Senate The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election has begun

Had the same discussion with my son and his girlfriend. They continue to express dismay about the lack of policy interest and understanding among their fellow students on campus who continue to support Sanders by a fairly large majority.

KW, people I think are feeling more secure about the economy now, which unfortunately I think of as a counterindicator for economic health. There's a lot of uncertainty in the economy, and things could turn south before winter, which would potentially undermine Obama's victory lap.

 

For Vivec, with love:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/opinion/truth-and-trumpism.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Krugman has moved on from Bernie...

 

enjoy a Krugman essay when he's not being a ****.

Speaking of false equivalence, fivethirtyeight ran a story about the record high levels of dislike for both Trump and Clinton, higher than just about any presidential candidates in history.

I feel this should always be put in the context of Hillary's negatives being the result of a quarter century long Republican destroy Hillary campaign.

Trump's negatives are just the result of Trump being Trump.

 

My friend put it simply: "Bernie just doesn't know enough."

I'm not sure I agree about the President with regard to the economy. I think at this point, his popularity and general standing are somewhat detached from the economy. Not completely, of course. I think public opinion of Obama is so well known and baked in at this point that barring a major and almost sudden downturn, Obama will be relatively unaffected. The obvious lack of popularity of both his potential successors only helps him, and that's unlikely to change.

 

i actually agree that a lot of the specifics of bernie's policy proposals are not good, but the alternative is just depressing as hell to me, the idea that "well i guess this is as good as we can do then". i'd much rather have someone whose goal is radical improvements for the impoverished classes even if he hasn't quite worked out the right way to get us there. like i posted on my twitter, the argument for hillary is "we should stay on this slowly sinking boat because who knows what will happen if we rock it too much."

 

See, I still think the argument for Hillary is "we should continue to make incremental improvement and build on the successes that we have rather than risking destroying all of the progress we've made over the last eight years..."

 

With Hillary it's true enough that those increments are going to be pretty marginal.

The bigger picture is that the U.S. is never, in our lifetime at any rate, going to return to an environment of robust economic growth in which domestic politics becomes the squabble it once was over a bigger and bigger economic pie. What we get instead is a long-term picture of relative global economic decline in which the U.S. fights for tepid growth and the domestic political squabble over resources is largely a zero sum game.

 

I agree.

Also, you just can't get around a Republican Congress. Not yet, anyway. Things could be considerably different after the 2020 election and Census that will happen soon afterward. Not until then, most likely. Unless and until Republicans are consigned to clear minority status (where they were each time major progress has happened legislatively in this country over the years), no major improvements are forthcoming.

 

not even then if we still have a president that favors wall street and big business.

 

What does that mean, Tom? I'm completely serious.

 

it means i don't think we've seen radical improvements for the poor under obama, and i don't think we've even seen the "small incremental" ones you guys keep talking about. and that's not likely to change under clinton. i am sure the people posting in this thread will continue to be fine though. hillary clinton: keep america fine. for me.

 

The ACA was nothing?

 

Not only that, but the GOP's highly effective use of big money is likely to stymie any movement to the left for a long time to come.

On another note, it amazes me that with all the discussion around climate change, no-one's talking about the real elephant in the room (so to speak): population control. Almost all the major issues facing the human race come down to the fact that there are simply too many people on this planet. Energy, resources, food, territory--all would improve if we could stabilize, then lower the human population. Sadly, in 2016 America we're still having debates about whether or not birth control should be legal, when in fact we oughta be putting it in the water.

Peace,

V-03

 

for our poorest, yeah pretty much. they now have deductibles they can't afford instead of hospital bills they can't afford. i guess it's a baby step but again i'm not really about baby steps that have no meaningful impact.

 

That's by design though, Tom. Republicans throughout the country (particularly at the state level, which is where some of the best progress and worst obstruction really happens) have done their best for a long time now to keep the poor the way they are, or worse. It's all part of their extreme tribalism and in/out group dynamics. If I were getting a Ph.D in sociology or political science, that's what I would focus on (in/out group dynamics and their consequences in politics).

There's just no getting around that right now-- at all. If Democrats had the numbers, then I completely agree, go for it all.

 

I mean, as I pointed out to Tracy, this isn't unexpected when only 24% of the country is a self-identified Liberal, though it's trending positively. On the downside, only the Moderates are becoming more Liberal -- Conservatives aren't dropping by as much.

I think, in my opinion, it's becoming too tribal. I mean, you guys don't think I'm liberal because I'm only two steps to the left of center rather than ten steps like the most of the rest of Jews in New York, and I'd probably put myself in the left-leaning, but Moderate label too, truth be told... but that's only because of a couple of things, and not things like abortion, gay rights, social safety net, etc.

 

You just be glad that he wasn't writing so much back in 2008, or you would have been in his crosshairs for supporting Edwards.

 

Believe it or not, I'm okay with writers and opinionators being writers and opinionators. I could have been mad at the National Enquirer writing a totally factual story about how John Edwards was a 'schebag with a mistress and baby on the way too, but... I'm not. Shockingly, I'm not bothered by those things...

 

absolutely. The ACA provided improved access to catastrophic insurance across the income spectrum, but affordability of routine health care for lower income families and control of its rising costs remains a huge gap.

 

It's worth remembering that even for the ACA, the Clintonites faction urged abandoning it once we lost Massachusets. It was only His Excellency's bold "unrealistic" action saved it. Just like the Iran deal. Cuba. You know, all the things that the Usurper would never have dreamed of attempting and which have transformed the world for the better.

Oh well. I guess now the world will change for the more pragmatic.

 

I am curious Wocky, what exactly constitutes a 'usurper' in your eyes? I get the whole ideally of 'wrongfully taking someone else's place'. But Clinton still has to be elected. Regardless of whether you or agree or not, President Obama has intimated at least twice now that, of the candidates remaining, his preferred choice of successor is Hillary Clinton. So he does not see her as a usurper as you appear to.

Then there is also the idea of usurping something. Again, Hillary has been running a campaign. She has won states and lost states. Currently she is the projected winner based on the states remaining, but she isn't calling for her opponent to drop out. Ironically, if anyone is the potential usurper, the case could be made it is Bernie Sanders through the tactic of trying to 'usurp' or seize the election by changing the minds of superdelegates, despite the fact that Mrs.Clinton has won, at this point, more states and more overall votes.

Indeed, you can make the claim that Mr. Sanders and his supporters and Mr. Trump and his supporters have tried to usurp both the parties because it is politically more convenient to run via those platforms than collect the tens of thousands of signatures necessary to run as an independent in all 50 states and US territories. For better or worse, more Democrats have voted for Mrs. Clinton at this time. More americans may prefer Mr. Sanders, but Democrats choose their nominee, unless it's an open primary where independents may vote, just as Republicans chose Mr. Trump.

It is an interesting thought that if Bernie had run as an independent from the start, he would be the very first legitimate threat to both parties as a third party candidate and in this climate, might even win. But Mr. Sanders chose to run on the Democratic platform and in so doing, agreed to the party's rules. Now that he is behind in delegates, the talk from his camp is more in line with someone who wishes to usurp the nomination. So if there is truly a 'ursurper', and I don't believe there is, the case is far stronger for Bernie right now than it is for Hillary.

 

i so wish that were true. it's not though. if bernie ran third party he'd get about as much media attention as libertarian candidate gary johnson, and have about the same chance of winning.

 

I disagree. Bernie's crowds are what got him media love, and he would've gotten the, regardless of party labels same with Trump. It's about message this time, not labels.

 

i think it's wrong to assume that he would have drawn the same crowds and attention had he announced that he was running as an independent or under the banner of the green or some other third party.

 

So, Millennials are just as much of political opportunists then?