Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Pfft...you all are forgetting that party ID trumps rational analysis (pardon the pun). For anybody with an (R) beside their affiliation, Hillary is already proven guilty. The fact that that she hasn't been convicted and imprisoned is just proof to them that the system is corrupt and needs to be burned down.

Not to mention, while all politicians may have baggage, Clinton has so much baggage she needs servants to carry it around for her.

[Descan]

Sanders is either Jewish, Humanist, Atheist (of whatever flavour, let's not get into that), Deist, or "Non-religious," that last of which he seems to be pointing towards with his interviews and discussions.

All of which poll pretty similarly in America, to a greater or lesser extent. Or which do you think would be better, Jewish or Humanist? Which between Deist, if you could even get people to grasp what that means both literally and in the American historical context, or "Non-religious"? Between a Jew and an Atheist, who has a better chance?

And from left field, what if he's Muslim?

At any rate, his religion in a general election amongst a great majority of Americans would be "Not mine." And for the vast majority of whom that actually matters, they're probably not going to vote for the Socialist SJW anyway, are they?

[mainiac]

For anybody with an (R) beside their affiliation, Hillary is already proven guilty.

Well yeah but those votes aren't up for grabs anyway.  Those are the republican equivalent of the Alvin Greene voters.  It's not Clinton they hate, we just had an election in 2004 where the guy who served in Vietnam was called a pansy by the people voting for the draft dodger.

[smjjames]

Yeah, this year is pratically screaming for a third party to take up the centrist void.

Anyhow, iowa voting starts in less than an hour. Also, CNN has their election center thing up. Does 538 usually do an election center thing?

@descan, I think you mean RIGHT field, as in right wing.

[Descan]

Last I checked, American right-wing voters don't tend to be Muslim. ;P

[mainiac]

Does 538 usually do an election center thing?

Just went up.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/

[smjjames]

Does 538 usually do an election center thing?

Just went up.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/

Cool. Was going to check, but was distracted looking at other stuff.

[RedKing]

For anybody with an (R) beside their affiliation, Hillary is already proven guilty.

Well yeah but those votes aren't up for grabs anyway.  Those are the republican equivalent of the Alvin Greene voters.  It's not Clinton they hate, we just had an election in 2004 where the guy who served in Vietnam was called a pansy by the people voting for the draft dodger.

And thus the argument that Clinton is more electable because her dirty laundry is already strewn across the front lawn doesn't really hold water.

[Rolan7]

Sanders is either Jewish, Humanist, Atheist (of whatever flavour, let's not get into that), Deist, or "Non-religious," that last of which he seems to be pointing towards with his interviews and discussions.

All of which poll pretty similarly in America, to a greater or lesser extent. Or which do you think would be better, Jewish or Humanist? Which between Deist, if you could even get people to grasp what that means both literally and in the American historical context, or "Non-religious"? Between a Jew and an Atheist, who has a better chance?

And from left field, what if he's Muslim?

At any rate, his religion in a general election amongst a great majority of Americans would be "Not mine." And for the vast majority of whom that actually matters, they're probably not going to vote for the Socialist SJW anyway, are they?

The founding fathers were largely deists, and I think he could actually play that angle.  I hope.

I'd love to believe that "not mine" is an oversimplification, but actually it's more like this...
There are fuckers on both sides who will vote for their party.  No matter what.
It comes down to the swing voters.  The people who actually give a shit, and have open minds.
Among those, I don't think "deist" is a non-starter.  His spirituality speeches have focused on inclusiveness, and I think that'll work well with the undecideds.

If he comes out and says he's atheist, that's probably a death knell.  But as long as he insists "There is something greater that brings us together", I think he's fine.

Yeah, this year is pratically screaming for a third party to take up the centrist void.

Anyhow, iowa voting starts in less than an hour. Also, CNN has their election center thing up. Does 538 usually do an election center thing?

@descan, I think you mean RIGHT field, as in right wing.

I'm wondering about that.  Could...
Could this be the end of the two-party system?

No.  The system is perfect at destroying the hope of multiple parties.
But...  It might cause another disturbance?  And maybe...  People will begin to see the 2-party farce for what it is.
It's already started, with the nasty tea-party guys.  But now progressives are surging forth.

...  Is there ANY chance that, maybe a few cycles from now, we might actually have proper representation?

[Powder Miner]

I will enjoy seeing /r/politics' reaction if Clinton wins.

[mainiac]

And thus the argument that Clinton is more electable because her dirty laundry is already strewn across the front lawn doesn't really hold water.

Did I make that argument?

[smjjames]

Last I checked, American right-wing voters don't tend to be Muslim. ;P

I was making a joke because it'd be more likely that the right wing voters would be the ones accusing someone of being muslim.

Of course though, as right wing logic has it, he doesn't look muslim and doesn't have a funny sounding name, so, he can't be muslim.

[mainiac]

Because I ALSO really want O'Malley up there, promoting the green angle.

Just going back to say I find it interesting that O'Malley is the "green" candidate despite not saying anything very radical.  34 years to shift to renewables is pretty cautious goal given how quickly green and solar costs are fallen.  You basically have to say by the time that coal and natural gas are blatantly unaffordable, we should stop building new coal and natural gas plants.

It seems like a pretty clear example of the overtron window in action.  Given what O'Malley supported in Maryland I suspect he is really soft selling his actual stance.

[smjjames]

Because I ALSO really want O'Malley up there, promoting the green angle.

Just going back to say I find it interesting that O'Malley is the "green" candidate despite not saying anything very radical.  34 years to shift to renewables is pretty cautious goal given how quickly green and solar costs are fallen.  You basically have to say by the time that coal and natural gas are blatantly unaffordable, we should stop building new coal and natural gas plants.

It seems like a pretty clear example of the overtron window in action.  Given what O'Malley supported in Maryland I suspect he is really soft selling his actual stance.

It's not so much that he is saying anything radical, it's that he's talking about the issue a whole lot more than any of the candidates, maybe combined.

Also, for some reason, on Politicos thing: http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/iowa it shows Hillary as having 5 superdelegates while CNN's thing http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia/Dem shows she has three, no idea what's up with that.

[RedKing]

And thus the argument that Clinton is more electable because her dirty laundry is already strewn across the front lawn doesn't really hold water.

Did I make that argument?

There's too many things for Trump to slam, though.

Ah yes the overwhelming reasons that are constantly referred to.  So unspeakable they must be kept vague.

Every politician has baggage.  Clinton's dirty laundry is already out in the open and has been for an agonizingly long time..  This doesn't matter because whoever gets the nomination will have their dirty laundry aired.  Her dirty laundry isn't going to be more shocking upon being recycled.

Trump however has not been placed directly in the crosshairs of a national, partisan election.  It's a bit of a mystery why the republicans are still handling him with kid gloves.  But the democrats sure as hell aren't going to.  His life is a goldmine of political fodder.  They could tease out some new line of attack every month until election day and still not even make it through the greatest hits.  The personal sketchiness.  The inherent inability to manage money.  The people he's hurt.  The contracts he's broken.  His core brand is fundamentally compromised.  Repeating tired cliches about a two year old investigation that didn't result in one prosecution isn't going to count for crap compared to the media circus that Trump's implosion would supply.

I dunno, you tell me. I'm sure I'm in for a harangue about how words don't say what they appear to say.




I'm curious to see how the county of my birth goes. Although I'll need a guide to find it on a map...Y U SO GRID IOWA?