|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki talk:What is going on with the elections?/Archive2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is an archive page, last updated 18 October 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Closed Primary[edit]
It's rather disingenuous to say they are being "barred from voting". Parties are under no obligation to allow non-Democrats or non-Republicans to vote in their primary. You can argue for or against open primaries, but no one is being denied the right to vote in a general sense. Something tells me if Clinton was winning independents, this story would have a very different message (ONLY DEMOCRATS SHOULD VOTE RAWR), or it would be a simple non-story, as it was in 2012 and 2008. Hentropy (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think that parties should have to allow non-members since they are running for the highest office in the country.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 06:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well like I said, you can make the argument that it's good for democracy or whatever, I'm not arguing that, only that it's no one's "right" and shouldn't really be treated like the right to vote in a general election. Just like it's not my right to go into DNC headquarters and start reorganizing their files. Hentropy (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- And I agree with that view which is why Isaid they would be unable to vote opposed to denied the ability to vote (though having them register in October of last year is ridiculous).--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 18:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- What I don't understand, though, is why you don't like news sites covering issues like this. I mean, obviously, no one would have covered Hillary's Goldman Sachs speeches if Bernie hadn't run, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 18:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have much of an issue with news sites covering it, but it tended to be a more localized issue pushed by moderates because of polarization. In my own experience at least, many more left-wing folks tended to oppose such measures because it resulted in more moderate candidates. I just think it's somewhat transparent now that Sanders is benefiting from it, open primaries have become some kind of big voting rights issue. I don't belong to either party and I'm in a closed primary state, but I don't mind, because I knew that was part of the deal. For what it's worth, the whole thing about signing up by October is bullshit. Hentropy (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer same day registration and more liberal early day voting, but I wish we would just register everyone eligible automatically (kudos to Clinton for being the first prez nominee to suggest that btw). I also dislike the convoluted system we have when it comes to registering third parties since each state has differing amounts of required signers on a petition and have differing criteria when it comes to determining the "eligibility" of that process and those signatures; of course, all of that can be changed by a simple majority so it because even more problematic. Too bad the Supreme Court denied electoral fusion
constitutional protection, but I digress.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 20:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer same day registration and more liberal early day voting, but I wish we would just register everyone eligible automatically (kudos to Clinton for being the first prez nominee to suggest that btw). I also dislike the convoluted system we have when it comes to registering third parties since each state has differing amounts of required signers on a petition and have differing criteria when it comes to determining the "eligibility" of that process and those signatures; of course, all of that can be changed by a simple majority so it because even more problematic. Too bad the Supreme Court denied electoral fusion
- I don't have much of an issue with news sites covering it, but it tended to be a more localized issue pushed by moderates because of polarization. In my own experience at least, many more left-wing folks tended to oppose such measures because it resulted in more moderate candidates. I just think it's somewhat transparent now that Sanders is benefiting from it, open primaries have become some kind of big voting rights issue. I don't belong to either party and I'm in a closed primary state, but I don't mind, because I knew that was part of the deal. For what it's worth, the whole thing about signing up by October is bullshit. Hentropy (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- "I think that parties should have to allow non-members since they are running for the highest office in the country" - this is idiotic. You get a chance to vote when it comes down to the party you support vs the party or parties you don't. You shouldn't have a chance to vote to select a candidate for a party for which you will never vote. This isn't such a strange concept - in the UK it's local parties that decide their candidates (with occasional intervention from central offices). rpeh •T•C•E• 20:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the US isn't a parliamentary democracy so I don't think we can compare the highest office in the US to the highest office in the UK. I don't how you can determine someone isn't going to vote for a certain party or that they are voting for a party or party candidate that they don't support. Independents can vote for either candidate in the general election so I don't see why they should be prevented from voting for a candidate they would prefer to vote for in the general election rather than wait for others to choose for them. I think that a closed primary or closed caucus (though I prefer primaries over caucuses) process leads to a feeling of disenfranchisement which leads to less participation in the general election; I think that if independents are allowed to vote for a candidate in a primary they will be more likely to vote in the general election because they will have followed that campaign and most likely other campaigns so they will be less ignorant or apathetic to voting in the general election. It may also help independents follow other campaigns at the federal, state, and local level since parties and presidential candidates try to endorse candidates down ballot when they are in a state.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- As you can see from our new Primary elections article, primaries were intended to produce "candidate's of the majority, honestly and fairly nominated". Be opened or closed however, we know that too often is not the result. No one is proposing scraping the whole Primary system, but it should be obvious to all the intended reform has never been the case. nobsDump Trump 01:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well voting is never going to be perfect and everyone will disagree on what constitutes as a "fair" vote. I wouldn't be opposed to a list system since it would be better than the superdelegate system we have now, but I don't prefer since I like more individuality among party members. AFAIK, political parties can already deny individuals from appearing on the ballot unless an individual state is petitioned.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- As you can see from our new Primary elections article, primaries were intended to produce "candidate's of the majority, honestly and fairly nominated". Be opened or closed however, we know that too often is not the result. No one is proposing scraping the whole Primary system, but it should be obvious to all the intended reform has never been the case. nobsDump Trump 01:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the US isn't a parliamentary democracy so I don't think we can compare the highest office in the US to the highest office in the UK. I don't how you can determine someone isn't going to vote for a certain party or that they are voting for a party or party candidate that they don't support. Independents can vote for either candidate in the general election so I don't see why they should be prevented from voting for a candidate they would prefer to vote for in the general election rather than wait for others to choose for them. I think that a closed primary or closed caucus (though I prefer primaries over caucuses) process leads to a feeling of disenfranchisement which leads to less participation in the general election; I think that if independents are allowed to vote for a candidate in a primary they will be more likely to vote in the general election because they will have followed that campaign and most likely other campaigns so they will be less ignorant or apathetic to voting in the general election. It may also help independents follow other campaigns at the federal, state, and local level since parties and presidential candidates try to endorse candidates down ballot when they are in a state.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well like I said, you can make the argument that it's good for democracy or whatever, I'm not arguing that, only that it's no one's "right" and shouldn't really be treated like the right to vote in a general election. Just like it's not my right to go into DNC headquarters and start reorganizing their files. Hentropy (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Libertarian Party presidential primary[edit]
Well since I assume that no one is paying attention to who is running for the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee I decided to check out the Wikipedia page. Apparently, there are several candidates, but I will list the most interesting ones to me: first, you have Gary Johnson who is the Republican turned libertarian; secondly; you have Austin Peterson who appears to be a paleolibertarian since he believes in the consistent life principle; thirdly, you have Darryl Perry who is a deontological minarchist who believes discrimination laws infringe on individual freedoms but has some agreeable views on immigration and war; fourthly, you have techno-libertarian, John McAfee, who's tax policy would be detrimental, but has some interesting views on surveillance and wants to create a cabinet position for technology; lastly, there is some doctor named Marc Feldman who appears to be for campaign finance reform, but has no platform; otherwise, there are a bunch of no-name randos, but I thought this guy had the best campaign site I have ever seen.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- That is quite the spread of candidates, from religious fundies to... people who want to get money out of politics? Not typically Libertarian talking points. I imagine the nominee will be Johnson, especially in an election where third party participating is likely to be significantly higher no matter who gets nominated on either side. McAfee's crazy but he also has a chance, in a year where non-government outside businessmen seem to be in vogue. Reid's page is vastly interesting, it's clear he likely wrote it all himself and meanders into strange issues. It's not quite on Time Cube levels but it is in on the same planet. Hentropy (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I do find some of Perry's ideas interesting, but I wouldn't support that much baggage. It appears to be a race between Peterson and Johnson so that is fairly boring to me. They all seem to agree that wars should be limited, deregulation is great, more immigration of some sort, mass surveillance (by the government, thanks Snowden) must end, and that the Fed Reserve must go and the gold standard must be restored (Paulbots are a lasting force).--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 19:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perry had me agreeing with him a lot until the whole "no government education" and "no coercive taxes" thing. For some reason Johnson had swallowed the whole consumption tax hook, I've never understood why libertarians think that's a smaller, simpler, or business-friendly tax. It seems like Petersen wants to out-old-school even Paulbots by wanting to reintroduce bimetallism. I do find it interesting that it seems to be only Libertarians who want to make the immigration system as minimalist as possible. Hentropy (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I am an advocate for open borders and guest worker programs, but the libertarian approach of not allowing the government the resources to legally protect guest workers, denying them financial assistance by ending the welfare state, driving down their wages by abolishing the minimum wage, and preventing them from joining a union by busting them up (or at least allowing businesses to bust them up) would result in a massive amount of abuse. They are also keen on displacing other "natural-born workers" by not preventing businesses from forcing their workers to train them and then replace them or having the government retrain them so that they aren't unemployed through offshoring; this would cause discrimination and hate crimes which the libertarian party, for the most part, is against philosophically, but believes enacting such laws that would prevent such actions infringes on "liberty".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Q. If Gary Johnson were elected, do they have random piss testing in the Oval Office? nobsDump Trump 21:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I am an advocate for open borders and guest worker programs, but the libertarian approach of not allowing the government the resources to legally protect guest workers, denying them financial assistance by ending the welfare state, driving down their wages by abolishing the minimum wage, and preventing them from joining a union by busting them up (or at least allowing businesses to bust them up) would result in a massive amount of abuse. They are also keen on displacing other "natural-born workers" by not preventing businesses from forcing their workers to train them and then replace them or having the government retrain them so that they aren't unemployed through offshoring; this would cause discrimination and hate crimes which the libertarian party, for the most part, is against philosophically, but believes enacting such laws that would prevent such actions infringes on "liberty".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perry had me agreeing with him a lot until the whole "no government education" and "no coercive taxes" thing. For some reason Johnson had swallowed the whole consumption tax hook, I've never understood why libertarians think that's a smaller, simpler, or business-friendly tax. It seems like Petersen wants to out-old-school even Paulbots by wanting to reintroduce bimetallism. I do find it interesting that it seems to be only Libertarians who want to make the immigration system as minimalist as possible. Hentropy (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I do find some of Perry's ideas interesting, but I wouldn't support that much baggage. It appears to be a race between Peterson and Johnson so that is fairly boring to me. They all seem to agree that wars should be limited, deregulation is great, more immigration of some sort, mass surveillance (by the government, thanks Snowden) must end, and that the Fed Reserve must go and the gold standard must be restored (Paulbots are a lasting force).--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 19:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder how they a candidate is picked since their primary doesn't get the coverage of the traditional parties and I don't really pay attention. Especially with Trump bloviating how the voters don't get to choose their own candidate. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Having actual primaries is far too expensive and cumbersome for small parties they just vote at their convention, and because of ballot access laws in states, most of them cannot hold state-sponsored primaries, especially not in all states. The smaller they are, the more they start to resemble comic/anime conventions, with any member being able to buy a ticket to the convention and vote on any number of things there. Libertarians have delegates themselves but they are all free to choose which candidate they want. Hentropy (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen the Libertarian party on the ballot in open primary states. Typically they have one or two candidates on a ballot with maybe 20 different offices being voted for; so no matter how you cut it, the likelihood of any votes any of em get, is from a crossover abuser. nobsDump Trump 01:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Having actual primaries is far too expensive and cumbersome for small parties they just vote at their convention, and because of ballot access laws in states, most of them cannot hold state-sponsored primaries, especially not in all states. The smaller they are, the more they start to resemble comic/anime conventions, with any member being able to buy a ticket to the convention and vote on any number of things there. Libertarians have delegates themselves but they are all free to choose which candidate they want. Hentropy (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Trump is the nominee, Sanders wins Indiana[edit]
So Ted Cruz has dropped out of the race after some vicious and brilliantly crafted attacks by Trump, and Bernie Sanders has pulled another upset à la Michigan and won Indiana by 6 points, beating the polls by more than 10 points. I think this means Trump will be the Republican nominee and quite possibly president, and Sanders has new life in his campaign that could propel him to victories in West Virginia, Oregon, and possibly Kentucky. His campaign will go all the way to the convention. What are your thoughts? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The GOP's primaries were never really interesting enough for me to watch, since I don't think the Republicans will get the White House, no matter who would have one the primaries. All this really means in my opinion, is that Trump will lose come November. On the democratic side, Sanders is inching close to a contested convention, whether or not that really means anything is tough to say however. All thats certain is that it was a good night for Trump, and Sanders, a bad night for Clinton, and a very very shitty night for the GOP.'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, unless Clinton is indicted she will be the nominee. Sanders may run third party but there would have to be more third party candidates than just him and the Greens and Libertarians. I think it is possible that Sanders would run as a Green which would help him accumulate resources. Trump would likely beat Clinton since she doesn't have any cross-party support and isn't popular with independents.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 01:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Indiana may be similar to Michigan in the sense that Clinton voters may have simply stayed home- the only chance Sanders at a "contested convention" as he puts it is if he can convince hundreds of superdelegates to support him despite him losing the popular vote and delegate count. There's literally only on reason he's sticking around and it's not a bad one, he just doesn't want to admit it out loud, it's in case Clinton gets indicted. All hopes of people wanting to see what happens at a contested GOP convention are now dashed unfortunately, but the GOP's troubles are far from over. Cruz screwed himself over by flying off the handle in the last day, but I don't think it's crazy to suggest he could still go third party. It might be a big year for third parties on both sides, but I daresay the effect will be bigger on the right, with NeverTrump going Libertarian and Constitution. Even if many of the privileged white college students end up going Green, it might be offset by higher numbers of minorities and women who actually have something to lose in a Trump Presidency, if the spike in Hispanic voter registration is any indicator. Hentropy (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. What is the likelihood Sanders won with crossovers among Cruz & Kasich supporters seeing the establishment seems to see Trump as "inevitable"? There's still a month left to the big enchilada-California, and Sanders does not trail Hillary by that much among democratically elected delegates. nobs
Mr. GorbachevMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)- Yes, yes he does trail by a good amount. When it comes to "democratically elected" delegates, she also leads in primaries, rather than less democratic caucuses. The problem is that everything is proportional, meaning he would have to win every remaining state by very wide margins just to even it out. He has little realistic path to beat her in pledged delegates or popular votes without an indictment or some other cataclysm. Even Sanders has admitted the math is more or less impossible for him. Hentropy (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. What is the likelihood Sanders won with crossovers among Cruz & Kasich supporters seeing the establishment seems to see Trump as "inevitable"? There's still a month left to the big enchilada-California, and Sanders does not trail Hillary by that much among democratically elected delegates. nobs
If Hillary actually wants to win the election, she should swing to the left and appoint Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as her VP. This would be a surefire way to woo undecided Sanders supporters into her camp for the general. Sanders may not be the type of person to accept her VP offer, and vice-versa. More likely is she makes Cory Booker or some other sellout right-wing her Veep, ruining her chances and dooming the country to eight years of a Trump administration. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC) On the plus side, now that Cruz is out, it'll be fun to see John Kasich getting 40 or even 50 percent in some states due to the Cruz supporters picking him. It'll make him feel important, but is largely irrelevant and won't stop Trump from getting and absolute majority. Math is a stubborn thing. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Warren has the problem that she could help the GOP retain the Senate if she becomes VP. But there is no doubt she would be a good pick for running mate. However, by any objective measure, Hillary should have a fairly easy time winning the Presidency against Trump. It's easy to get swept up into primary narratives, but Trump has only one a plurality of 17% of the eligible voting electorate. Trump's electoral path to winning the presidency is rather narrow. That doesn't mean he should be underestimated, but Trump has not been able to prove he can win more than he has already won, or that he can expand his appeal outside of the 35-40% he's pulling down nationally. Hentropy (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- With Cruz out Kasich isn't far behind. With Ed Rollins on board, many Republicans will figure Trump cant be that bad. The focus shifts now, will the Dems have a contested convention? nobs
Mr. GorbachevMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)- No, that's just strips of meat Sanders is feeding his supports so they don't stop forking over their 20 dollar donations. The only way superdelegates were ever going to support him en masse is if he decisively won the election. Remember that Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections fairly decisively, they cannot simply retain their current support and win, they have to grow it. If the remaining Hispanics the Republicans held abandon them, then they are toast. This is a good interactive electoral map. It is difficult to get Republicans to 270 without diverse states, and Clinton has proven she can win those demographics, much more consistently than Trump or Sanders or anyone else. If Clinton takes Florida, a Republican victory is next to impossible. Hentropy (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Superdelegates vote by who gives more money, not by what the voters want (seen that it 2008). The "respected" Ed Rollins announcement came 3 hours before Cruz dropping out -- the hallmark of a backroom deal. nobs
Mr. GorbachevMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC) - As to Florida, yes, Hillary needs a VP pick from Florida. nobs
Mr. GorbachevMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)- Most superdelegates don't need to be paid off, they dislike Sanders on principle. He's done nothing for the party over the years and gives Trump sweet dreams of a divided Democratic party. Florida is going to be difficult for Trump to win due to the great number of Cuban Hispanics, Julian Castro may not be from Florida but he could help cement it as a VP pick. Hentropy (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- And Clinton isn't "divisive"? Also, it was found the the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraing committee, barely gives any money to the state parties.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is the Hillary Victory Fund, after all, not the DNC war chest. I'm not sure why that's a scandal. At this point, she may very well need as much money as possible to beat Trump. But more generally, I was talking about fund raising, which Bernie has never done for Democrats. Hillary has raised 15 million for Democrats this year alone. Sanders has raised zero, nothing for anyone but himself, even his supporters in Congress. So you or anyone else trying to claim that Hillary isn't raising enough for Dems while defending Sanders somehow is is pure, smelly bullshit. Hentropy (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not saying she has never raised money for the Democrats but that he joint committee hasn't; it is a scandal because she is getting around the campaign finance cap and not assisting anyone when that is what the fund is meant to do. Sanders method encourages more grassroots so I am not entirely concerned with party loayalty but I don't blame the party for helping her.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 04:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just not seeing how the Hillary Victory Fund is supposed to have some kind of intrinsic responsibility to help state parties. Yes, the designation does help her raise more money than she could through other means, and you can bet your bottom dollar the Republicans will use the same tactics. In any case, you can't selectively care about the party establishment. Hentropy (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The point joint funding committees is to help state parties as well as your own campaign and she is using it because it is a campaign finance loophole. I dno't particularly care if the Republicns use it becuase the Republicans are barely a funtional party and, as she is a Democrat, she should act above them. Nonetheless, I am not voting because of her hawkishness not because of peceived corruption.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 05:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just not seeing how the Hillary Victory Fund is supposed to have some kind of intrinsic responsibility to help state parties. Yes, the designation does help her raise more money than she could through other means, and you can bet your bottom dollar the Republicans will use the same tactics. In any case, you can't selectively care about the party establishment. Hentropy (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not saying she has never raised money for the Democrats but that he joint committee hasn't; it is a scandal because she is getting around the campaign finance cap and not assisting anyone when that is what the fund is meant to do. Sanders method encourages more grassroots so I am not entirely concerned with party loayalty but I don't blame the party for helping her.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 04:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is the Hillary Victory Fund, after all, not the DNC war chest. I'm not sure why that's a scandal. At this point, she may very well need as much money as possible to beat Trump. But more generally, I was talking about fund raising, which Bernie has never done for Democrats. Hillary has raised 15 million for Democrats this year alone. Sanders has raised zero, nothing for anyone but himself, even his supporters in Congress. So you or anyone else trying to claim that Hillary isn't raising enough for Dems while defending Sanders somehow is is pure, smelly bullshit. Hentropy (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- And Clinton isn't "divisive"? Also, it was found the the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraing committee, barely gives any money to the state parties.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Most superdelegates don't need to be paid off, they dislike Sanders on principle. He's done nothing for the party over the years and gives Trump sweet dreams of a divided Democratic party. Florida is going to be difficult for Trump to win due to the great number of Cuban Hispanics, Julian Castro may not be from Florida but he could help cement it as a VP pick. Hentropy (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Superdelegates vote by who gives more money, not by what the voters want (seen that it 2008). The "respected" Ed Rollins announcement came 3 hours before Cruz dropping out -- the hallmark of a backroom deal. nobs
- No, that's just strips of meat Sanders is feeding his supports so they don't stop forking over their 20 dollar donations. The only way superdelegates were ever going to support him en masse is if he decisively won the election. Remember that Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections fairly decisively, they cannot simply retain their current support and win, they have to grow it. If the remaining Hispanics the Republicans held abandon them, then they are toast. This is a good interactive electoral map. It is difficult to get Republicans to 270 without diverse states, and Clinton has proven she can win those demographics, much more consistently than Trump or Sanders or anyone else. If Clinton takes Florida, a Republican victory is next to impossible. Hentropy (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- With Cruz out Kasich isn't far behind. With Ed Rollins on board, many Republicans will figure Trump cant be that bad. The focus shifts now, will the Dems have a contested convention? nobs
- Well, humanity had a good run I guess. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ed Rollin in, Kasich & Cruz out. This means Trump, RNC, & pro-Trump PACS take a 30 day bye and save the money that would have been spent in the most expensive primary in the country - California, to use in the General Election. Also, pay attention to increase in Dem turnout & drop in GOP turnout in remaining primaries--a clear indication of crossover voting (most likely for Sanders). nobs
Mr. GorbachevMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 23:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)- I'm not sure why Rollins is considered fearsome these days. His last "success" was with Perot 24 years ago and he hasn't backed a single Republican eventual nominee or President since. Hentropy (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- In GOP circles, Rollins is a total badass. How many other living presidential campaign managers can boast as many as he's handled, including a 49 state win and the largest landslide in living memory? He beat James Carville in a head to head matchup in a NJ Gov. race; he beat Tom Foley and handed the Speakership to Newt Gingrich; Perot quit the race the day after Rollins resigned; Papa Bush hates his guts, and that's a badge of honor, among a shitload of other accomplishments. nobs
Mr. GorbachevMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 01:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)- I don't doubt he may have been a badass at one time, he just hasn't been one in quite some time. His last two campaigns between Bachman and Huckabee were pretty bad failures. There's also the larger issue of whether or not Trump will actually listen to him. Hentropy (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- It says a lot about the talent in the GOP if a decades long failure is the rock star. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rollins is the guy to get things done. Rollins used to teach candidates how to be candidates (his experiences with Christie Todd Wittman and Bachman, for example, you know, how to carry yourself, walk, talk, etc etc); but he's also a brilliant strategist as well, basically engineering the so-called "Gingrich Revolution"). Unlike Carville, Beckel, and others, Rollins has gone onto work inside the government and White House (why didn't Carville ever work in the White House, couldn't pass the security background check?). Rollins is not directly advising Trump, but I'm certain McConnell's backing of Trump which coincided with Cruz & Kasich dropping out, and Ryan's holding out on the unity platform until the convention, is all' Ed Rollins at work. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rollins would be the guy to go talk to the Koch brothers (who plan to spend $900 million dollars on this years elections at all levels, more than the RNC) and say, "hey, rather than spend $300 million to beat Trump, why don't you spend $300 million to elect' Trump. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- It says a lot about the talent in the GOP if a decades long failure is the rock star. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't doubt he may have been a badass at one time, he just hasn't been one in quite some time. His last two campaigns between Bachman and Huckabee were pretty bad failures. There's also the larger issue of whether or not Trump will actually listen to him. Hentropy (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- In GOP circles, Rollins is a total badass. How many other living presidential campaign managers can boast as many as he's handled, including a 49 state win and the largest landslide in living memory? He beat James Carville in a head to head matchup in a NJ Gov. race; he beat Tom Foley and handed the Speakership to Newt Gingrich; Perot quit the race the day after Rollins resigned; Papa Bush hates his guts, and that's a badge of honor, among a shitload of other accomplishments. nobs
- I'm not sure why Rollins is considered fearsome these days. His last "success" was with Perot 24 years ago and he hasn't backed a single Republican eventual nominee or President since. Hentropy (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ed Rollin in, Kasich & Cruz out. This means Trump, RNC, & pro-Trump PACS take a 30 day bye and save the money that would have been spent in the most expensive primary in the country - California, to use in the General Election. Also, pay attention to increase in Dem turnout & drop in GOP turnout in remaining primaries--a clear indication of crossover voting (most likely for Sanders). nobs
Jill Stein[edit]
Jill Stein, the Green Party prez nominee, has done an AMA. Interesting points are her answers on nuclear energy and alternative medicine. (Spoiler: She promotes woo.)--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 17:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- THe Green party has a nominee? in how many states? nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Look, the issues are too important to be distracted by somebody who made ballot status in what, two, three, states. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, the Green Party isn't listed in every state?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 19:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon me, 21 states. How many electoral votes do you think they'll steal from Hillary, assuming they win all 21 states? and do you think those 21 states will give enough electors to win outright? Now, are they anymore important, pressing issues the Green Party wants to contribute constructively that the voters should know to the upcoming elections? nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, I always thought that they were able to get on all 50 states' ballot. I know how hard it is to get onto the ballot and that every state's requirements are different but that still surprises me.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the list, the Progressives, which is a very old party, have access in two states. My guess is Wisconsin & New York, maybe Wisconsin & Minnisota. That doesn't mean the parties don't exist in other states, "ballot access" simply means they have candidates willing to run and loose (once in a blue moon one of these inbred localized state party candidates might actually win assemblyman or something when voters send the message they are pissed off at both parties. Hell, for a longtime and probably still, that is how most people outside Vermont looked at Bernie Sanders election to Congress). nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a very good example as to how things work in America. One of the two Progressive parties ballotopedia mentions is the Vermont Progressive Party, which evidently Bernie Sanders has been running on their ticket since 2000. Yet national media (C-SPAN included) has always called him "Independent"; opponents have called him "socialist"; he & his supporters now call him "Democratic Socialist". Now just what the hell is he? and why is C-SPAN, national media, & the Vermont Progressive Party afraid of or ashamed of the name "Progressive Party"? And who the hell is the other state Progressive Party ballotopedia says has ballot access? Good luck Googling it, and good luck to the third party idiots who think they got a chance. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- As you could have found out with ten seconds of looking, Sanders has never been a member of the Vermont Progressive Party. They gave him their ballot line for the races he ran in. Electoral fusion is allowed in Vermont. --Ymir (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- As you could have found out with ten seconds of looking, Sanders has never been a member of the Vermont Progressive Party
- Wow, I always thought that they were able to get on all 50 states' ballot. I know how hard it is to get onto the ballot and that every state's requirements are different but that still surprises me.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon me, 21 states. How many electoral votes do you think they'll steal from Hillary, assuming they win all 21 states? and do you think those 21 states will give enough electors to win outright? Now, are they anymore important, pressing issues the Green Party wants to contribute constructively that the voters should know to the upcoming elections? nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, the Green Party isn't listed in every state?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 19:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there's little impetus for third parties to run in areas with very few swing/floating voters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Remember the Reform Party that swept the nation? (when Ross Perot bought his access in 50 states)? down to 4 state affiliations now. Here's another "Progressive party", but it doesn't identify itself with any state so it's unlikely it is the other Progressive party with ballot access. Now, if after 8 years of having a president who allegedly is a "progressive", and "progressives" are this disorganized, it would seem to me to be the logical choice for most progressives to follow Obama & Bernie's lead into the Democratic Party, where they will remain a minority faction, rather than a separate third party. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- If Hillary is the Democratic nominee and Bernie Sanders tells people not to write in his name, then I would vote for Jill Stein as a write-in (she is only write-in in my state). IT sends a message to the establishment, and she is the person I would most agree with running for president. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- And what message did Nader send?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 03:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- What happened to the New York State Liberal Party? In several previous elections they have had Presidential candidates. It is a ritual to offer their nomination to the Democratic nominee. Perhaps they may offer it to Sanders, but I don't see them on ballotopedia's list of partys with ballot access (assuming that list is of party's with ballot access for a presidential candidate, but I think it's a list with ballot access for presidential and down-ballot candidates). nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- They are probably a skeleton of what they used to be since Bloomberg was elected w/o their support or opposition from a candidate picked by them; 2006 was the first year they hadn't ran someone for NY governor. Their leader, Raymond Harding, also died in 2012 and the Working Families Party has taken their place.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 03:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- What happened to the New York State Liberal Party? In several previous elections they have had Presidential candidates. It is a ritual to offer their nomination to the Democratic nominee. Perhaps they may offer it to Sanders, but I don't see them on ballotopedia's list of partys with ballot access (assuming that list is of party's with ballot access for a presidential candidate, but I think it's a list with ballot access for presidential and down-ballot candidates). nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- And what message did Nader send?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 03:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- If Hillary is the Democratic nominee and Bernie Sanders tells people not to write in his name, then I would vote for Jill Stein as a write-in (she is only write-in in my state). IT sends a message to the establishment, and she is the person I would most agree with running for president. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Remember the Reform Party that swept the nation? (when Ross Perot bought his access in 50 states)? down to 4 state affiliations now. Here's another "Progressive party", but it doesn't identify itself with any state so it's unlikely it is the other Progressive party with ballot access. Now, if after 8 years of having a president who allegedly is a "progressive", and "progressives" are this disorganized, it would seem to me to be the logical choice for most progressives to follow Obama & Bernie's lead into the Democratic Party, where they will remain a minority faction, rather than a separate third party. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there's little impetus for third parties to run in areas with very few swing/floating voters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Trump wins general election matchup[edit]
And here we gave it, just as I predicted. Trump now leads Hillary Clinton in a general election poll by 3 points. Just imagine what the polls will say in October. But guess what else? In the same poll, Bernie Sanders leads Donald Trump by 4 points. Therefore Bernie Sanders is more electable than Hillary Clinton and should be the Democratic nominee. Who do we honestly want as the nominee? Why don't superdelegates whose districts have voted for Sanders over Clinton by wide margins support Sanders? These numbers should send chills down their collective spines, but some Hillary loyalists will just shrug off the numbers and continue to make ad hominem attacks on Sanders and his supporters, claiming they're excessively violent. Absolutely ridiculous. We're going to lose this election of Hillary is the nominee. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Jesus, kid. Look at poll aggregates, not single polls. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hillary might be a decent guy like Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Adlai Stevenson or Bob Dole. She's just a weak candidate. Face reality. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 13:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Polls at this stage are largely meaningless still, especially as Clinton has to continue fighting out a primary battle. There's been no national campaign or ads yet. It would have been a big surprise is Trump didn't see a bump in the polls after winning the nomination, especially since the NeverTrump movement seems to be falling apart. That being said, Romney was leading Obama in late September 2012, polls move quite a bit as people actually start paying attention and makeup their mind. And that's not to mention that the two polls showing him up are from Fox News and Rasmussen, both of which are notoriously Republican-favoring pollsters, Rasmussen so much so that Rasmussen himself quit. In particular, these polls are cooked up just right as to give right-wing news outlets hope that the other mainstream polling is wrong. We had this effect in 2012, when every other poll was showing Obama winning most of the swing states, and Rasmussen showing it as a tie or within the MOE in each and every one. Guess which poll the right chose to pay exclusive attention to. Combine that with the fact that still no one has actually done a big boy campaign against Sanders, and it's just meaningless noise in May. Hentropy (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Polls at this time predicting Obama would win in Pennsylvania by 9 points and he won by 10. Also, Sanders was red baited and had to deal with various obstacles.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- One state is hardly a trend. And you haven't seen Sanders "red-baited" or campaigned against yet. It's not even about the red part as much as it is on policy, which no one has talked about. When there's nonstop ads saying that "Bernie Sanders will raise taxes on the middle class to pay for more Obamacare", on every major network, we'll see how he does then. Even Sanders supporters are unwilling to pay for his "revolution" and I have no reason to believe your average voter will be more willing. Hentropy (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hillary ran an ad accusing Sanders of being like Hugo Chavez and denited his past support for the Sandinistas and Cuba's healthcare system. McCaskil called him a socialist in a negative light and Trump called him a socialist/communist (sic). Various conservative media outlets have red baited him. That Vox article. That Vox article didn't ask people how much they would be getting back when they paid those taxes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- And again, that's nothing compared to what will happen in a general campaign when it comes to red-baiting. A few scattered statements here and there is nothing, in October there will be non-stop advertising in every swing state. General campaigns also aren't known for their nuance, so "what they are getting back" will largely be irrelevant. All people will hear is that a family pulling in 40k a year will be paying 3000 dollars in taxes to pay for more big-government healthcare. People like him right now because he's cute in that Jewish grandfatherly way and likes to stoke up populist and nostalgic passions, just like Trump. When the campaign turns more to substance and wall-to-wall national advertising, he'll be banking on people suddenly trusting the government and wanting to be Europe... which would be quite the masterful turn-around. That doesn't mean I think Hillary is a shoe-on, she has her own serious obstacles to overcome, not the least of which is sexism. All I'm saying is maybe wait until both conventions have happened, both candidates have a running mate, and the campaign starts for real before calling the election based on one poll. I get it, we all like to have our biases confirmed and Bernie fans have clung to meaningless match-up polls since the beginning, but that doesn't mean they gain meaning because you want them to. Hentropy (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- When the campaign turns more to substance
- A campaign of substance between Hillary & Trump. Yah right. Can hardly wait. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 17:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I can't wait to hear Clinton defend her corporate donors, warhawking, and welfare cuts. Trump has attacked her on all these positions and has attacked her husband for his treatment of women. Republicans think she literally killed someone so there is nothing about her that couldn't be exploited.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Criticizing Hillary because her husband got his cock sucked by an intern is rather dumb, but we're talking about election campaign here, so no dirty trick remains unused.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 18:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Trump is going to be all over Clinton, mostly at his speeches but also in the debates. The debates will be very hyped by the media, and Trump's individual comments will be inflated. I predict Trump will attack Hillary for the billions of dollars she's been given from the bankers and special interests her whole career, as well as the Iraq War vote and Libya intervention. This will cause Americans to vote for Trump when they remember how blatantly corrupt and criminal Hillary Clinton is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- So what'll be a larger substantive issue come election day, global warming or the rights of women and accusations of rape? nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 20:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Trump is going to be all over Clinton, mostly at his speeches but also in the debates. The debates will be very hyped by the media, and Trump's individual comments will be inflated. I predict Trump will attack Hillary for the billions of dollars she's been given from the bankers and special interests her whole career, as well as the Iraq War vote and Libya intervention. This will cause Americans to vote for Trump when they remember how blatantly corrupt and criminal Hillary Clinton is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Criticizing Hillary because her husband got his cock sucked by an intern is rather dumb, but we're talking about election campaign here, so no dirty trick remains unused.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 18:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I can't wait to hear Clinton defend her corporate donors, warhawking, and welfare cuts. Trump has attacked her on all these positions and has attacked her husband for his treatment of women. Republicans think she literally killed someone so there is nothing about her that couldn't be exploited.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- And again, that's nothing compared to what will happen in a general campaign when it comes to red-baiting. A few scattered statements here and there is nothing, in October there will be non-stop advertising in every swing state. General campaigns also aren't known for their nuance, so "what they are getting back" will largely be irrelevant. All people will hear is that a family pulling in 40k a year will be paying 3000 dollars in taxes to pay for more big-government healthcare. People like him right now because he's cute in that Jewish grandfatherly way and likes to stoke up populist and nostalgic passions, just like Trump. When the campaign turns more to substance and wall-to-wall national advertising, he'll be banking on people suddenly trusting the government and wanting to be Europe... which would be quite the masterful turn-around. That doesn't mean I think Hillary is a shoe-on, she has her own serious obstacles to overcome, not the least of which is sexism. All I'm saying is maybe wait until both conventions have happened, both candidates have a running mate, and the campaign starts for real before calling the election based on one poll. I get it, we all like to have our biases confirmed and Bernie fans have clung to meaningless match-up polls since the beginning, but that doesn't mean they gain meaning because you want them to. Hentropy (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hillary ran an ad accusing Sanders of being like Hugo Chavez and denited his past support for the Sandinistas and Cuba's healthcare system. McCaskil called him a socialist in a negative light and Trump called him a socialist/communist (sic). Various conservative media outlets have red baited him. That Vox article. That Vox article didn't ask people how much they would be getting back when they paid those taxes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- One state is hardly a trend. And you haven't seen Sanders "red-baited" or campaigned against yet. It's not even about the red part as much as it is on policy, which no one has talked about. When there's nonstop ads saying that "Bernie Sanders will raise taxes on the middle class to pay for more Obamacare", on every major network, we'll see how he does then. Even Sanders supporters are unwilling to pay for his "revolution" and I have no reason to believe your average voter will be more willing. Hentropy (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Polls at this time predicting Obama would win in Pennsylvania by 9 points and he won by 10. Also, Sanders was red baited and had to deal with various obstacles.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Polls at this stage are largely meaningless still, especially as Clinton has to continue fighting out a primary battle. There's been no national campaign or ads yet. It would have been a big surprise is Trump didn't see a bump in the polls after winning the nomination, especially since the NeverTrump movement seems to be falling apart. That being said, Romney was leading Obama in late September 2012, polls move quite a bit as people actually start paying attention and makeup their mind. And that's not to mention that the two polls showing him up are from Fox News and Rasmussen, both of which are notoriously Republican-favoring pollsters, Rasmussen so much so that Rasmussen himself quit. In particular, these polls are cooked up just right as to give right-wing news outlets hope that the other mainstream polling is wrong. We had this effect in 2012, when every other poll was showing Obama winning most of the swing states, and Rasmussen showing it as a tie or within the MOE in each and every one. Guess which poll the right chose to pay exclusive attention to. Combine that with the fact that still no one has actually done a big boy campaign against Sanders, and it's just meaningless noise in May. Hentropy (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hillary might be a decent guy like Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Adlai Stevenson or Bob Dole. She's just a weak candidate. Face reality. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 13:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously global warming is the more substantive issue. As a side note, Hillary's global warming plan is pitiful; there's no carbon tax, meaning she's literally to the right of Reagan Republicans. But the American people don't care about substantive issues. They care about the controversy and the frenzy of back-and-forth ping-pong politics: attack, parry, riposte. The media will only discuss that, and that's all we'll ever hear for 4 months. Many dumb fucks will vote for Trump cuz they think Hillary let her husband runaround screwing other women. It's sad, and it's a real reflection on the quality of human being that can be found in the 'country' called America. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Trump accuses Clinton of rape[edit]
Go ahead, I dare ya, I double dare ya, I triple dare ya anywhere on this wiki to attack, slander, impugn, vilify, question the motives of, or repeat Clinton talking points, or the talking points of Clinton surrogates, organizations, and websites, disparaging of the three living persons whose names are cited in that link between now and November. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 19:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think Vox made a good article explaining the allegations and examining their reliability. Oh, and it points out the problems with believing every accusation.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 20:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Even if the allegations are 100% true, Republicans have more or less cried wolf on Clinton's deep conspiratorial corruption too many times. The only place these allegations will play is the right-wing anger-boxes that are already voting Trump or not Clinton. Moderates and Democrats have endured hearing about how the Clintons are literal murderers and sex abusers for decades and there will come a point where it might backfire the more heavier they try to lay it on. I just have a feeling there might be more than one person just waiting until after the Republican convention to start writing allegations in major newspapers about Trump's impropriety, outside of what has already been alleged about him. Hentropy (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're forgetting we're in the midst of an electoral realignment right now, and Hillary's high negatives are directly related to all the sex & blackmail scandals; Democrats & media were already jumping ship in 2008. The competition is for the younger voters who don't remember the 1990s. So, when a 21 year old mother discovers the only thing the Clinton's want is for their children & girls to suck cock, it may have a different outcome. nobs#NeverHillary 03:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Clinton's want is for their children & girls to suck cock", WTF?! I may think that these allegations make it hard for Clinton to hit Trump as a horrible misogynist but I don't think it is for that reason.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 05:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, I thought Hillary was a raging bull dyke? Now she wants all women to suck cock? You right-wing mouth-foamers need to better coordinate your slander. Good thing we all know Trump loves women, as long as they're young European models who don't want abortions. --Ymir (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're forgetting we're in the midst of an electoral realignment right now, and Hillary's high negatives are directly related to all the sex & blackmail scandals; Democrats & media were already jumping ship in 2008. The competition is for the younger voters who don't remember the 1990s. So, when a 21 year old mother discovers the only thing the Clinton's want is for their children & girls to suck cock, it may have a different outcome. nobs#NeverHillary 03:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Even if the allegations are 100% true, Republicans have more or less cried wolf on Clinton's deep conspiratorial corruption too many times. The only place these allegations will play is the right-wing anger-boxes that are already voting Trump or not Clinton. Moderates and Democrats have endured hearing about how the Clintons are literal murderers and sex abusers for decades and there will come a point where it might backfire the more heavier they try to lay it on. I just have a feeling there might be more than one person just waiting until after the Republican convention to start writing allegations in major newspapers about Trump's impropriety, outside of what has already been alleged about him. Hentropy (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Trump overtakes Clinton in poll average[edit]
Wake me up when two of the three pollsters giving Trump an edge aren't Rasmussen (Which is notoriously biased for Republican candidates.) and FOX News. Vulpius (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, besides ABC/WaPo giving Trump the edge Clinton should be doing far better than that against a vulgar, lying billionaire.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 22:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- This was expected as the ads and criticisms Clinton levels at Trump are ineffective and often downright awful. But these polls only view the election from a popular vote perspective which may be a good indicator if one candidate leads by a wide margin but not if it's close. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yay, Godwin's law[edit]
People are free to draw parallels between Trump and Hitler, but going all paranoid because of "worker's party" talk? Nah. Come on guys. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like the people who are most "spooked" by language like that are the Glenn Becks and such of the world. Trump could probably start quoting the Communist Manifesto directly and his supporters wouldn't know or care. Hentropy (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well Cracked brought this up when he started running and brought up several scenarios on why he might win. He did brag about owning Hitlers collected speeches, My New Order, though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Clinton Supporters[edit]
It seems like this article could be renamed "Clinton Supporters Afraid to Come Out Due to Intimidation and Harassment". Which is certainly something documented online, but it's not surprising it happens offline as well. Hentropy (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- This has been a media trope for some time now. The Guardian already beat NPR to this. Regardless, I haven't personally seen any hostility to Clinton supporters I have talked to, at least for Sanders supporters. It did make me laugh how the people NPR talked to seem to have no clue why people don't like her since every Clinton supporter I know has reservations about her; they support her because of "her pragmatism, her commitment to the Affordable Care Act or her experience and understanding of America's role in the world" is probably the funniest thing I have read since that translates to support for Citizen's United, a healthcare plan from the Heritage Foundation, and neoconservatism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- You can needle all you want at those points, but the fact is those have also been President Obama's positions. Where was all this hate for the ACA when it was first being proposed? Pointing out something was originally by the Heritage Foundation (in 1994, and its far from the same exact proposal) is some sort of genetic fallacy. Where were the widespread protests against intervention in Libya or Syria or wherever the same way there was anti-Iraq war protests? It seems like this new hate for Clinton based on "issues" is quite new, trendy, and somewhat hypocritical. Hentropy (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, they were Obama's policies and Obama is an Eisenhower Republican. There was opposition to Obama's policies but they never became mainstream because the American left let Obama get away with everything Bush did. I think that speaks volumes to how dangerous a Clinton administration would be since I doubt she would have any opposition from Democrats in Congress.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Obama was also a two-term President who has done more to advance progressive social agenda than any President since Johnson. He's currently sitting at an approval rating higher than Reagan's in 1988. If Scalia had the decency to die a few months earlier than he did, we'd have a liberal supreme court right now. It should be noted that we only got Bush because of the supreme court. You can say what you want about "Eisenhower Republicans" (Eisenhower wasn't exactly a social liberal, btw) and those evil "neoliberals", but they win election where the McGoverns and the Mondales and the Dukakises of the world failed to, and many women and racial minorities are thankful for what they have been able to accomplish. I would like to see the Democrats push leftward as well and Bernie's campaign has helped accomplish that, but such things don't happen overnight. It took three failed elections for the Democrats to realize that Americans don't like huge tax hikes on everyone. Hentropy (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong I have said that there is nothing wrong with liking the reforms Obama and the Clintons brought and will bring but they were moderate and not "radical". Obama has increased the Bush-era foreign policies like drone warfare and mass surveillance and he has let war criminals get away with the most unconstitutional action ever allowed by a president. Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent and he has failed to reign down on police brutality which he may have increased by militarizing them. We have had 16 years out of 24 years yet mass incarceration, the war on drugs, and the war on terror persist and we haven't seen the minimum wage increase or universal health care adopted. Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Employee Free Choice Act, and the Freedom of Choice Act have still not been enacted even though the Dems talk about how much they support LGBT rights, labor unions, and reproductive rights. Obama is a fiscal conservative like Eisenhower, not a social liberal. Hell, we have an essay on how conservative Obama is or you can read Listen, Liberal by Thomas Frank because if it isn't obvious people don't notice when the Democrats are in Congress. Just look at how many seats the Democrats have lost since Obama's second term: 13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, a whopping 913 state legislature seats and 30 state legislature chambers. Clearly, this is Middle America's fault since they should choose neoliberals over Republicans, I mean why are they so stupid. So, yeah, maybe all the Republicans are right, New Englanders really do live in a bubble.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 21:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Out of those 24 years, Democrats have controlled all of Congress for 4 of them. And all of the SCOTUS for none of them. Democrats lose mid-terms and state houses and local elections for a reason: the young radical progressive "revolutionaries" who hate those "neoliberals" don't fucking show up for anything other than a Presidential election. Many different groups of liberals are to blame for this. Democrats are forced to run to the center for mid-terms because the electorate shrinks to nothing but angry old white people, and that often doesn't work either. Bernie's calls for a "political revolution" are all nice lip service. However, the "real" liberals are not only the farthest to the left. "Real" liberals educate themselves and vote in every election, because every election matters. Bernie should call out those that sit elections out because they're not as sexy, a theme of his campaign the whole time should have been firing up the base to vote down-ballot and not just for him. Use the energy he's currently using to complain about how the primary is "rigged" because the person who has the most votes is winning, and use it to energize a base into a force for progressives in other offices moving forward, so no matter who wins in 2016, progressives can actually compete with the sociall regressive fogies that show up in droves for EVERY election. Hentropy (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- They had both houses of Congress for six years between 1992-1994, 2006-2010 and they accomplished nothing. The Dems got Nixon to create the EPA and OSHA but they couldn't get a Dem to enact health care reform. Tell what the difference between Mark Pryor and Tom Cotton was or Mary Landrieu and Bill Cassidy. Bush got the Dems to vote on Iraq and the PATRIOT ACT despite protests. Where were the Dems when labor unions in Wisconsin and Indiana protested the right to work laws; why didn't they show up at the teacher's protests in Chicago this year? Why haven't the Democrats been agitating tooth and nail against voter ID laws and gerrymandering, or for reinstating the VRA? Telling young voters to "go run for something" isn't very enticing. The Democrats are considering lowering the minimum wage in Puerto Rico as a solution to their financial crisis. There are Democratic Super PACs opposing single-payer health care and supporting fracking in Colorado. Why didn't Obama help Kucinich and Feingold, maybe it was because they opposed him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 23:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Democrats simply aren't good enough anymore. They're too right-wing, too beholden to corporate billionaires' money, and too aristocratic for us. We need a genuine, liberal and socialistic party which stands for liberal values on all fronts, not just some social issues. We need a goddamn left, and we need it now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's great. It's also what the Green Party was supposed to be... and Reform (albeit not liberal, but a "real" populist party). And again, all of this is deflection. Republicans win because they're united and mobilize, using as many dirty-but-effective tactics they can get a hold of. Meanwhile, various "radicals" sit out mid-term and local elections and barely even read up on candidates. Their interest in politics, the working man, or whoever else they pretend to care about starts and ends with Presidential elections. While liberals bicker amongst themselves about ideological purity and who really care about Joe Shmo, Republicans and conservatives are uniting and closing the ranks, learning to love their new Reagan, and getting ready to vote for him. The UK also has a lot of leftist parties that all claim to be be the TRUE leftists, and there's like seven of them and they all compete with each other in elections. Meanwhile, Tories are united and able to galvanize all the little hamlets for the win. So it goes all over Europe, including Israel. There's a big, wide country out there that extends far beyond the college campuses and liberal wank-sites. Unless you're suddenly going to convince them that the far left and "big government socialists" who are going to raise their taxes by thousands of dollars to redistribute wealth are great, then get ready for a permanent Republican trifecta majority. This is the type of in-fighting that got us the Reagan years, which pushed the country to the right to this day. If you want to destroy the Democratic party because you've decided in the last six months that "neoliberals" are the worst thing since Hitler, then fine, enjoy police officers doing genital checks on LGBT people, getting applauded for murdering black people, and a general South American fascist state. Maybe you'll win in 2020, after so many people have been victimized. Of course you may not have to worry about sanctioned discrimination...Hentropy (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ugh, sorry for the late response, I became suddenly ill and had to get some rest. Anyways, I do not wish to kill the Dem party, though, I have spoken of my hope that a new, more progressive party would emerge. I think the states have a good chance to change a lot more but the Dems have abandoned certain states, mine included. I will vote for the Dems running for Congress, state legislatures, and the governorship even if they are neoliberals; my main reasoning is that I don't want us to go extinct for global warming. I considered voting for Hillary when the election started, even after Bernie started running, but as the election went on she touted an extremely hawkish foreign policy and I can't support that. I may be white passing, for the part, but I will see firsthand the devastation a Trump presidency will have; I will also see the same of a Hillary presidency since I doubt she will end mass deportation. On another note, just because I might not see the pain people feel here because of certain policies, I will see the pain in the Middle East when Clinton continues and most likely ramps up the drone program.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 04:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also, my point about Feinstein and Kucinich is that it isn't just the leftists pushing against the moderates but the moderates ousting the leftist; those who are more corporatists do not care for the opposition within the party. I can guarantee you that most mainstream American voters do not know what it means to be a neoliberal but they do know when the Dems support actions that hurt them, even if it takes awhile.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 04:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's great. It's also what the Green Party was supposed to be... and Reform (albeit not liberal, but a "real" populist party). And again, all of this is deflection. Republicans win because they're united and mobilize, using as many dirty-but-effective tactics they can get a hold of. Meanwhile, various "radicals" sit out mid-term and local elections and barely even read up on candidates. Their interest in politics, the working man, or whoever else they pretend to care about starts and ends with Presidential elections. While liberals bicker amongst themselves about ideological purity and who really care about Joe Shmo, Republicans and conservatives are uniting and closing the ranks, learning to love their new Reagan, and getting ready to vote for him. The UK also has a lot of leftist parties that all claim to be be the TRUE leftists, and there's like seven of them and they all compete with each other in elections. Meanwhile, Tories are united and able to galvanize all the little hamlets for the win. So it goes all over Europe, including Israel. There's a big, wide country out there that extends far beyond the college campuses and liberal wank-sites. Unless you're suddenly going to convince them that the far left and "big government socialists" who are going to raise their taxes by thousands of dollars to redistribute wealth are great, then get ready for a permanent Republican trifecta majority. This is the type of in-fighting that got us the Reagan years, which pushed the country to the right to this day. If you want to destroy the Democratic party because you've decided in the last six months that "neoliberals" are the worst thing since Hitler, then fine, enjoy police officers doing genital checks on LGBT people, getting applauded for murdering black people, and a general South American fascist state. Maybe you'll win in 2020, after so many people have been victimized. Of course you may not have to worry about sanctioned discrimination...Hentropy (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Democrats simply aren't good enough anymore. They're too right-wing, too beholden to corporate billionaires' money, and too aristocratic for us. We need a genuine, liberal and socialistic party which stands for liberal values on all fronts, not just some social issues. We need a goddamn left, and we need it now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- They had both houses of Congress for six years between 1992-1994, 2006-2010 and they accomplished nothing. The Dems got Nixon to create the EPA and OSHA but they couldn't get a Dem to enact health care reform. Tell what the difference between Mark Pryor and Tom Cotton was or Mary Landrieu and Bill Cassidy. Bush got the Dems to vote on Iraq and the PATRIOT ACT despite protests. Where were the Dems when labor unions in Wisconsin and Indiana protested the right to work laws; why didn't they show up at the teacher's protests in Chicago this year? Why haven't the Democrats been agitating tooth and nail against voter ID laws and gerrymandering, or for reinstating the VRA? Telling young voters to "go run for something" isn't very enticing. The Democrats are considering lowering the minimum wage in Puerto Rico as a solution to their financial crisis. There are Democratic Super PACs opposing single-payer health care and supporting fracking in Colorado. Why didn't Obama help Kucinich and Feingold, maybe it was because they opposed him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 23:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Out of those 24 years, Democrats have controlled all of Congress for 4 of them. And all of the SCOTUS for none of them. Democrats lose mid-terms and state houses and local elections for a reason: the young radical progressive "revolutionaries" who hate those "neoliberals" don't fucking show up for anything other than a Presidential election. Many different groups of liberals are to blame for this. Democrats are forced to run to the center for mid-terms because the electorate shrinks to nothing but angry old white people, and that often doesn't work either. Bernie's calls for a "political revolution" are all nice lip service. However, the "real" liberals are not only the farthest to the left. "Real" liberals educate themselves and vote in every election, because every election matters. Bernie should call out those that sit elections out because they're not as sexy, a theme of his campaign the whole time should have been firing up the base to vote down-ballot and not just for him. Use the energy he's currently using to complain about how the primary is "rigged" because the person who has the most votes is winning, and use it to energize a base into a force for progressives in other offices moving forward, so no matter who wins in 2016, progressives can actually compete with the sociall regressive fogies that show up in droves for EVERY election. Hentropy (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong I have said that there is nothing wrong with liking the reforms Obama and the Clintons brought and will bring but they were moderate and not "radical". Obama has increased the Bush-era foreign policies like drone warfare and mass surveillance and he has let war criminals get away with the most unconstitutional action ever allowed by a president. Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent and he has failed to reign down on police brutality which he may have increased by militarizing them. We have had 16 years out of 24 years yet mass incarceration, the war on drugs, and the war on terror persist and we haven't seen the minimum wage increase or universal health care adopted. Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Employee Free Choice Act, and the Freedom of Choice Act have still not been enacted even though the Dems talk about how much they support LGBT rights, labor unions, and reproductive rights. Obama is a fiscal conservative like Eisenhower, not a social liberal. Hell, we have an essay on how conservative Obama is or you can read Listen, Liberal by Thomas Frank because if it isn't obvious people don't notice when the Democrats are in Congress. Just look at how many seats the Democrats have lost since Obama's second term: 13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, a whopping 913 state legislature seats and 30 state legislature chambers. Clearly, this is Middle America's fault since they should choose neoliberals over Republicans, I mean why are they so stupid. So, yeah, maybe all the Republicans are right, New Englanders really do live in a bubble.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 21:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Obama was also a two-term President who has done more to advance progressive social agenda than any President since Johnson. He's currently sitting at an approval rating higher than Reagan's in 1988. If Scalia had the decency to die a few months earlier than he did, we'd have a liberal supreme court right now. It should be noted that we only got Bush because of the supreme court. You can say what you want about "Eisenhower Republicans" (Eisenhower wasn't exactly a social liberal, btw) and those evil "neoliberals", but they win election where the McGoverns and the Mondales and the Dukakises of the world failed to, and many women and racial minorities are thankful for what they have been able to accomplish. I would like to see the Democrats push leftward as well and Bernie's campaign has helped accomplish that, but such things don't happen overnight. It took three failed elections for the Democrats to realize that Americans don't like huge tax hikes on everyone. Hentropy (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, they were Obama's policies and Obama is an Eisenhower Republican. There was opposition to Obama's policies but they never became mainstream because the American left let Obama get away with everything Bush did. I think that speaks volumes to how dangerous a Clinton administration would be since I doubt she would have any opposition from Democrats in Congress.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- You can needle all you want at those points, but the fact is those have also been President Obama's positions. Where was all this hate for the ACA when it was first being proposed? Pointing out something was originally by the Heritage Foundation (in 1994, and its far from the same exact proposal) is some sort of genetic fallacy. Where were the widespread protests against intervention in Libya or Syria or wherever the same way there was anti-Iraq war protests? It seems like this new hate for Clinton based on "issues" is quite new, trendy, and somewhat hypocritical. Hentropy (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
How about a constitutional convention? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very unlikely. What's more likely is increasing political polarization, strengthening tensions, and more conservative corporatists policies being implemented. Another economic crash isn't unimaginable. Our best hope is for the real liberal movement to strengthen and grow under the pressure of a Trump presidency, much like the Tea Party grew under the pressure of Obama in a single year. But that might no even happen either. All hope is lost!!!!(slight sarcasm)— Unsigned, by: Pbfreespace3 / talk / contribs
- What would that accomplish? The country can't agree on anything right now, let alone a new Constitution. Unless the blue states secede (or vice versa) and cut the conservative states out of the conversations, chances are we'd end up with much more right-wing Constitution than we currently have. Hentropy (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- There are a bunch of things that should be fixed about the current constitution. Some of them are easy to fix - like the unconstitutional power of the President to wage war on his own without Congress - and some are hard - like the second amendment. But it's worth a shot. The only place in the world with an older written constitution than the US is San Marino. And the San Marinese constitution was written in Latin. Need I say more? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree the Constitution could use some changes. We didn't rework it much after the Civil War and we were lucky enough to not get utterly destroyed in WWII unlike many other countries. One of the reasons for our current partisanship and deadlock is because both sides have fundamentally different ideas of the role of government and what the Constitution is for. Writing a new one would simply involve the same deadlock. That is, if liberals don't infight and bicker over exact wording while conservative eat the entire cake in the background. Hentropy (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I myself have proposed a liberal rereading of the Constitution, as well as some needed amendments. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well the justices are free to read and interpret it anyway they like currently. Obviously it would be nice if they agreed with me all the time. Having an often vague Constitution that can be twisted to take any side on the issues does have its benefits- but it can also screw you like with Citizens United. Rewriting it so it's more rigid has its own list of advantages and disadvantages. If we never have a liberal court, like we haven't for a long-ass time, those types of issues will never change. Hentropy (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think the problems run much deeper than that. The constitution may have been acceptable in 1793 or something. But it is horribly outdated today. Elections being this weird billion dollar waste is one of them. Campaigns in other countries get the message across way better with much less money and much less multi-billionaires buying politicians... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well the justices are free to read and interpret it anyway they like currently. Obviously it would be nice if they agreed with me all the time. Having an often vague Constitution that can be twisted to take any side on the issues does have its benefits- but it can also screw you like with Citizens United. Rewriting it so it's more rigid has its own list of advantages and disadvantages. If we never have a liberal court, like we haven't for a long-ass time, those types of issues will never change. Hentropy (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I myself have proposed a liberal rereading of the Constitution, as well as some needed amendments. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree the Constitution could use some changes. We didn't rework it much after the Civil War and we were lucky enough to not get utterly destroyed in WWII unlike many other countries. One of the reasons for our current partisanship and deadlock is because both sides have fundamentally different ideas of the role of government and what the Constitution is for. Writing a new one would simply involve the same deadlock. That is, if liberals don't infight and bicker over exact wording while conservative eat the entire cake in the background. Hentropy (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- There are a bunch of things that should be fixed about the current constitution. Some of them are easy to fix - like the unconstitutional power of the President to wage war on his own without Congress - and some are hard - like the second amendment. But it's worth a shot. The only place in the world with an older written constitution than the US is San Marino. And the San Marinese constitution was written in Latin. Need I say more? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- What would that accomplish? The country can't agree on anything right now, let alone a new Constitution. Unless the blue states secede (or vice versa) and cut the conservative states out of the conversations, chances are we'd end up with much more right-wing Constitution than we currently have. Hentropy (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
"Clinton Supporters Afraid to Come Out Due to Intimidation and Harassment". -- Get the fuck out of here. Suck my cock, Clinton supporters. nobs#NeverHillary 04:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please tell me this is some witty satire. Hentropy (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- What? are Clinton supporters now' trying to convince people they want serious, civil discussion? Suck my cock, bimbo, slut, bitch. nobs#NeverHillary 11:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Poe?[edit]
Meanwhile, Clinton's News Network keeps forgetting the superdelegates have not yet voted and may well switch sides as they did for Barack Obama back in 2008. <-Is this Poe's law in action? Because the extremely close race of 2008 is not comparable at all to the current one. Typhoon (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt it, judging by the overall vote trends, the various dramas that have happened in recent months, and the posting editor's previous WIGO:Es. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"Let's hope this doesn't cause problems turning out Clinton's voter-base"[edit]
Is it opposite day again? Thorough the race it was Sanders supporters who had problems with turning out to vote, hell the Nevada chaos began when Clinton had 98% of delegates show up whereas only 78% of Sanders delegates bothered to arrive. Considering the fact that the majority of Sanders supporters are the same demographics that have extreme problems with showing up for midterm election, this isn't surprising. Typhoon (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a few of the tired old arguments in the article as well.
“”By that date and time, barring an absolute miracle or calamity of some sort, she will not have the 633 pledged delegates she needs to have the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination.
|
- So are you counting superdelegates or not? 2,383 is for both superdelegates and the popular vote. In order to get the popular vote majority, Clinton needs 2,026 - a much more likely target.
“”The networks know that. What they mean, though, is that they are going to count the superdelegates in her vote total — which is ridiculous in every possible way. The superdelegates do not actually vote until the Democratic National Convention, which begins on July 25.
... What the Democratic Party, and apparently the television networks, do not want people to know is that superdelegates, and not the American voters, are going to choose who this nominee is. |
- And the "American voters" are choosing. Clinton has a 3M popular vote lead among the states that've already voted. Of the 25 most populous states, Clinton's won 17 of them (Sanders won 6, 2 are voting June 7). Even if she doesn't get the kind of margins necessary to get 2,383 delegates to shut-out Sanders, if she gets at least 2,026, that means the people would have chosen Clinton, and the voting superdelegates would indeed be undemocratic if they switched to Sanders. I know one of the bugbears of the Sanders campaign is to get rid of superdelegates, but while we have them this year, do you want the superdelegates this year to act in line with the popular vote or not??
- Gah. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- One of the original reasons superdelegates were put into place was to subvert the Democratic vote. Much like with the electoral college, the leaders knew that a terrible person might one day get the majority, so they wanted an insurance policy. That's why superdelegates were created. Now that they exist, they could be used to ensure the candidate who consistently polls better than Trump and is not under federal investigation gets the nomination.
- Also, why 2 out of every 3 polling places were shut down in Puerto Rico? Can you explain why that is? Pbfreespace (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ummm, Because Puerto Rico is broke? Not everything is a conspiracy. Typhoon (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- The latest RCP California poll reads:
- Clinton leads Trump 53 - 34, +19
- Sanders leads Trump 60 - 31, +29.
- Analysis: In this, the heaviest Hispanic state by numbers and second heaviest by percent, 3% of the Sanders vote crossovers to Trump, and 7% remain undecided in the Hillary-Trump matchup. While it's a foregone conclusion the Dems carry California, this still does not bode well for Clinton, and it is hard to argue with a straight face Clinton automatically picks up a big Hispanic vote nationwide (if these California numbers reflect Hispanic vote nationwide which there is good indication they do), coupled with a loss among Sanders supporters and so-called "undecideds" (they weren't "undecided" when Sanders was in, so this is not a group of "apoliticals", idiots, and moderate independents not loyal to party name-brand. They are for the most part Progressive Democrats). nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)-
- Real analysis: polls at this point are completely meaningless. Only gives something for people to talk about. In June 1992, Ross Perot lead Bill Clinton in polling averages, both of them trailing Bush. Even in 2008, McCain and Obama were in a statistical dead heat in June. Sure, some years it's more predictive, it is not consistent at all. These polls mean nothing. I think you're both smart people and can reason out why they mean nothing, if you can set your bias and righteous fervor aside for just two seconds. Hentropy (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point, but I think you're referring to national polls, which everyone knows is meaningless as the November popular vote is meaningless as well. I am referring to a specific, valid, large sampling of Hispanic voters in California which does translate to the other 49 states where the Hispanic vote has less impact. In California, where Hillary automatically looses 3% to Trump, that automatically translates in .6% of the national popular vote, with another 1.4% of committed partisans refusing to support Hillary without further developments. Translation - a full 2% points of the national electorate - informed, committed partisans - unenamored to Hillary. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 15:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Real analysis: polls at this point are completely meaningless. Only gives something for people to talk about. In June 1992, Ross Perot lead Bill Clinton in polling averages, both of them trailing Bush. Even in 2008, McCain and Obama were in a statistical dead heat in June. Sure, some years it's more predictive, it is not consistent at all. These polls mean nothing. I think you're both smart people and can reason out why they mean nothing, if you can set your bias and righteous fervor aside for just two seconds. Hentropy (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- The latest RCP California poll reads:
- You'll have to forgive me if I'm finding the flipflopping tone from Sanders supporters on superdelegates suspect. As for Puerto Rico, it's because local elections are occuring on the same day.
Roberto Prats, the leader of the Democratic party in Puerto Rico, explained that the decision came as a result of the large number of resources needed for administering several local elections scheduled for the same day. Speaking in Spanish, Prats said that the local elections created 'an enormous competition for the election officials and all of the electoral apparatus.'
—Bustle
...
Prats and his party organization did not officially make the decision to close the polling places — at least not on their own. According to El Nuevo Día, Puerto Rico's election commission finalized the decision.- So unless you're suggesting the autonomous Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico is in cahoots with Clinton... ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ummm, Because Puerto Rico is broke? Not everything is a conspiracy. Typhoon (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, why 2 out of every 3 polling places were shut down in Puerto Rico? Can you explain why that is? Pbfreespace (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why everyone believes Latinos are a homogenous voter base. They have basically gotten so large that, in my experience, they identify more along ethnoreligious lines, like whites, than as one "Hispanic" identity, like blacks do as African Americans. I know religiously conservative Puerto Ricans who didn't believe Ted Cruz was a "true" Latino and I knew religiously conservative Mexicans who didn't identify with Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio because they were Cubans. I also have a third-generation Mexican friend (who doesn't identify with Mexican culture) whose Democratic grandparents have hated Obama and will vote Trump because they believe there are too many immigrants here already who won't assimilate and it makes it harder for older immigrants (i.e. people like them) to find work.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 00:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I live in the only state in the Union where Hispanics are the largest demographic. What you say is absolutely correct. While a large number are sympathetic to Mexican immigrants - both legal and illegal - I'd say most of those are sympathetic on a compassionate/religious basis, not because of the politics or some sort of race-identity. And our Hispanic population is very diverse - Hispanics who have lived here 400 years and never were "Mexican"; Mexican immigrants legal & illegal; Cubans; Hispanics from other Central republics, etc. I have a very good friend who was born in the US of European Spanish immigrants, returned to Spain, grew up a Spaniard, and now lives here.
- On the flip side, there are many Hispanics born here who do not take kindly to Mexican immigrants legal or illegal for a wide variety of reasons, economic, ethnolinguistic, cultural, class and educational differences etc etc etc. As one Hispanic GOP county chairman said about the Democrats obsession with identity politics, "We came here as Conquistadors. We never were slaves." Asking them to play a role as an oppressed minority is asking them to deny their own heritage. The Democrats can be very condescending, thinking they are stupid. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 02:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- A big portion of Latinos descend from both Europeans and indigenous Americans... Some countries are an exception to this rule, though... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of my friends are surprised at the amount of racism directed at Indigenous Mexicans.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 17:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's much easier to see the racist hangups of another culture than the own. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my state there's still tension between Native Americans and Hispanics going back to the first Spanish Conquistador Governor. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- What about people who are both? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, they could cut their own foot off. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 00:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- What about people who are both? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my state there's still tension between Native Americans and Hispanics going back to the first Spanish Conquistador Governor. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's much easier to see the racist hangups of another culture than the own. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of my friends are surprised at the amount of racism directed at Indigenous Mexicans.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 17:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- A big portion of Latinos descend from both Europeans and indigenous Americans... Some countries are an exception to this rule, though... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
So is this site Pro-Trump now?[edit]
It seems like it is by the voting but the comments on the wiki articles says otherwise. Not sure what to think.— Unsigned, by: Neptunepenguins / talk / contribs
- Votes can mean pretty much anything. If it's on a Trump-related item, it usually means that people find it deliciously stupid.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- That and the vote margins are still relatively really small compared to the traditional WIGOs. It doesn't take many people to tilt a story's vote. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- As can be seen by the fate of any story that criticises Bernie in some way. Flannan Isle (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- That and the vote margins are still relatively really small compared to the traditional WIGOs. It doesn't take many people to tilt a story's vote. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Alphabet soup[edit]
Are we seriously promoting Clinton conspiracy theories like that now? Seriously?
Like, five seconds on Google with other terms ("Clinton cri" vs "Hillary Clinton cri") debunks that. I'm disappointed in y'all. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's healthy to remember we're as prone to stupid conspiracy theories as others are, give the right hooks. Well not as prone as if the rate is equal, but you know what I mean. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's true and a fair point, especially in this year's ultra-dramatic political, er, drama. I've just never seen this level of conspiracy-mongering before about an election, both on the internet and with folks I know IRL. When Roberta Lange is still getting angry Sanders messages a month after the Nevada primary is over, it's... crazy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The internet has made us all very stupid and very certain. It's not a good thing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since I am always interested in clarify most claims I decided to look into this. Apparently Julian Assange believes that Google is helping Clinton and this would go along with his claim that Eric Schmidt is a nationalist who has used Google to help the US government. Apparently, Eric Schmidt runs a company called The Groundwork which is supposed to help Clinton get elected. Robert Epstein has written up several scenarios on how Google could manipulate the election.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The internet has made us all very stupid and very certain. It's not a good thing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's true and a fair point, especially in this year's ultra-dramatic political, er, drama. I've just never seen this level of conspiracy-mongering before about an election, both on the internet and with folks I know IRL. When Roberta Lange is still getting angry Sanders messages a month after the Nevada primary is over, it's... crazy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
'WE' are not promoting them, it's only this one guy promoting them. Typhoon (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I added the Vox link. I agree it's little more than paranoia, but a) it was picked up by a broadcast network, and b) I'm too new to start overwriting other people's posts. So I agreed to put the Vox link in. Jagulard (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Tim Canova[edit]
I for one am shocked (SHOCKED!) that someone Bernie supports would believe in conspiracy theories! AyzmoCheers 16:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are people with conspiracy theories in every camp in this election (and yes, I know that you meant it sarcastically).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 16:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- What's his deal? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tim Canova is running against DWS. In his Reddit AMA he spent most of his time lying about DWS, spreading stupid conspiracies like the one linked and repeating right-wing propaganda that helps Bernie. Oh, and he also thinks it's OK to overturn the will of the voters if it allows Bernie to win.
- This guy isn't a serious candidate. He's a fucking joke, and Bernie is supporting him only because he's running against the hated monster DWS; Hated by Bernie supporters mostly, as DWS is set to win by around 50 points due to being a jewish house member representing a heavily jewish district, while Tim is an Italian Catholic man. Tim tried to woo jewish voters with his ultra-Zionist views and calls for scrapping the Iran nuclear deal (ironic, since this makes his views the opposite of Sanders), and is still gonna lose. For the record DWS supports the nuclear deal. Didn't hurt her in her district.
- Oh and here's some bonus anti GMO stuff from Tim. Typhoon (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- But he doesn't support the TPP, so he's got that going for him, which is nice. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- What's his deal? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Ricky, You're So So Icky[edit]
Crazy as the guy is, I'm honestly not surprised. The guy is running as an Independent in a state where the bar for running for Congress is low enough that it might as well not be there. In Tennessee, you only need 25 signatures from your district to gain ballot access for Congressional positions as an Indy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Wants His Bros To Support Hillary[edit]
And now I'm wondering how many of his supporters will Trump out instead. Or go for Homeopath Stein. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just finally happy its over. Bernie supporters constantly saying that he could win even after all the primaries were done just annoyed me. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- The early polling suggests that Stein really isn't doing as much as the more ardent Bernie supporters want her to. So either they're going to Johnson (in which case their biggest problem with Clinton never came from her moderate policies) or the internet is just a terrible indicator of these things. I think I'll opt for the latter. Hentropy (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but now you have Bernie Bots calling Bernie a sellout for finally facing the reality that was apparent a month ago to everyone else that he had no chance of getting the nomination. It's just hilarious to see these people turn on their savior because he's facing reality. Bernie Bros really are just left-wing Tea Partiers, if you ask me. Zaydin (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, but you missed something. They maybe don't care what kind of crazy they get, as long as they get crazy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is how anyone thought he wasn't going to at least make inroads with Clinton; his whole strategy since he lost New York was to try and force Clinton and the Democratic Party to absorb as much of his campaign as possible. That is why he held back his endorsement until the convention and made passive-aggressive threats to run as an independent. Politically speaking, he played his cards very well and recognized how he could leverage his support. I don't see any problem with people disliking him for endorsing her since that was careerism and the was a significant amount of people disliked Clinton for being concerned about her career and not for any activism. I do believe that most of these people will change their minds when Sanders most likely continues his activism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 01:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The early polling suggests that Stein really isn't doing as much as the more ardent Bernie supporters want her to. So either they're going to Johnson (in which case their biggest problem with Clinton never came from her moderate policies) or the internet is just a terrible indicator of these things. I think I'll opt for the latter. Hentropy (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- An unofficial call for responses done by The Guardian (n=375) found that 45.6% (171/375) would support Stein and 23.5% would support Clinton. I don't think we'll be able to fully quantify the effect until surveys done today and tomorrow can be collated and released, however. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Very few according to Pew's polling. Compro01 (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Kaine[edit]
So now we're smearing him, while ignoring his entire record and that he'll deliver Virgina to Clinton? This WIGO appears to be censored by Bernouts. Typhoon (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just for the record, Owlman has no problem with changing the text of my submission, while insisting that I can't do the same that he does. He's also avoiding talk on this page and prefers to edit war. Typhoon (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Laurogeita Hamabost is now spreading her silent edit warring to this page. No doubt he'll lock the page soon and continue avoiding the talkpage. Typhoon (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I changed one of your entries when you incorrectly stated that Sanders was mathematically eliminated which would mean he has a 0% of winning. A word of advice, though, people might not want to talk to you when you constantly make character assassinations, make conspiracy theories, and whine about being persecuted.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 18:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Laurogeita Hamabost is now spreading her silent edit warring to this page. No doubt he'll lock the page soon and continue avoiding the talkpage. Typhoon (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Kaine isn't a great choice. I think Bernie Sanders would've been best, and Elizabeth Warren would've been good. This would ensure most left-wingers would vote for the Democratic ticket rather than going Green or Libertarian. Instead she chose a centrist prick whose the ultimate political insider (mayor, governor, senator). Hillary's line of thinking: "the people arent happy with the establishment. I know what I'll do, I'll run the ultimate establishment veep who's a white male centrist. Yeah, that should woo Trump supporters!" Stupid. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Demographics are in this election cycle more important than trying to appease the eternally hostile Bernie holdouts (such as constantly whining Owlman). Around 83% percent of Bernie voters have already voiced their intent to vote for Hillary, and what remains is gutter that would never vote for her even if she picked Bernie for VP. What Hillary really needs is to shore up her support among Hispanics and Blacks (Both of which are for Kaine), and present herself as the candidate of stability and experience (in contrast to the chaos and inexperience that is Trump) which is why she picked someone who has actuall experience in governing from mayor to senator. Kaine will help her deliver crucial Virginia and Florida, and that's enough for her to gain over 270 electoral votes. Typhoon (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Most Hispanics and Blacks don't even know who this Kaine guy is. Or didn't until he was picked. And if you are after those voting blocks, why not pick a Hispanic or African-American? Or announce an intention to appoint Obama to the Supreme Court if the vacancy persists or a new one opens up? Hillary has no problem with elderly black people. But young black people don't care whether Kaine was mayor of a majority African American city in the stone age or not. Nominating someone of the Black Lives Matter crowd, now that might have delivered the crucial young black vote... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Reason for removal[edit]
Obama was winning since Super Tuesday in 08, but the DNC didn't try to dig up dirt on Hillary after she started losing. However, they did this for Sanders. As such, Typhoon's little addition of "oh but he was losing anyway so it doesn't matter so don't pay any attention to this! Nothing to see here!" is not warranted. PBfreespace (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good. Now where's your explanation for removing source on Sanders' campaign being a mess, and source on Tim Kaine's political record? Typhoon (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the part you mentioned. Now, will you explain your further removals of sourced material, or was that just collateral damage? Typhoon (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sanders was raising more money than Hillary despite being less-known and less connected. I wouldn't call that a mess. PBfreespace (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kaine wrote letters saying we should deregulate, and he likes trade deals with Sharia law countries. He's a damn corporatist prick. Saying "oh btw he's anti-gun" isn't redeeming. PBfreespace (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Both of those are already mentioned, and I'm fine with keeping them. You haven't explained why we should only mention negatives and not positives. Smells like you want to intentionally push a biased point of view. Typhoon (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, NARAL rating him 100%, but he opposes abortion. That seems like a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul viewpoint to me. "Abortion is wrong because Father John said so, but I won't throw women in a jail cell if they do it". Wow, how rational! How progressive! How liberal! PBfreespace (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- He's got also approval from Planned Parenthood, you forgot. As governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective. Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based. And regarding abortion, here's what he said:
- OK, NARAL rating him 100%, but he opposes abortion. That seems like a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul viewpoint to me. "Abortion is wrong because Father John said so, but I won't throw women in a jail cell if they do it". Wow, how rational! How progressive! How liberal! PBfreespace (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Both of those are already mentioned, and I'm fine with keeping them. You haven't explained why we should only mention negatives and not positives. Smells like you want to intentionally push a biased point of view. Typhoon (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
“”I have a traditional Catholic personal position, but I am very strongly supportive that women should make these decisions and government shouldn't intrude. I'm a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade and women being able to make these decisions. In government, we have enough things to worry about. We don't need to make people's reproductive decisions for them
|
| —Tim Kaine |
- I do only want to mention negatives and not positives. We can get into the positives in an article, if you want. In a short summary like this news blurb, we should drive home the point that he's a centrist with illiberal views on many things. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. There is no reason to push a one-sided narrative. You would certainly be against me if I did the same by only voicing one side. It's absurd that you want to do this, and that you're even so bold in your intention to censor any positive mention of his record in order to paint him as some kind of Republican. Typhoon (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
NARAL and Planned Parenthood rate Kaine 100%, while the National Right to Life Committee gave him a ZERO. Pbfreespace3 claims this makes him anti-abortion, also sky is green and grass is blue. Facts don't matter, the only thing that does is that WIGO:Elections is Pbfreespace3 personal anti-Hillary/Kaine central.Typhoon (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, despicable me. PBfreespace (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't respond to my arguments above, so it's silly for you to try to end this and resume reverting. Typhoon (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Could you two please get a room and make out already? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you agree with Pbfreespace3's suggestion that we should only mention negative stuff about Kaine? Typhoon (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with myself that you two should make out already. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you agree with Pbfreespace3's suggestion that we should only mention negative stuff about Kaine? Typhoon (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
NARAL, HRC, Brady Campaign, LCV ratings only exist to give "progressive" cover to Beltway establishmentarians who support the Patriot Act, want to bomb Syria and restart the Cold War with China and Russia, call Black youth superpredators who need to be "brought to heel", and think Edward Snowden is a traitor not a hero. A 100% rating from any of them has no real meaning aside from partisan shilling for Democrats. 78.157.207.214 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, both sides are bad, so vote for the people who want to ban abortion and hand out rocket launchers as a birthday present. Also, "restart the Cold War"? Aren't the Republicans the ones who want to bomb Russia and China? Well, okay, they seem to vacillate between that and worshiping Putin, which gives you some creepy insight into their psychology. It is best to be both feared and loved, as Machiavelli said. --Ymir (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
"I do only want to mention negatives and not positives."[edit]
Just for the record, the title for this section is PBfreespace3 actual reasoning for removing sourced text. This is a new low. It's completely shameless what some people are willing to do to smear Kaine. Typhoon (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Owlman, that latest WIGO is about a completely unrelated issue. I don't get why you're trying to move half of his policy positions there, while keeping the other half on the older submission. If you continue to avoid talkpage discussions while engaging in edit warring, I will have to inform mods. Typhoon (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- However, I'm perfectly willing to move ALL of our comments (positive or negative) about his political positions to the latest WIGO, if you'd prefer it that way. No need to split them across the WIGO. Typhoon (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Bernie speech[edit]
I'm watching Bernie's speech live. I may give some live commentary. PBfreespace (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course Bernie has to speak at 11 PM so few people are listening to him. PB (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The crowd went wild. PBfreespace (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was a great speech. Hopefully it can shift the rhetoric of Hillary a little to the left. It's sad to see it had to end this way. PBfreespace (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- He's only been a member of the party for a few months, I don't see why the fuck they should give him a privileged time for his speech. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why would they want to give him a privileged spot? Because a bunch of millions of people voted for him and they want the support and vote of those people. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Bernie was slated to go on a little earlier, but you also have to remember that 11pm EST is 8pm PST, and much of Bernie's most vocal supporters are in the west coast. I think they were shooting for 10:30pm (which is pretty much core prime time everywhere but the east coast), but just like the Republican convention they went over. Hentropy (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why would they want to give him a privileged spot? Because a bunch of millions of people voted for him and they want the support and vote of those people. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Is popehat really a source we want to use?[edit]
I was under the impression that he was one of those not-even-a-broken-clock dark enlightenment types who has basically nothing to contribute but carefully tailored racist messages, and decrying literally every piece of criticism anyone ever receives as an infringement of free speech. Do I have him wrong? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know, but it is another reason to mention the source as a matter of course instead of only listing it when the author feels like it. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, I could hover over the link and see, I just wanted to engage with the Owlman, who posted it, and see if I was making a mistaken assumption. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on which author you're referring to. Clark is pretty much exactly what you've described, but other authors are better. The house position is very much free speech absolutism but aside from Clark it's mostly reasonable on other issues. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 20:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) It turns out Clark left in December 2015, so there's that. There's still a definite libertarian slant but it's less egregious than Reason.
- Clark is a goddamn lunatic but has decamped to
Fahrenheit:1488Status:451. Ken is right-leaning but basically based on Earth - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)- Okay, thanks for the clarification, guys. My biggest mistake was associating the whole blog with just one person. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Clark is a goddamn lunatic but has decamped to
- It depends on which author you're referring to. Clark is pretty much exactly what you've described, but other authors are better. The house position is very much free speech absolutism but aside from Clark it's mostly reasonable on other issues. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 20:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) It turns out Clark left in December 2015, so there's that. There's still a definite libertarian slant but it's less egregious than Reason.
- Eh, I could hover over the link and see, I just wanted to engage with the Owlman, who posted it, and see if I was making a mistaken assumption. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The What's going on header icon - Why is it the 'globe' and not the 'politics' icon?[edit]
Something that I don't completely understand is why we're using Icon wigo world alt tilted.svg for the little select which "What's going on" page for the elections. They're elections, they're political, we have a File:Icon politics.svg, and we're using the political icon on the actual page. NavigatorBR(Talk) - 03:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
What do you think[edit]
It's not to late for the DNC, which under the rules has the power, the replace Hillary with a Kaine/Sanders ticket. But they must act quickly. It might be the winning ticket. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 17:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yawn. Right wing conspiracies about Clinton being brought up on major media? Tell me what else is the 1990s all over again. I heard beards are making a comeback. Again. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- That was the Washington Post I linked to. Or this right-wing blog, NBC News. That maybe the moment that cost her the election. Like the emails, her 1993 Healthcare task force, Whitewater, and everything else, being do secretive and deceptive about it plays as big as her physical and mental fitness. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the irrational obsession with and hatred of the Clintons on the right. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with Hillary. Bottomline, no one believes her or her surrogates anymore. The DNC would do well to look elsewhere as in the Eagleton affair. DNC rules are explained here under What would happen if Clinton dropped out?.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 21:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the irrational obsession with and hatred of the Clintons on the right. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- That was the Washington Post I linked to. Or this right-wing blog, NBC News. That maybe the moment that cost her the election. Like the emails, her 1993 Healthcare task force, Whitewater, and everything else, being do secretive and deceptive about it plays as big as her physical and mental fitness. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're grasping at straws. Jagulard (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)