U.S. Politics

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, Seat68 said:

Hilary Clinton always comes across as completely unlikable and devoid of any personality, can't see her being shared on Youtube after the correspondents dinner.

Hilary is a deeply unpleasant individual, and allegedly has more skeletons than she had closets at this point.

This election is farcical and has been since day one. The Democrats were never going to allow Sanders to win, hence some rather dirty tricks seemingly being played, and the Republicans know Trump is as a big threat to them as he is anything else so desperately are trying to get people to like the other candidates, who themselves are horrible people.

Hilary will be the next President, barring something miraculous happening, like some of those skeletons gaining traction, and the Republicans will do well to not tear themselves further apart in the aftermath.

[Chindie]

15 minutes ago, PaulC said:

I think so yes but american politics is broken isnt it, because even if she wins she wont get anything major passed as the republicans own congress. 

I miss Sarah Palin 

Many Americans would tell you that this is a good thing, some of our members included. Many people think that a President hamstrung by Congress means change is minor and therefore the potential for things to go unexpectedly wrong is greatly reduced. Which tends to mean things tick along.

Of course it also means bad rarely gets better, so if you're poor, you're going to suffer as much as you did before. But regardless, the status quo is always popular.

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Many Americans would tell you that this is a good thing, some of our members included. Many people think that a President hamstrung by Congress means change is minor and therefore the potential for things to go unexpectedly wrong is greatly reduced. Which tends to mean things tick along.

Of course it also means bad rarely gets better, so if you're poor, you're going to suffer as much as you did before. But regardless, the status quo is always popular.

and if Trump or Cruz is the next president? It really only means the democrats cant do anything important. 

[Chindie]

The Republicans are the party of the status quo. Cruz in office is more likely to try to roll back things Obama managed to get changed than really introduce anything that notably alters things.

Trump is a wildcard because nobody knows what his policies actually are. And he's not popular with the Republican establishment (he's not really a party politician, his position changes based on what's good for Donald Trump throughout his life... Hence his campaign basically being say whatever is popular with the groups he appeals to), so Congress may revolt under him.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

Hilary is a deeply unpleasant individual, and allegedly has more skeletons than she had closets at this point.

This election is farcical and has been since day one. The Democrats were never going to allow Sanders to win, hence some rather dirty tricks seemingly being played, and the Republicans know Trump is as a big threat to them as he is anything else so desperately are trying to get people to like the other candidates, who themselves are horrible people.

Hilary will be the next President, barring something miraculous happening, like some of those skeletons gaining traction, and the Republicans will do well to not tear themselves further apart in the aftermath.

I deeply dislike Hilary, and I'd much rather Bernie had won. 

That being said, the idea that Hilary has won through foul play has absolutely no basis in fact. 

[Chindie]

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I deeply dislike Hilary, and I'd much rather Bernie had won. 

That being said, the idea that Hilary has won through foul play has absolutely no basis in fact. 

There's been a lot of discussion of voter fraud etc. I don't know how valid that is, but it seems to have gained some traction.

I doubt it's enough to have really changed things, Hillary was always going to win, and the way the party has pushed and used the system (which is ridiculous) made sure of that before the while thing began, but it seems something fishy was alongside that. An awful lot of people seem to have has their registered affiliations changed all of a sudden in some states.

[villakram]

Bernie should run as an independent! Be the true candidate for change of some sort or other.

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

There's been a lot of discussion of voter fraud etc. I don't know how valid that is, but it seems to have gained some traction.

I doubt it's enough to have really changed things, Hillary was always going to win, and the way the party has pushed and used the system (which is ridiculous) made sure of that before the while thing began, but it seems something fishy was alongside that. An awful lot of people seem to have has their registered affiliations changed all of a sudden in some states.

The USA is a big country, so it's kind of inevitable that mistakes will be made somewhere. There clearly has been a significant number (too many, much too many, of course) of mistakes, especially in New York where the Board of Elections is considered a chaotic mess. Some of these mistakes will be clerical errors, some unknown percentage will be fraud. But Clinton is currently more than 3 million votes ahead in the popular vote, to believe Bernie would be winning otherwise (and I appreciate you're not saying that) somewhere between 5 and 10% of all ballots cast would be fraudulent. 

I think there's a mistaken impulse on the part of Sanders supporters to blame 'the system' when that's missing the real story. Clinton is a very strong candidate. She enjoys approval ratings of around about 75-80% among registered Democrats, which is high historically. She also has massively more money, elite support and name recognition. Sanders was considered a no-hoper, but he's run her moderately close (without ever being that close, it has to be said). It's a triumph in other words, not a scandal. It gives me hope for the future of Democrat party politics, more than I think I've had in my lifetime. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[Mantis]

Clinton v Trump has got to be the worst presidential match-up in living memory.

[OutByEaster?]

Hilary is the candidate if "no change" isn't she? The most conservative* of all of the candidates.

*In terms of her ambitions to change the US rather than her likeness to the Tory party.

 

 

[Chindie]

36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The USA is a big country, so it's kind of inevitable that mistakes will be made somewhere. There clearly has been a significant number (too many, much too many, of course) of mistakes, especially in New York where the Board of Elections is considered a chaotic mess. Some of these mistakes will be clerical errors, some unknown percentage will be fraud. But Clinton is currently more than 3 million votes ahead in the popular vote, to believe Bernie would be winning otherwise (and I appreciate you're not saying that) somewhere between 5 and 10% of all ballots cast would be fraudulent. 

I think there's a mistaken impulse on the part of Sanders supporters to blame 'the system' when that's missing the real story. Clinton is a very strong candidate. She enjoys approval ratings of around about 75-80% among registered Democrats, which is high historically. She also has massively more money, elite support and name recognition. Sanders was considered a no-hoper, but he's run her moderately close (without ever being that close, it has to be said). It's a triumph in other words, not a scandal. It gives me hope for the future of Democrat party politics, more than I think I've had in my lifetime. 

I don't think we're far apart. I've never felt Sanders was in the race and in truth he never really was, though he's done far better than anyone would have believed. Especially as he seems fairly weak in some areas, like international affairs, and hasn't hidden that weakness well.

Clinton is the best candidate that the Democrats could back, she's an experienced and ruthless politician, a known quantity, and was always gong to have every deck stacked for her. There have definitely been some shenanigans, from straight up voter fraud, which I do think has happened to some small extent, and things like breaking electioneering rules (Bill has campaigned for Hilary at times and places he shouldn't, for instance) have gone on to give her a slightly better edge. But she was never in danger of losing.

Sanders doing well suggests there's some appetite for something a bit different which gives some hope. The issue may be that Sanders is really an independent at heart and sticking with the Democrats is a bit of a marriage of convenience for him, there's unlikely to be the demand within the party for change like him in the near future.

[PaulC]

45 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Clinton v Trump has got to be the worst presidential match-up in living memory.

What about Nixon vs Humphrey in 68

[Mantis]

6 minutes ago, PaulC said:

What about Nixon vs Humphrey in 68

Don't know much about Humphrey but Trump is far worse than Nixon. Nixon was far from being a good president but he's actually better than many give him credit for.

[PaulC]

He was but will always be remembered for Watergate. Surely they must have had worse than Trump and Clinton though. Reagan vs Carter in 80 maybe.

[mjmooney]

Nah, Jimmy Carter was OK. 

[HanoiVillan]

37 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I don't think we're far apart. I've never felt Sanders was in the race and in truth he never really was, though he's done far better than anyone would have believed. Especially as he seems fairly weak in some areas, like international affairs, and hasn't hidden that weakness well.

Clinton is the best candidate that the Democrats could back, she's an experienced and ruthless politician, a known quantity, and was always gong to have every deck stacked for her. There have definitely been some shenanigans, from straight up voter fraud, which I do think has happened to some small extent, and things like breaking electioneering rules (Bill has campaigned for Hilary at times and places he shouldn't, for instance) have gone on to give her a slightly better edge. But she was never in danger of losing.

Sanders doing well suggests there's some appetite for something a bit different which gives some hope. The issue may be that Sanders is really an independent at heart and sticking with the Democrats is a bit of a marriage of convenience for him, there's unlikely to be the demand within the party for change like him in the near future.

Yes, I think we're in agreement. 

On your final point, I'm more optimistic. For Sanders personally, it's too late. He's too old to run again, so he doesn't get to sit in the big chair. But the future for left-wing politics in America is maybe a little rosier than you assume. I'm not at all a fan of splitting people into 'generations', as I don't actually really believe they exist. However, it is true that the composition of the Democratic electorate is shifting to the left, and that the cause of this shift is increasing left-wing ('liberal' or 'socialist', rather than 'moderate') viewpoints among younger voters. This goes together with a shift to the left in the congressional Democratic caucus, which has gone largely unremarked because it pales in comparison to the leap to the right on the other side, but nevertheless is clearly happening. Finally, I think the macroeconomic situation favours broadly left-wing politics over the long run, from secular stagnation to the global investment dearth and the increasing competition for hours. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[Mantis]

40 minutes ago, PaulC said:

He was but will always be remembered for Watergate. Surely they must have had worse than Trump and Clinton though. Reagan vs Carter in 80 maybe.

I'm aware of that but he did do some good as well.

Reagan vs Carter worse than Clinton vs Trump? Seriously? Reagan was ten times the president Trump would ever be and although I don't rate Carter that highly he wasn't crooked like Clinton.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

I'm aware of that but he did do some good as well.

Reagan vs Carter worse than Clinton vs Trump? Seriously? Reagan was ten times the president Trump would ever be and although I don't rate Carter that highly he wasn't crooked like Clinton.

I'd prefer next weeks lotto numbers if you don't mind?

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

I'm aware of that but he did do some good as well.

Reagan vs Carter worse than Clinton vs Trump? Seriously? Reagan was ten times the president Trump would ever be and although I don't rate Carter that highly he wasn't crooked like Clinton.

Reagan was a puppet for the big corporations. I think Trump would be an upgrade on him. 

[maqroll]

30 years ago, Clinton would be considered a dyed in the wool republican. She's still not too far off, really.