US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by GDB

Still pretty sure his "foreign policy" and general attitude would end up causing World War III within a year of his inauguration.

I doubt it. He wouldn't be the first arrogant, haughty, and verbally aggressive leader in world history. If anything, that's kind of been the status quo for hundreds (thousands) of years.

I can obviously understand why people find him ridiculous, but if his appeal marks the death-knell for the current 100% plastic and fake style of politics, I'm his biggest fan.

[MrTerrorist]

From The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/svMxwRj3LdY

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[KiraYamatoFan]

Nice parody there, Stephen.

[SeijiSensei]

Rachel Maddow interviewed Bernie Sanders last night. Despite my doubts about his electability, he seems the most reasonable and sincere candidate running for President in either party.

I can't find a way to link directly to the interview, but it's on today's home page: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

A pro-Clinton SuperPAC broke the detente between the two campaigns with an email to reporters suggesting links between "socialist" Sanders and famous left-wingers Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and new UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. When Sanders told his supporters about this attack, he raised $1.2 million in 48 hours. Contributions hit 180 per minute, the highest rate ever recorded by the fundraising site ActBlue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b08820d917dcd0

I've been looking for polling data on the effect of having Biden in the race or not. The most recent Times/CBS poll has some bad news on this front for Sanders.

Preferences among Democratic primary voters

Clinton       47     58     +11
Sanders       27     28      +1
Biden         15     --     -15
Other/DK      11     14      +3

Without Biden in the race, Clinton's lead expands by ten points.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-...national-poll/

[james0246]

I do think a Sanders v. Cruz (pick your far right choice) election could be interesting, if for no other reason than America could finally decide if it is Progressive or Conservative. Obviously this is not realistic, because in such a scenario someone like Trump would step in as a third party candidate and probably win, but it's an interesting thought...

[risingstar3110]

From what I see, it's all momentum right now. As someone already pointed out that even Obama didn't get this close to Hillary at the same stage in 2008 as Bernie Sanders do .

Not to mention Sanders policy actually quite moderate (for most Western countries), rather than far left as his socialist labeling under. So once he actually got recognised for his policy rather than his labeling, he will get a 'second wind' boost. In fact most of his supporters actually originally banked on the first debate for a soaring in support. But they ended up way ahead of time right now.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Is anyone else genuinely concerned about the rise of dynastic political families in the US? They've always existed throughout our history, of course, but it's never been so blatant and unapologetic as it is now with Jeb and Hillary. I mean, even some neocons were willing to admit George W. Bush was a terrible president a few years ago, what happened?

The Bushes are a dynasty, but the Clintons are not a political dynasty so much as a political couple. Unless and until Chelsea Clinton starts running for office, of course.

In any case, it is not unusual to have political dynasties in American history. Name recognition and connections are two of the most powerful factors in elections, after all. It's just that most such dynasties are local and few make their presences known on the Presidential stage. Understandably, given the small sample size and the difficulty of being in the position and choosing to run in the first place.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

From what I see, it's all momentum right now. As someone already pointed out that even Obama didn't get this close to Hillary at the same stage in 2008 as Bernie Sanders do .

Not to mention Sanders policy actually quite moderate (for most Western countries), rather than far left as his socialist labeling under. So once he actually got recognised for his policy rather than his labeling, he will get a 'second wind' boost. In fact most of his supporters actually originally banked on the first debate for a soaring in support. But they ended up way ahead of time right now.

Interesting statistic. However, it should be noted that Barack Obama was able to rally minority Americans in a way that Sanders has not shown he could, so far -- his support among minorities is abysmal -- and the message of Hope and Change, so mocked nowadays, resonated very powerfully at the time. Sanders, an old white man of no special charisma and a self-professed democratic socialist, may find himself facing a much lower ceiling.

I wish him the best, regardless, since if he could even implement half his policies he could conceivably dramatically reverse the dangerous trend of increasing income inequality and social stratification. He seems to be inspiring a lot of young people just as Obama's campaign inspired my generation.

Having said that, Presidents are largely reactive leaders by the nature of their job, and nebulous qualities like "charisma" become much more important than one's stated agenda. On the global stage, Obama faced and in many ways continues to face the Arab Spring, the Libyan Crisis, ISIS, the Syrian Civil War, and an increasingly belligerent China and Russia. Domestically, the wave of racism and obstructionism among the Right, provoked by the vision of an America that will no longer be exclusively white, stormed through town halls to Congress, while difficult questions of race, policing, inequality, and the death of the American Dream came to the fore,. He did not enter office expecting any of these.

Can Sanders face such challenges in his term, or is he a weak leader with a good philosophy and a good policy plan?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

The Bushes are a dynasty, but the Clintons are not a political dynasty so much as a political couple. Unless and until Chelsea Clinton starts running for office, of course.

In any case, it is not unusual to have political dynasties in American history. Name recognition and connections are two of the most powerful factors in elections, after all. It's just that most such dynasties are local and few make their presences known on the Presidential stage. Understandably, given the small sample size and the difficulty of being in the position and choosing to run in the first place.


Interesting statistic. However, it should be noted that Barack Obama was able to rally minority Americans in a way that Sanders has not shown he could, so far -- his support among minorities is abysmal -- and the message of Hope and Change, so mocked nowadays, resonated very powerfully at the time. Sanders, an old white man of no special charisma and a self-professed democratic socialist, may find himself facing a much lower ceiling.

I wish him the best, regardless, since if he could even implement half his policies he could conceivably dramatically reverse the dangerous trend of increasing income inequality and social stratification. He seems to be inspiring a lot of young people just as Obama's campaign inspired my generation.

Having said that, Presidents are largely reactive leaders by the nature of their job, and nebulous qualities like "charisma" become much more important than one's stated agenda. On the global stage, Obama faced and in many ways continues to face the Arab Spring, the Libyan Crisis, ISIS, the Syrian Civil War, and an increasingly belligerent China and Russia. Domestically, the wave of racism and obstructionism among the Right, provoked by the vision of an America that will no longer be exclusively white, stormed through town halls to Congress, while difficult questions of race, policing, inequality, and the death of the American Dream came to the fore,. He did not enter office expecting any of these.

Can Sanders face such challenges in his term, or is he a weak leader with a good philosophy and a good policy plan?

Honestly, I myself thought that some of his policy seemed to be naive. And in fact some is too ambitious considering US current political climate. I guess that is also another thing that keep people back.

But in the same time, there's not that many more experienced Senator around than Sanders. And he has been working at every level of the government, from Mayor, to House Representative, to Senator. So feel like 'if he said he can do it, he probably have some legs to stand on' kinda things.

Not to mention, if Bernie Sanders actually win the White House, I imagine it will give Warren a lot more space to work around in Senate, and that's another thing I would like to see

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

The Bushes are a dynasty, but the Clintons are not a political dynasty so much as a political couple. Unless and until Chelsea Clinton starts running for office, of course.

In any case, it is not unusual to have political dynasties in American history. Name recognition and connections are two of the most powerful factors in elections, after all. It's just that most such dynasties are local and few make their presences known on the Presidential stage. Understandably, given the small sample size and the difficulty of being in the position and choosing to run in the first place.

I'm an American with a degree in history and as such was and am very aware of the ubiquity of political dynasties in American politics. The fact that there is a precedent for political families does not justify their existence. As you noted, these dynasties are usually centered around specific cities, with some penetrating further and a few making it to the presidential stage (Adams, Roosevelt), but that's been a fairly rare phenomenon overall. As far as I'm concerned, I want less political dynasties on all levels, not the expansion of dynasty politics to presidential elections.

[MrTerrorist]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/qyZ5qgIABUc

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[MrTerrorist]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/F8ed_BVDgwI

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Another fallen tribute.

[risingstar3110]

Watched Colbert's interview on Donald Trump, and now I started to understand why Trump is leading as Republican front runner.

Like, if the guy sit in front of me during dinner spout something similar to what he said, I will simply just laugh it off as totally bs. But, to my surprise, the way Trump put out his ideas, and pandering toward his audiences is much more persuasive than your typical politician. Like you know it's bs, but even if you don't believe it, you sorta can accept where he came off from.

He's a multi-billionaire for a reason alright

In some ways, i found that he probably was quite opposite to Bernie Sanders. Bernie got a strong principle that align with the majority of the people, and brought it up straight regardless of his audiences. Trump meanwhile got a more flipflopping stand, and said a lot of things just for the shocked value. But he does know what the majority of his audiences want to hear and focus on those specifics. I won't be surprised if after winning the nominee, he will jump to a more center view to get the most votes out of the election

[Syndiciate]

What effect do you guys think Biden joining the race will have if any?

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Syndiciate

What effect do you guys think Biden joining the race will have if any?

http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...62#post5652062

Short answer - Biden draws considerably more support from Clinton than he does from Sanders.

If he fails to win one of the early primaries, I think he's toast. I don't see him winning New Hampshire, and Iowa usually depends on having a strong campaign apparatus "on the ground" to bring voters to the caucuses. Biden doesn't have that either. He'd need to beat Hillary in South Carolina to have much of a chance.

[Syndiciate]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...62#post5652062

Short answer - Biden draws considerably more support from Clinton than he does from Sanders.

If he fails to win one of the early primaries, I think he's toast. I don't see him winning New Hampshire, and Iowa usually depends on having a strong campaign apparatus "on the ground" to bring voters to the caucuses. Biden doesn't have that either. He'd need to beat Hillary in South Carolina to have much of a chance.

Pretty much my thoughts. I just hope he doesn't split the party like Trump is doing with the Republicans.

[IceHism]

Nah he should split the party so Bernie will win the primaries. I'm hoping for Trump to do the same.

[Syndiciate]

Originally Posted by IceHism

Nah he should split the party so Bernie will win the primaries. I'm hoping for Trump to do the same.

If he splits the party things will fly into chaos. I want Burnie to win too but by having Biden siphon off votes from Hilary and then imploding himself so Bernie can scoop the rest up.

[Urzu 7]

Question, who is now the current GOP front runner, and please don't tell me it is still that no good schmuck Donald Trump.

[SeijiSensei]

Do you want me to lie to you or answer your question?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...al-gop-primary

If it makes you feel any better, his polling numbers are down from their peak about a month ago.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Do you want me to lie to you or answer your question?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...al-gop-primary

If it makes you feel any better, his polling numbers are down from their peak about a month ago.

But only because Ben Carson is taking up the slack. And if I heard it right, Carson supporter's 2nd choice is Trump. So since I expect Carson to drop out eventually, Trump would go back to 30% after that.