2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[The_Queen]

I saw this article today, and I completely agree. I think the whole Bernie or Bust movement is born out of a position of privilege in that its supporters can endure--if they're not outright shielded from--the reign of assholery that would be a Trump or Cruz presidency. A lot of policies will change for the worse with a GOP president, because they're either executive orders, executive decisions by Secretaries of various Government Departments, or because the GOP may have control of both houses of Congress.

[Askold]

I would just like to point out that Sanders refusing to accept donations from banks and businesses is just stupid ideological choice.

Taking a donation from Richie Rich does not actually mean that Bernie is forced to make laws that help Richie Rich. ...Just look at all the poor people who support and vote for Republican candidates without getting anything in return. And with that extra money he could have gotten from businesses Bernie could have had a better campaign.

I get WHY he wants to show that he isn't touching "dirty money" but it seems like either a really silly move and a dangerous sign of being too ideological and hurting yourself because of it (would you like a president who refuses to compromise even when that refusal harms the country?) OR it is an intentional flaw to gather sympathy points and explain his inevitable failure after the elections.

[The_Queen]

I think it's a matter of principle that he takes, and a respectable one at that. Nevertheless, I am reminded of the scene from Clerks II where the black, male customer said "you can't taste racism." Obama accepted corporate donations. If I ever ran for an elected position, I would take money because once it's donated, it's in my pocket to use as I will.

[mellenORL]

It's a good strategy, and has not hurt his donation totals at all. There is deep distrust and resentment across the political spectrum towards the big banks and the securities sector in general. Even GOP pundits snark about Clinton's Wall Street ties.

[The_Queen]

Even GOP pundits snark about Clinton's Wall Street ties.

Well, such would be expected from the group that spend the last 25 years demonizing Hillary for being one of the leaders of the Democratic party.

[Belloc]

Queen, a question for you: what do you see as the major weaknesses of a Clinton presidency?

I have not supported Clinton up to this point, but that non-support is poorly founded since I know little of her weaknesses in policy and potential. Her faults may not be enough to justify my non-support. They may be. I've found your opinion on Clinton useful before, so I would like to know what you see as her major downsides as a president, not a nominee.

[SCarpelan]

I would just like to point out that Sanders refusing to accept donations from banks and businesses is just stupid ideological choice.

Taking a donation from Richie Rich does not actually mean that Bernie is forced to make laws that help Richie Rich. ...Just look at all the poor people who support and vote for Republican candidates without getting anything in return. And with that extra money he could have gotten from businesses Bernie could have had a better campaign.

I get WHY he wants to show that he isn't touching "dirty money" but it seems like either a really silly move and a dangerous sign of being too ideological and hurting yourself because of it (would you like a president who refuses to compromise even when that refusal harms the country?) OR it is an intentional flaw to gather sympathy points and explain his inevitable failure after the elections.

He is raising more money than Clinton. If he had had more money in the beginning to advertise in the early states it would have helped. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why people are so eager to contribute now is the ideological stance.

[Damen]

Call it "privilege," "petulance," "ideology" whatever, but I'm quite firmly in the Bernie or Bust camp.

[Ironchew]

Call it "privilege," "petulance," "ideology" whatever, but I'm quite firmly in the Bernie or Bust camp.

If Clinton's the nominee, barring some unforeseen total about-face in her campaign that convinces me otherwise, I'll vote for Stein like I did in 2012. The perceived drawback of conservative SCOTUS appointees seems to be empty; clearly Obama is chomping at the bit to appoint another conservative and I see no reason why Clinton wouldn't do the same. I am under no illusions that a Republican presidency wouldn't be a nightmare, and also that, as shitty as it might be for me personally, there are far more vulnerable demographics who would suffer from a reign of hate. The thing is, on a worldwide scale, I think Clinton would also start more wars than she ends; at least millions of people will almost certainly be displaced, seriously injured or killed as a direct result.

Republicans repealing the ACA would lead to about 45,000 deaths for the uninsured each year; the way it was before the ACA. Democrats pretending the ACA solved healthcare and waiting far longer to transition to a single-payer system also kills the under-insured, by the way. Depending on just how long they wait to transition to Medicare-for-all, they might even indirectly kill the same number of people.

The single advantage I see in a Republican presidency is that it would unite a leftist opposition in the 2018 and 2020 elections; perhaps even enough of an opposition to elect a sea change of liberal state legislators during a census year, which determines how districts are drawn until 2031. Conversely, I don't see how a Clinton presidency would lead to anything other than disillusionment and an even worse Republican takeover in 2020.

So yeah, I'm Bernie-or-bust. Though perhaps for different reasons than Damen -- I can't tell.

[Dakota Bob]

Well, if those percentage of people are serious about not voting for Hillary ever (which, lets face it, they're not. no matter how white they are, they're gonna feel the effects of a Trump/Cruz presidency) I wonder how Hillary is going to reach out to them in the main election, because if he doesn't win, a lot of people are going to be mega-butthurt about the fact that this was probably the closest America would ever get to electing a super-progressive like the Bernmaster and that they lost out on it.

[Damen]

Call it "privilege," "petulance," "ideology" whatever, but I'm quite firmly in the Bernie or Bust camp.

If Clinton's the nominee, barring some unforeseen total about-face in her campaign that convinces me otherwise, I'll vote for Stein like I did in 2012. The perceived drawback of conservative SCOTUS appointees seems to be empty; clearly Obama is chomping at the bit to appoint another conservative and I see no reason why Clinton wouldn't do the same. I am under no illusions that a Republican presidency wouldn't be a nightmare, and also that, as shitty as it might be for me personally, there are far more vulnerable demographics who would suffer from a reign of hate. The thing is, on a worldwide scale, I think Clinton would also start more wars than she ends; at least millions of people will almost certainly be displaced, seriously injured or killed as a direct result.

Republicans repealing the ACA would lead to about 45,000 deaths for the uninsured each year; the way it was before the ACA. Democrats pretending the ACA solved healthcare and waiting far longer to transition to a single-payer system also kills the under-insured, by the way. Depending on just how long they wait to transition to Medicare-for-all, they might even indirectly kill the same number of people.

The single advantage I see in a Republican presidency is that it would unite a leftist opposition in the 2018 and 2020 elections; perhaps even enough of an opposition to elect a sea change of liberal state legislators during a census year, which determines how districts are drawn until 2031. Conversely, I don't see how a Clinton presidency would lead to anything other than disillusionment and an even worse Republican takeover in 2020.

So yeah, I'm Bernie-or-bust. Though perhaps for different reasons than Damen -- I can't tell.

That's a lot of it, yes, but there are also other reasons that don't have much to do with any policy.

I'm 30, come November, I'll be 31. I have voted in every presidential election since I was legally able. Always, I voted for the lesser of two evils. I got to witness people re-elect a trained chimp in a suit and a Sith Lord to the oval office. Then I voted for Obama, not exactly enthused, but I felt better about it. And then came drone warfare, broken promises and preemptive concessions when it came time to negotiate. Each time, the Republicans went further to the right and dragged Obama along with them. The lesser of two evils was slowly growing more and more evil.

And now, I see Bernie, I see his record and I see that as far back as the '60's and '70's, he was agitating for things that the rest of the country is just now catching on to. He's been principled his whole life and the votes he casts he does with the conviction of his beliefs. And those beliefs match up with a very strong liberal belief.

Another aspect to remember is that sometimes, ideology trumps (ha ha) pragmatism. An example of this is, interestingly, the Republican party. They were pretty pragmatic about getting their goals achieved for a long time and it was a slow process for them. Then came the rise of the ideology known as the Tea Party. The Tea Baggers have an unapologetic extreme conservative ideology and they want that ideology implemented rightfuckingnow. That ideology forced the Republican party hard to the right to keep from fracturing the party and as a result the whole of the right wing went from "red" to "maroon." But the Democrats, being "pragmatic" followed suit but always tried to be just a little more liberal than the Republicans to hopefully attract more conservative independents. The result we got was an overall more conservative government even as the country as a whole became more liberal. Ideology won.

Now, for the first time in fuck-me-many-years, we have an option. A truly liberal candidate and a country that is now finally liberal enough for him to be viable. Everyone else? Different shades of conservative. With anyone but Sanders, at best we'll get more of the same. And, frankly, I can't handle the status quo anymore because every year, the status quo gets more and more conservative.

On policies, the biggest reason I won't vote for her, however, is the most simple: I don't trust Clinton. I have not seen her take a stand that wouldn't change with enough money or polling opinions. People have been saying that Sanders has pulled Clinton further to the left, but I don't believe that she'll stay that way. She has given me no reason to believe that she won't snap back to the right if she gets the nomination. And her voting history very, very closely mirrors fucking Jeb Bush. While Bernie was getting arrested for civil rights, Clinton was supporting a segregationist. While I won't fault people for changing their minds, this does show me that Sanders has a pretty damn good moral compass.

There's also the facts that she was right on camera telling us as recently as 2013 that marriage was between one man and one woman. Then as soon as the polls hit 51% in favor of gay marriage, her position changed. Back in the '90's she was talking about single payer health care. Then the healthcare industry dropped $13 million into her pockets and now she's saying that it'll never happen. She was for guns, now she's against them. She supports the rights of illegal immigrants so much she voted in favor of a US-Mexico border wall. She keeps talking about her "experience" with foreign policy, but it seems like that experience basically amounts to "Woohoo, bullets and bombs!" Her love of regime change is what gave ISIS a safe haven in Libya while that country experiences a power vacuum. Experience doesn't equal wisdom, and she has shown me that she hasn't learned from her mistakes.

These are just some of the issues I have with her.

So, no, I won't vote for her. Ever. Call me "butthurt" if you like, but if she gets the nomination then I'll just stay at home and masturbate come election day. Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit. 4 years of Trump would be such a fucking hell that people would be screaming for a real liberal candidate to run. 8 years of Clinton would be just tolerable enough that nothing will change, and we'll just get a more and more conservative government and a republican president in 2024.

*edit* Hehe, 1776th post.

[The_Queen]

Queen, a question for you: what do you see as the major weaknesses of a Clinton presidency?

I have not supported Clinton up to this point, but that non-support is poorly founded since I know little of her weaknesses in policy and potential. Her faults may not be enough to justify my non-support. They may be. I've found your opinion on Clinton useful before, so I would like to know what you see as her major downsides as a president, not a nominee.

I think her biggest weaknesses are that (1) she is more conservative than Bernie and (2) the GOP smear machine has already had a 25 year head start on attacking her. While Hillary has gotten the better of several of the conservative smears, the damage is still done to her reputation. Everything from whitewatergate to Benghazi, the GOP has spent so much time, money, and energy to make her appear less trustworthy, and despite very few real scandals or actions that warrant questioning, her trustworthiness rating is low, even among democrats. While this is a reality, I do not think it's fair to hold it against her, as this simply emboldens the misogynistic GOP attacks against her and gives the GOP exactly what they want. ETA: And an interesting tidbit, while polls show Bernie is more trustworthy than Clinton (overwhelmingly so), Clinton is slightly more truthful than Bernie according to politifact (the breakdown among True, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, pants on fire is 15-36-19-15-14-0 for Bernie, and 24-27-21-14-13-1 for Hillary).

And as for Damen, duly noted. I already thought very little of you. Now I see you're not only petty, but selfish and short sighted. It amazes me that so many of Bernie's positions are about helping people in need, and yet his followers would happily let those very people suffer, and many of those people die, because they want to make the good the enemy of the perfect.

Ironchew, Merrick Garland is an anomaly of an appointment. Obama put him up for the position as the senate is primarily Republican. It was a realization that while he can choose who gets voted on, the senate can disapprove (and the Senate is republican). It also had the dual purpose of highlighting the obstructionist GOP in an election year. His other two appointments are liberals, and the moderate Garland is better than Scalia, so his appointment would still be progress. So if you (generally) really want a liberal Supreme Court, the answer is to vote for a democratic president and democratic senators.

Finally, Dakota, this is not the last time by any stretch of the imagination that we can get a super progressive. Bernie running, and being openly socialist (well, "democratic socialist") has done a lot to dispel the stigma of being a socialist. A lot of young people are supporting him. Young people will grow older, and older people not voting for Bernie will die off. I've said this almost a half dozen times before, but I think Bernie's largest contribution to American politics is making socialism a viable political identity and party platform going forward.

I'm 30, come November, I'll be 31. I have voted in every presidential election since I was legally able. Always, I voted for the lesser of two evils. I got to witness people re-elect a trained chimp in a suit and a Sith Lord to the oval office. Then I voted for Obama, not exactly enthused, but I felt better about it. And then came drone warfare, broken promises and preemptive concessions when it came time to negotiate. Each time, the Republicans went further to the right and dragged Obama along with them. The lesser of two evils was slowly growing more and more evil.

Obama ran as a liberal, in case you don't recall. Then, as soon as he got elected, he presided as a moderate because that was what he had to do to get shit done with an obstructionist GOP and democrats that were iffy about jumping on board with his policies. If Bernie were president, he'd have to do the same thing. And, historically, Bernie has shown that he is more likely to alienate colleagues by telling them that they're beholden to wall street than to negotiate with them (I mean, come on, this is on his wikipedia page, it's not a secret). That is a big reason why the superdelegates lined up behind Hillary. She has been a leader of the party for 25 years; Bernie isn't even a democrat. She has worked and negotiated with members of Congress to build coalitions push legislation, such as SCHIP (the largest socialist policy to become law in the last fifty years); while Bernie alienates those same members that he would need to build coalitions and push legislation.

Another aspect to remember is that sometimes, ideology trumps (ha ha) pragmatism. An example of this is, interestingly, the Republican party. They were pretty pragmatic about getting their goals achieved for a long time and it was a slow process for them. Then came the rise of the ideology known as the Tea Party. The Tea Baggers have an unapologetic extreme conservative ideology and they want that ideology implemented rightfuckingnow. That ideology forced the Republican party hard to the right to keep from fracturing the party and as a result the whole of the right wing went from "red" to "maroon." But the Democrats, being "pragmatic" followed suit but always tried to be just a little more liberal than the Republicans to hopefully attract more conservative independents. The result we got was an overall more conservative government even as the country as a whole became more liberal. Ideology won.

Somehow, the idea of being more like the republicans in terms of blindly following the party and an ideology isn't too appealing to me. Further, the GOP has been an ideological suicide pact going back to Reagan. That is when they started pushing Trickle-Down economics, and continue to do so while evidence says they're pants on head fucking wrong. Then, that same ideological purity lead them to shutting down the government under the moderate Bill Clinton. Then Bush gets elected, and Bush tax cuts, deregulation, mishandled government agencies due to cronyism. Yeah, say what you want, but Hillary would be infinitely better than the "Sith Lord and the Chimp" or the Orange Toupee.

Now, for the first time in fuck-me-many-years, we have an option. A truly liberal candidate and a country that is now finally liberal enough for him to be viable. Everyone else? Different shades of conservative. With anyone but Sanders, at best we'll get more of the same. And, frankly, I can't handle the status quo anymore because every year, the status quo gets more and more conservative.

I posted this before, but it bears repeating

The point of this being that just because she is corporate shouldn't be the sole criteria of why you should not vote for her. Obama proved to be corporate, but effective: Lily Ledbetter fair pay act, health care reform, ending the war in Iraq, Iran Nuclear Deal, repeal of DADT, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the stimulus bill, reducing the deficit by over 60%, reduced unemployment from double digits to I believe 5.8% at the moment, Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act, executive order requiring hospitals allow same-sex partners visitation rights, greatly improved our international relations, increased our utilization of renewable energy, and most importantly put Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court. If anyone believes that a republican president would have achieved half of this, then they are pants on head stupid. My only point is that, like Obama, Hillary shouldn't be written off because she is perceived as corporate, and we shouldn't vote third-party and risk giving the GOP the election because Hillary isn't "perfect." I feel like, at worst, Hillary would be another four years of Obama, and quite frankly, I would be more than happy with such a result

On policies, the biggest reason I won't vote for her, however, is the most simple: I don't trust Clinton. I have not seen her take a stand that wouldn't change with enough money or polling opinions. People have been saying that Sanders has pulled Clinton further to the left, but I don't believe that she'll stay that way. She has given me no reason to believe that she won't snap back to the right if she gets the nomination. And her voting history very, very closely mirrors fucking Jeb Bush. While Bernie was getting arrested for civil rights, Clinton was supporting a segregationist. While I won't fault people for changing their minds, this does show me that Sanders has a pretty damn good moral compass.

Obama accepted corporate money, and I bet you voted for him, twice. Why should that automatically disqualify Hillary, then?

Also, Bernie voted for an amendment that would prevent states from informing immigrants crossing the southern border about the minutemen that were shooting at them. Which is why he's having trouble winning over the latin vote. He also voted for the same crime bill in which Hillary said "bring them to heel." Bernie is more liberal than Hillary, but he's not perfect. And his inability to win colleagues over to his side (as right as that side may be) highlights that while he has a strong moral compass, he lacks the "presidential power to persuade," which according to the foremost presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, is the most important characteristic a president can have.

And I think a large part of my reasoning is that while I agree with Bernie more on issues, that isn't my sole criteria. We all agree with ourselves 100% of the time, yet I doubt anyone here is crass enough to think they'd be the best president possible.

Finally, Bernie and Hillary voted together 93% of the time. So if Hillary is like Jeb, then 93% of the time, so is Bernie.

There's also the facts that she was right on camera telling us as recently as 2013 that marriage was between one man and one woman. Then as soon as the polls hit 51% in favor of gay marriage, her position changed. Back in the '90's she was talking about single payer health care. Then the healthcare industry dropped $13 million into her pockets and now she's saying that it'll never happen. She was for guns, now she's against them. She supports the rights of illegal immigrants so much she voted in favor of a US-Mexico border wall. She keeps talking about her "experience" with foreign policy, but it seems like that experience basically amounts to "Woohoo, bullets and bombs!" Her love of regime change is what gave ISIS a safe haven in Libya while that country experiences a power vacuum. Experience doesn't equal wisdom, and she has shown me that she hasn't learned from her mistakes.

These are just some of the issues I have with her.

First, Bernie voted for the same regime change in Libya

Second, as Secretary of State, Hillary unilaterally pushed a change in gender marker amendments for transsexuals on passports, which caused several states to follow. A recent federal district court case found that Trans-people may have a fundamental right to change state documents now, citing in part the federal government's policy regarding gender marker amendments. A GOP presidential appointment would undue the state department's policy and go back to requiring reassignment surgery. Further, while she was on the wrong side in the past, if anyone thinks she would undo same-sex marriage, they're stupid. But a GOP president would appoint SCOTUS justices who would undo same-sex marriage. Oh, and while I'm on SCOTUS, the most realistic way to undo Citizen's united is SCOTUS. The democratic appointees all voted against Citizen's united (1 by Obama and 2 by Clinton). There is no reason whatsoever to believe a Hillary appointee would uphold this policy.

Third, I do not think it is accurate to say that her change is purely due to money. She was the first person to really push a public option for health care, which actually mirrored substantially single payer, back in the 90's. She took the arrows for that. Twenty five years later, it cost the democrats just about everything to get Obamacare. I honestly doubt we will see Single-payer in our life time (nevertheless, I'll keep voting and doing my part to see it happen). But, the real end is universal healthcare, and the different means by getting there is where the debate rests. Bernie is saying Single payer, much like Canada. Hillary is saying slowly go down the route of regulating the market and price controls (which Obamacare does) in a manner similar to Japan. Sanders is right that Single Payer is more efficient overall, but that doesn't mean that the second best option is entirely without merit.

So, no, I won't vote for her. Ever. Call me "butthurt" if you like, but if she gets the nomination then I'll just stay at home and masturbate come election day. Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit. 4 years of Trump would be such a fucking hell that people would be screaming for a real liberal candidate to run. 8 years of Clinton would be just tolerable enough that nothing will change, and we'll just get a more and more conservative government and a republican president in 2024.

*edit* Hehe, 1776th post.

1. The highlighted portion, no comment.
2. Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.
3. And if you want real change, vote in 2020 for a democratic house so that we can undue the gerrymandering that occurred in 2010.

[Dakota Bob]

Finally, Dakota, this is not the last time by any stretch of the imagination that we can get a super progressive. Bernie running, and being openly socialist (well, "democratic socialist") has done a lot to dispel the stigma of being a socialist. A lot of young people are supporting him. Young people will grow older, and older people not voting for Bernie will die off. I've said this almost a half dozen times before, but I think Bernie's largest contribution to American politics is making socialism a viable political identity and party platform going forward.

Fair enough. I'm not gonna pretend I'm an expert on US politics (just an slightly amused observer) but it seems to me every Democrat candidate I've seen in all the elections I've watched always seem to keep their politics close to the center, and I can't help but wonder if any future candidate that wants to capture what Bernies got going for him would really go as far as him, because as far as american politics go Bernie is leaning so far left his left leg might as well have been blown off. Again, this is useless speculation on my part so I can feel like I'm contributing

Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.

[tumblr]penis jokes re-enforce a toxic form of heteronormative patriarchy and contribute to a culture of body shaming[/tumblr]

Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit.

Well that's a bit extreme isn't it? I imagine after 4 years of Trump most Americans will die in the inevitable race war.

[Damen]

And as for Damen, duly noted. I already thought very little of you. Now I see you're not only petty, but selfish and short sighted.

2. Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.

This is why I have zero interest in debating with, or even acknowledging, you.

Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit.

Well that's a bit extreme isn't it? I imagine after 4 years of Trump most Americans will die in the inevitable race war.

Extreme? Possibly. But either of those hawks in office will kill thousands with the number of the wars they will start around the globe.

[The_Queen]

And as for Damen, duly noted. I already thought very little of you. Now I see you're not only petty, but selfish and short sighted.

2. Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.

This is why I have zero interest in debating with, or even acknowledging, you.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the rest of my post could it? You know, those parts where I detail why Hillary isn't worse than Hitler, why she would be infinitely better than the GOP, and why Bernie isn't perfect. I have invective, sure. But I also have points.