the post.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000528&

 

Most of his funding is coming from Universities, various tech companies, and various government entities. (and how the heck did he get $11,207 from the US Postal Service?!?)

[Seattleite]

Dude, do the math. That's $485,727 on that list. Where's the rest of the $96,300,000? Oh, right, it's not listed. Because as I said, individual donations are the overwhelming majority of his campaign finances, and those aren't listed.

 

Seriously, you can do the math. This is embarrassing.