U.S Presidential Election 2016 Not Otherwise Specified

[broncofan]

Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but several times I wanted to write something (often just general thoughts about what a horse's ass I think Bernie Sanders is) and I cannot find a place to put it. Sometimes I want to say something about Trump and although there are five or so threads about him, none are on-point. So, this is for random, or nonrandom thoughts about our pending presidential election. Any musings about comments made by presumptive candidates or thoughts about the electoral process or policy critiques or arguments, even theoretical.

For instance, can anyone believe that Bernie has not dropped out of the race and endorsed Hillary, given that she has accumulated a majority of the pledged delegates? Would anyone believe that a man touting an unselfish, progressive agenda turns out to be a narcissist hoping to have one last hurrah? Who would not want the adulation, but isn't it time to congratulate your opponent and offer her your support? How about that wall? If Trump wins and builds a wall, will a democrat run against him in 2020 and say "Mr. Trump, tear down that wall"? Yes random musings or...give it a try....

[trish]

Once a Trotskyite always a fool.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bas...nt?oid=4433105

[broncofan]

Once a Trotskyite always a fool.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bas...nt?oid=4433105

It is amazing that the far left always sees the center left as a bigger problem than the right wing. I was reading the comments under an article that said democratic leaders are urging Bernie to drop out now that he is so far behind and one person commented, "can you point to any of these leaders or did your corporate handlers tell you to say that"?

This is honestly the type of derangement a person needs to have in order to be avowedly left-wing and think Trump is preferable to Clinton. All of one's reasons for being left-wing must be so murky to make that decision...it must be based on feel rather than principles. Trump might not be a social conservative, but whoever he appoints to the court will be. You cannot be a liberal and think that doesn't matter.

[broncofan]

Once a Trotskyite always a fool.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bas...nt?oid=4433105

Trish's corporate handlers told her to post this. Thank you for selling out comrade.

But seriously this is center left agenda:
1. more progressive taxes. Top rate higher, capital gains rate higher, or less exemption for estate taxes
2. pro-choice with states only retaining the right to regulate abortion
3. legality of gay marriage and a judge that will not overturn that precedent
4. retention of affordable care act
5. less foreign intervention in conflicts but not isolationism
6. climate change-not impeding the work of the epa or violating international treaties
7. Not building a wall

Now I have not been paying attention this season but this is a pretty significant difference no? So we won't be breaking up banks or have free college tuition (the latter seems like a decent albeit expensive idea). What else goes on this list.

[fred41]

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.

[Stavros]

My comments would relate to the mechanics of your elections in the US.

1) I wonder if, after the experience with Sanders and Trump the Democrat and Republican parties will change their rules and limit nominees for public office to those who have been members of the party for a specified length of time? I would have thought for the Presidency, a minimum of 10 years continuous membership would be a reasonable demand. How this would work in individual States I do not know, in some strict criteria might already exist.
---In the UK you can stand as an independent if you want to but you can only do so if you have paid £500 and provided the name of 10 'subscribers' who live in the constituency you wish to represent. If you are a member of an established political party, their rules govern the selection process. In the Labour Party you need to be nominated by someone in your constituency party to have your named entered into the Parliamentary Panel (aka the 'Labour List') from which other constituencies can choose, and that person must have been a party member for at least 12 months prior to the nomination.

2) In the UK we do not have a system you have in the US whereby someone must register as a party supporter or member (Democrat or Republican) to take part in the primary or caucus processes when selecting candidates for elections, I am not even sure we understand how it works, and I do wonder about this 'registered Democrat/Republican' status, because it means your vote is not private. In the UK how we vote is a private matter that no other person need know, I find this public identification quite odd for a country that elects so many of its county, state and federal officials. Or I might have got it wrong as in mechanical terms I don't actually know how you do it.

3) You need to change your rules on election expenses, as the volume of money spent on elections is obscene. In the right hands, $10 billion would do Detroit, the Deep South and other needy parts of the USA much more good than 20 second ads in the intermission of a baseball game. What is more urgent and necessary -providing people with clean water, or giving an inflated jerk the opportunity on-air to insult half the country?

[broncofan]

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.

Although there are conservative Republicans that I respect and whose policies I don't think would be as damaging as Trump's, it would be tough for a couple of reasons. I really am pretty far left. I posted the center left policies to show that I don't see them as such a terrible compromise, but ideologically I believe in social welfare programs, would love to see a single payer health care system (although it would include trade-offs). Additionally, the social issues, particularly same sex marriage are becoming areas of non-compromise for me. The reason I don't support Bernie is because I don't think he has any idea how to achieve many of these objectives. I also don't like sloganeering...I don't see more elaborate programs as requiring an attack on the 1% or on corporations or financial regulation as necessitating a destruction of large banks. I just believe in programs for the less fortunate and more taxes for those who are super wealthy and will remain so after they are taxed. I also believe in regulation of the marketplace, against monopolies, moral hazard, negative externalities, etc.

Saying that, I think it's an overreaction when people look at candidates they don't agree with and think they will destroy the country. There are conservatives who I'm sure would do a fine job and it would not be an apocalyptic outcome...but it would not be a compromise for me. I would have to forego things I believe in strongly. This is particularly the case on the social issues; I don't know too many candidates who believe that banning same sex marriage violates equal protection. It would just depend on how inept I think Sanders is, and though I think he's pretty inept, there's nothing there that I think would damage the country as much as carpet bombing another country or building a wall on our southern border.

[broncofan]

My comments would relate to the mechanics of your elections in the US.

1) I wonder if, after the experience with Sanders and Trump the Democrat and Republican parties will change their rules and limit nominees for public office to those who have been members of the party for a specified length of time? I would have thought for the Presidency, a minimum of 10 years continuous membership would be a reasonable demand. How this would work in individual States I do not know, in some strict criteria might already exist.
---In the UK you can stand as an independent if you want to but you can only do so if you have paid £500 and provided the name of 10 'subscribers' who live in the constituency you wish to represent. If you are a member of an established political party, their rules govern the selection process. In the Labour Party you need to be nominated by someone in your constituency party to have your named entered into the Parliamentary Panel (aka the 'Labour List') from which other constituencies can choose, and that person must have been a party member for at least 12 months prior to the nomination.

I read an article that discussed the rise of Trump. It was talking about how all of the top down filters that usually prevent an extreme candidate from becoming the nominee have been eroded (one of these was the so-called democratization of media, where anyone can publish garbage on a blog and the usual filters such as editing no longer apply).

Although I like what you're recommending, would this have the effect of removing some power from the voter and giving it to the party establishment to set standards? In a way it is just making sure the candidate is committed to the party principles, but the skeptic would ask why registered party members are not permitted to do this with their vote? Is it because we don't trust large heterogeneous groups to make sound and principled decisions?

[trish]

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.

Yes (giving the word ‘regardless’ a practical interpretation). For one thing, I’m not nearly as down on Bernie as Gene Lyons is. I am pretty upset with his die-hard fans. I voted for Hillary months ago in the primary because I think she is more experienced in domestic and foreign affairs than Bernie, and I prefer her more practical and nuanced approach to political, social and ethical issues.

I knew, however, that both would have a tough road on the general campaign trail. Bernie would get hit for all the items Gene Lyons mentioned in his article. Hillary would get hit with all the shit that conservatives have been throwing at her for decades. I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary in part because I thought Hillary would be too polarizing (little did I know just how much Obama’s race would polarize the nation). But Hillary has been thoroughly vetted, been through it all before and proved she has what it takes to sustain that kind of abuse. Bernie, although he’s been the Senate for what - 25 years, has never been through anything like the abuse he would get on the campaign for the general election. I wasn’t sure how he’d hold up, and I still don’t know how he’d hold up, because he never has been attacked in that way.

Would I vote for Bernie over Trump? In a nanosecond. Would I vote for Bernie over Cruz? In a nanosecond? Over Rubio? Hell yeah. Over Kasich? Yes. The economy of Ohio has improved under Kasich, but not necessarily because of his pro-conservative policies. He’s busting unions, he’s joined the war against planned parenthood and stopped its funding in Ohio, he pro-fracking, pro-Keystone XL etc. However, just 24 hours ago he just legalized medical marijuana in Ohio! Yeah Kasich!

I know there are people who vote for the person and not the policies and ideas. To me that’s just crazy. The person can only do so much. The important things are the policies, the appointees, the proposed agenda. I cannot endorse going in the directions most conservatives in power, or seeking power, want to take us.

Is there a liberal I wouldn’t vote for? Well Trump was a liberal at one point I wouldn’t vote for him no matter what ticket he decided to run on. I heard on NPR this morning that Bob Dole just endorsed Trump. He said he has “...an obligation to the party. What am I going to do? I can’t vote for George Washington.”

So there you go, would I vote for Bernie against any republican? As long as no descendent of Victor Frankenstein resurrects George Washington and convinces him to run on the Republican ticket.

[Stavros]

I read an article that discussed the rise of Trump. It was talking about how all of the top down filters that usually prevent an extreme candidate from becoming the nominee have been eroded (one of these was the so-called democratization of media, where anyone can publish garbage on a blog and the usual filters such as editing no longer apply).

Although I like what you're recommending, would this have the effect of removing some power from the voter and giving it to the party establishment to set standards? In a way it is just making sure the candidate is committed to the party principles, but the skeptic would ask why registered party members are not permitted to do this with their vote? Is it because we don't trust large heterogeneous groups to make sound and principled decisions?

A strange reply, after all, what are political parties for? And why should they allow someone who has shown no previous commitment to the party to seek its nomination for President? It is up to the people to reject party candidates in favour of an independent, and if there is no independent who can transcend party and appeal directly to voters that is hardly my problem. But yes, when it is the party who chooses the candidate to represent you the people in general have no say in the matter, in the UK but as I say, we have a system dominated by parties, and as yet there have been few independents to make a difference, or smaller parties -consider how the Greens in Germany broke the duopoly between the SPD and the CDU. Or maybe Trump and Sanders are signs of a change taking place as voters become disaffected with 'business as usual' on both sides of the Atlantic...