Personally I think the ironic thing about the current lineup for the next US election is that Clinton is the conservative candidate, in that her winning will, aside from a token landmark achievement (an important one, but one that would in itself effect little if any change), maintain the current status quo, whereas with Trump no one has any idea what’s going to happen, only that most feel it will be bad. That is, Trump isn’t a progressive candidate, but he isn’t a conservative candidate in the literal sense either.
1 Like
If by “GOP playbook” you mean “burn down the house and everything in it.” The difference between Trump and Cruz is that Trump is a moronic narcissistic blowhard, but Cruz is an uncompromising ideologue. He really believes everything he says, and will work to achieve his goals. Trump doesn’t even seem to understand that work is involved. Once you get to the point of “dismantle all effective government and sell it all off to the highest bidder, and anyone who objects gets sent off to Jesus Camp” there’s not a lot else left.
3 Likes
I posted this story in another trump thread (IIRC), and it’s relevancy scares me a little. Where the racists/bigots were once expected to STFU about their racism/bigotry, or, at the very least, they knew how most others viewed those ideas and kept quiet about them (at least in the context of public statements). Our jackass trump has opened those gates far and wide such that the norms I was raised with are seemingly gone:
As Richard Youngs writes in his excellent study of non-Western democracy, liberalism and democracy have historically been “rival notions and not bedfellows.” Liberalism is about non-negotiable personal rights and freedoms. Democracy, while requiring some basic protection of rights to allow for meaningful competition, is more about popular sovereignty, popular will, and accountability and responsiveness to the voting public. Which, of course, raises the question: What if voters don’t want to be liberal and vote accordingly?
3 Likes
Do they, at the moment, exist? Bill Kristol wants to know.
Warren 2020! Start the campaign now!
4 Likes
And yet, he got this far, within spitting distance of the Oval Office. Trump’s a buffoon. So were other fascists. But they understood how to manipulate government so well that no one took them seriously until they’d invaded their own countries and started in on the neighbors.
Doesn’t that assume Clinton loses? Or do you mean Warren as an independent running against a Democratic incumbent?
You’ll only get that if Trump wins.
Otherwise the 2020 Dem candidate is already known. And you’d have to imagine that eventually the GOP (or their successor party) will get it together enough to pick someone electable, so it might be 2024 or 2028 (or helll, 2032) before we have a chance at a good candidate from the Dems.
5 Likes
Half a vote for Trump.
We have do-it-yourself instant runoff voting in this country. Not as good as the real thing because you have to decide in advance if you fill in the bubble for your second choice based on the state of the race in your electoral unit. Fortunately we have never had a presidential election close enough that that it was not clear when one needed to vote their second choice. Unfortunately we have had one where enough people failed to do that that we ended up with president Bush2 instead of Gore, and much misery ensued.
*note the closeness required to make this hard is where all three candidates have a good shot at winning the election, and your first and second choice are close in your electoral unit.
If you live in the People’s Republic of Vermont, I wouldn’t give you a hard time about voting Mickey Mouse if it gives you that nice, votey feeling. I live in Ohio, where every vote counts. I am outraged the candidates aren’t morally and ideologically pure. Nevertheless, I’ve had enough Naders and Bushes for now thanks.
7 Likes
Ah, that myth again. Direct your ire to the hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida.
8 Likes
Depressing, and true unless the GOP spends all of the next 4 years trying to impeach Clinton. Which they probably will. They’ll forget all about Obamacare, and scream Benghazi!, Vince Foster! Whitewater! ad nauseum the entire time. 
4 Likes
I’m not in Vermont, but she’ll win my state easily if 10% or even 20% of Dems don’t vote for her. I agree entirely that Dems in swing states should hold their noses and vote for her, but I’m not yet confident they will - especially since the Clinton campaign seems to be operating on the assumption that it’s only an obvious choice between her and her GOP opponent.
1 Like
And non-voters. When a candidate loses an election, the fault usually lies with that candidate. The candidate has one job: get more people to vote for them than their opponents, no matter who those opponents are or how many of them there are. If they fail to do that, it’s on them. They didn’t do their job. Since voting isn’t required (personally, I think not voting is not an option, but that’s just me), part of that job is to convince people they actually need to get to the polls (leaving aside active voter suppression).
6 Likes
Eh, I don’t particularly buy that use of exit polls, but I also did not specify that the mistake was Nader, or even casting a presidential vote at all. There were a number of left alternate candidates who got enough votes votes to swing it. One also fails at do-it-yourself-instant-runoff by failing to vote because you don’t like the candidate who can win who best fits your politics enough.
But, sure, in a race that close basically every explanation that swung the vote at all is valid, because the required swing was so tiny.
18 Likes
I just don’t like telling people that they need to only pick from the two candidates who “can win”. That’s basically saying that no other parties should even exist (at least at a presidential level), and I’m not comfortable with that.
I want people to be able to vote with their conscience and I’ll never criticize people for it. If (for example) the Democrats lost an election because of too many people voting to their left, it might encourage them to change the system to instant-runoff (except, of course, they’d have to win an election under the current system to be in a position to do that, and nobody ever changes a system they just won with).
5 Likes
The survey reflects the HRC/Democratic Party narrative. You’re with us, or you’re with Trump. And who’s this Bernie person?
4 Likes
Its hard not to be harsh here, so forgive me.
Hundreds of thousands of people died.
A little emotional discomfort is really a small price to pay.
I want people to vote such that our very important government policy is the best it can be.
I’d happy have the system changed so that is easier.
One must cast one’s vote under the system that exists.
This means voting for your second, or third, or whatever choice sometimes.
It is irresponsible to do otherwise.
This is not a game.
2 Likes
I’m far more concerned with the precise politics of the median House and Senate vote than I am with my Presidential candidate of choice. Not that the executive doesn’t matter (SEC, DOJ, war…), but systemic changes requires voting majorities in the Legislature. Look at healthcare.
So, my question to a presidential candidate is will you help or hurt progressive House candidates in the very few flippable districts? These are in places like south Texas, northern Minnesota, suburban Virginia.
Warren is raising piles of cash for them. Clinton is giving them a progressive platform framed in a way that can win in Purple states. Both seem helpful.
2 Likes
Do you think there are only two options, or are you pushing that narrative to appear smart?
you don’t
There is still a race. It’s between Trump (who has secured the required number of delegates) and the Democratic Nominee (nobody has enough delegates TODAY to call themselves that).
I think that what Democrats might choose to focus on is NOT LOSING DEMOCRATS BETWEEN NOW AND THE DAY THE NOMINEE IS CHOSEN BY THE DELEGATES by way of not being an asshat.
6 Likes
