2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I agree with what you guys are saying in theory, but I think you're ignoring how it plays out in practice. Anything we gain from experienced legislators is more than offset (IMO) by the corruption that's allowed to fester with career politicians and their crony friends.

California went with term limits and found that it makes everything worse. State Reps/Senators who are unable to run for reelection are easy pickings by lobbying groups looking for favors, and the constant cycle of inexperienced lawmakers are at a disadvantage to the experienced lobbying groups who know the ropes.

I support term limits for the executive branch, but not for the legislature. There is something admirable about a statesman like McCain or Kerry IMO.

What we need is campaign finance reform, publicly funded elections, bans on lobbying after Congressional careers, etc.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,046
Reaction score
1,924
On a completely different note:

The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.


When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,636
Reaction score
20,125
California went with term limits and found that it makes everything worse. State Reps/Senators who are unable to run for reelection are easy pickings by lobbying groups looking for favors, and the constant cycle of inexperienced lawmakers are at a disadvantage to the experienced lobbying groups who know the ropes.

I support term limits for the executive branch, but not for the legislature. There is something admirable about a statesman like McCain or Kerry IMO.

What we need is campaign finance reform, publicly funded elections, bans on lobbying after Congressional careers, etc.

Why do people automatically think in terms of one or two? Term limits don't have to be one or two terms. Maybe three of four is the max.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,546
Reaction score
29,009
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Before protesting result of election, Mike Evans said he didn’t vote <a href="https://t.co/gEX1HS0Lx2">https://t.co/gEX1HS0Lx2</a> <a href="https://t.co/DNyTrem5Yn">pic.twitter.com/DNyTrem5Yn</a></p>— NBC Sports (@NBCSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCSports/status/798234070400516096">November 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

How can anyone take these kinds of people seriously? The left has a MASSIVE optics problem right now, as much as the spin chamber wants to make it seem like Trump supporters are the crazy ones. No one is buying their narrative anymore, but they keep pushing it.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,546
Reaction score
29,009

This all misses the point, which is typical of of some media outlets continued effort to stick their fingers in their ears and double-down on their narratives that failed.

There was documented collusion and rigging by the DNC. Period. It's right there in the emails. They hand waved at it when it happened, then hand waved at it again when Wasserman-Schultz got booed by her own delegation at her own convention, and then are shocked when people still have a gripe with their political machine and pretend like it wasn't a problem.

Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate. Period. For every supposed negative they point out there, I could point out positives. But it's not even about Sanders vs Clinton... it's about the fact that in backroom deals the DNC actively discouraged people like Biden, etc. from running and giving the people more palatable options.

It's an absolute joke that some people still want to act like this result isn't about DNC/Hillary/media failings and is about "racism, sexism, and xenophobia." Wake the fuck up.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006

The first quote you list is that the Ds don't vote monolithically, and the first part of the article details him bitching at a fan for not voting monolithically. However if anyone even thinks the Rs do, they are sadly mistaken.

The he says that it was never his job to promote or oppose Trump's election and then he details how my family interaction he let slide so he could dig up anything he could on the guy. Also, it was at that point I checked the byline and saw it was Kurt Eichenwald and fully realized that,yeah, he did take it as his job to oppose him. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but let's be real right?

Also, like most on the left, they leave out of their post mortems that tons on the right did not want Trump but picked him as closer to their beliefs than Hillary. Also, the were a number on the right that went libertarian or stayed home too or didn't pick the top line and only voted down ballot.

In other words, many Rs settled too!
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
This all misses the point, which is typical of of some media outlets continued effort to stick their fingers in their ears and double-down on their narratives that failed.

There was documented collusion and rigging by the DNC. Period. It's right there in the emails. They hand waved at it when it happened, then hand waved at it again when Wasserman-Schultz got booed by her own delegation at her own convention, and then are shocked when people still have a gripe with their political machine and pretend like it wasn't a problem.

Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate. Period. For every supposed negative they point out there, I could point out positives. But it's not even about Sanders vs Clinton... it's about the fact that in backroom deals the DNC actively discouraged people like Biden, etc. from running and giving the people more palatable options.

It's an absolute joke that some people still want to act like this result isn't about DNC/Hillary/media failings and is about "racism, sexism, and xenophobia." Wake the fuck up.

Anyone that denies the collusion between the DOJ (Kadzik) and Posdesta are fooling themselves.

I mean...we have 100% proof of it. There is no argument. It happened and it's right there in the emails.


"Wake up" is right.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
California went with term limits and found that it makes everything worse. State Reps/Senators who are unable to run for reelection are easy pickings by lobbying groups looking for favors, and the constant cycle of inexperienced lawmakers are at a disadvantage to the experienced lobbying groups who know the ropes.

I support term limits for the executive branch, but not for the legislature. There is something admirable about a statesman like McCain or Kerry IMO.
:yes:
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126

Following up on Lax's post above, it really doesn't matter how thick the GOP's opposition research file was on Bernie. Both Trump's and Clinton's were worse. Clinton and the DNC blew off the white working class, while Bernie was massively popular among them. You really think that card-carrying union members who pulled the level for Obama in 2008 and 2012 would have voted for Trump over Bernie in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
Following up on Lax's post above, it really doesn't matter how thick the GOP's opposition research file was on Bernie. Both Trump's and Clinton's were worse. Clinton and the DNC blew off the white working class, while Bernie was massively popular among them. You really think that card-carrying union members who pulled the level for Obama in 2008 and 2012 would have voted for Trump over Bernie in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

Well, considering Bernie was going to raise taxes on all of them, maybe.

It wouldn't have been the bloodbath that we just saw, But I still think Trump would've done well in those counties.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,636
Reaction score
20,125
K09G1ag.jpg
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Well, considering Bernie was going to raise taxes on all of them, maybe.

Bernie did not campaign on raising the taxes of the downscale Rust Belt natives who put Trump in the White House. Lots of other people, sure, but not them.

It wouldn't have been the bloodbath that we just saw, But I still think Trump would've done well in those counties.

Bernie's was the populism they wanted. The DNC ensured he wasn't an option, so they instead voted for the only populist left on the menu. I don't see how Trump would have remained competitive in the Midwest running against Bernie. Would have deprived him of his main appeal there.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,530
Reaction score
17,431
I think a lot of people that voted for Trump in the Midwest would have seriously reconsidered had Bernie been on the ticket instead of Hillary. I would have been on the fence myself. With Clinton on the ballot though, it was an easy choice.
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
Bernie did not campaign on raising the taxes of the downscale Rust Belt natives who put Trump in the White House. Lots of other people, sure, but not them.



Bernie's was the populism they wanted. The DNC ensured he wasn't an option, so they instead voted for the only populist left on the menu. I don't see how Trump would have remained competitive in the Midwest running against Bernie. Would have deprived him of his main appeal there.

Not in overall tax rates...but he was sneaking with little additional taxes here and there. Once things like "health care tax" and additional payroll taxes are added up, it equaled out to somewhere around a 9% increase for those making $250k a year or less..The richest Americans paying around 60% (some estimates had them around 77%!!which is absurd)

Sanders was way too crazy. They'd run him out of office before he would do too much damage.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Not in overall tax rates...but he was sneaking with little additional taxes here and there. Once things like "health care tax" and additional payroll taxes are added up, it equaled out to somewhere around a 9% increase for those making $250k a year or less..The richest Americans paying around 60% (some estimates had them around 77%!!which is absurd)

Sanders was way too crazy. They'd run him out of office before he would do too much damage.

You're moving the goal posts. Trump promised all sorts of crazy sh!t on the campaign trail, most of which he absolutely will not be able to deliver on. Midwestern voters didn't care. After 8 years of Obama, they felt voiceless and ignored. Trump promised to fight for them. And that was enough. If you think those voters would have passed on Bernie because the Cato Institute found some sneaky tax increases in his plan, then I've got a bridge to sell both you and wizards. There just aren't many libertarians in this country.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
You're moving the goal posts. Trump promised all sorts of crazy sh!t on the campaign trail, most of which he absolutely will not be able to deliver on. Midwestern voters didn't care. After 8 years of Obama, they felt voiceless and ignored. Trump promised to fight for them. And that was enough. If you think those voters would have passed on Bernie because the Cato Institute found some sneaky tax increases in his plan, then I've got a bridge to sell both you and wizards. There just aren't many libertarians in this country.
Socialism is still a dirty word in the United States.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,497
I'm in agreement with Whiskey on this point. Speaking to the Rust Belt citizens only, Bernie vs Trump would've been a win for Sanders.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Too funny not to share. <a href="https://twitter.com/Slate">@Slate</a>, October 2012 vs November 2016. <a href="https://t.co/EQDvu9cZlT">pic.twitter.com/EQDvu9cZlT</a></p>— Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) <a href="https://twitter.com/SouthernKeeks/status/797960210971115520">November 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Same as Obama. Personally liked but his policies are hated.

I'm not sure how you could think Bernie's policies were widely "hated" based on the improbable success of his campaign, but that's besides the point. Our argument is over how many people share your sentiment. I'd suggest that the marginalization of the Conservative intelligentsia and the utter impotence of #NeverTrump proves that there's way less popular support for economic liberalism than the GOP assumed heading into this election cycle.
 
Last edited:

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
I'm not sure how you could think Bernie's policies were widely "hated" based on the improbably success of his campaign, but that's besides the point. Our argument is over how many people share your sentiment. I'd suggest that the marginalization of the Conservative intelligentsia and the utter impotence of #NeverTrump proves that there's way less popular support for economic liberalism than the GOP assumed heading into this election cycle.

Widely successful campaign? Dude, he didn't even beat Clinton. Of course there was collusion, but it's not like he's some rock star that was crushing.

His policies are exactly what took him down. Everyone loves ol uncle Bernie at Thanksgiving, until he starts drinking and talking about policy.

Bernie is a likable guy, just like Obama. Obama didn't win because of policy, he won because he was very charismatic and the first black POTUS. I mean, it is what it is.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I'm not sure how you could think Bernie's policies were widely "hated" based on the improbably success of his campaign, but that's besides the point. Our argument is over how many people share your sentiment.
What success? I keep hearing about this magical success of Crazy Bernie's campaign... What success was that, exactly? HE GOT STOMPED by the single worst candidate in modern political history, the woman who lost to Donald Trump.

Trump was a terrible candidate, everyone agrees on that. Yet Trump, as terrible as he was, beat the lady who crushed Bernie. Bernie was "successful" in getting know-nothing college students whipped into a frenzy by promising them free tuition. Big whup.

I'd suggest that the marginalization of the Conservative intelligentsia and the utter impotence of #NeverTrump proves that there's way less popular support for economic liberalism than the GOP assumed heading into this election cycle.
I disagree. Many of the economic liberals voted for Trump on the basis that the Democrats in the person of Hillary Clinton would have been worse. The election was not economic liberalism versus economic populism because many of the economic liberals stuck with Trump because politics is a team sport and Trump was wearing the red jersey. Trump's win doesn't represent the victory of some new populist ideology, it represents the victory of a cult of personality over ideology in any form.

#NeverTrump wasn't impotent because it wasn't about accomplishing a stated political goal. Shapiro, Goldberg, Beck, et. al. never said "we're trying to get Trump to lose the election," they just couldn't support him for personal, principled reasons. I believe you and I withheld our vote from Trump on similar grounds.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
You're moving the goal posts. Trump promised all sorts of crazy sh!t on the campaign trail, most of which he absolutely will not be able to deliver on. Midwestern voters didn't care. After 8 years of Obama, they felt voiceless and ignored. Trump promised to fight for them. And that was enough. If you think those voters would have passed on Bernie because the Cato Institute found some sneaky tax increases in his plan, then I've got a bridge to sell both you and wizards. There just aren't many libertarians in this country.

This, exactly. There was that great quote in the Atlantic a few weeks back that people have been repeating since Election Day: the press takes Trump literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. I'm not sure it's even accurate to talk about Trump's campaign "promises." The spirit, tone, and orientation of his campaign speeches mattered a lot more than whether they described projects he could actually achieve. (All of which is not so different from Obama in 2008, weirdly.)

So I don't see why Bernie Sanders or Biden or anyone else who spoke directly to the white working class voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 couldn't have obtained their support. Trump was just the one who was smart enough to focus on them.
 
Last edited:

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,497
Widely successful campaign? Dude, he didn't even beat Clinton. Of course there was collusion, but it's not like he's some rock star that was crushing.

His policies are exactly what took him down. Everyone loves ol uncle Bernie at Thanksgiving, until he starts drinking and talking about policy.

Bernie is a likable guy, just like Obama. Obama didn't win because of policy, he won because he was very charismatic and the first black POTUS. I mean, it is what it is.

Right....self-proclaimed socialist Jew with zero name recognition and no big money backing went head to head against the biggest political family/machine in the world and still won 22 states. But yea...wasn't successful...

His policies took him down? People (non-establishment types) on the left LOVE his policies.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
What success? I keep hearing about this magical success of Crazy Bernie's campaign... What success was that, exactly? HE GOT STOMPED by the single worst candidate in modern political history, the woman who lost to Donald Trump.

Trump was a terrible candidate, everyone agrees on that. Yet Trump, as terrible as he was, beat the lady who crushed Bernie. Bernie was "successful" in getting know-nothing college students whipped into a frenzy by promising them free tuition. Big whup.


I disagree. Many of the economic liberals voted for Trump on the basis that the Democrats in the person of Hillary Clinton would have been worse. The election was not economic liberalism versus economic populism because many of the economic liberals stuck with Trump because politics is a team sport and Trump was wearing the red jersey. Trump's win doesn't represent the victory of some new populist ideology, it represents the victory of a cult of personality over ideology in any form.

#NeverTrump wasn't impotent because it wasn't about accomplishing a stated political goal. Shapiro, Goldberg, Beck, et. al. never said "we're trying to get Trump to lose the election," they just couldn't support him for personal, principled reasons. I believe you and I withheld our vote from Trump on similar grounds.
Are you not the one who keeps harping on about how Trump only won due to a diluted primary for Republicans? At the time of the primaries, Sanders polled ahead of ALL Republicans in the primary head to head. His favorables were extremely high compared to all other candidates from both parties and he had the lowest unfavorables IIRC as well. He also had the strongest platform due to his unwavering 40-year record on numerous issues. Whether you agree with him or not, he was the strongest candidate on political issues although he did get dragged into the muck by Clinton on a couple of topics.

The DNC had to literally sandbag him to keep him from winning. They restricted his access to Democrat voter rolls. They had sham primaries in Nevada and other states. Then after they had to quiet him down once it was obvious what they were doing, they gave him a little more say in the party's platform which they never intended to honor with HRC. Dont make the false equivalency that Trump navigated a tough primary while Bernie could not. They were too vastly different things. Even after the election surveys and post FBI email email sham.... show that many people would voted for Sanders over Trump head to head.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
This, exactly. There was that great quote in the Atlantic a few weeks back that people have been repeating since Election Day: the press takes Trump literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. I'm not sure it's even accurate to talk about Trump's campaign "promises." The spirit, tone, and orientation of his campaign speeches mattered a lot more than whether they described projects he could actually achieve. (All of which is not so different from Obama in 2008, weirdly.)

So I don't see why Bernie Sanders or Biden or anyone else who spoke directly to the white working class voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 couldn't have obtained their support. Trump was just the one who was smart enough to focus on them.

See the "METAPHORICAL WALL"
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Right....self-proclaimed socialist Jew with zero name recognition and no big money backing went head to head against the biggest political family/machine in the world and still won 22 states. But yea...wasn't successful...

His policies took him down? People (non-establishment types) on the left LOVE his policies.
Dawg, the Bernie left is fucking insane. Trump's policies are incoherent and all over the board, so he was able to be all things to all people. Bernie would have been utterly incapable of expanding beyond his #Occupy base.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
As with most, if not all legislatures, Texas has a legislative research branch that any legislators who want to craft a bill - or their staff - can and must, generally, resort to. This is staffed by lawyers with support staff. This eliminates a host of problems that would occur otherwise. You can imagine.

Anyway, a newly-elected legislator consulted them and then looked at the size of the staff and the total amount of their payroll. He would do away with the entire department, because he stands against big government at any level. He now considers that department as part of the problem and not an arm of the government that makes drafting a bill more efficient and effective.
 
Top