General US Politics

[CyborgZeta]

Considering Florida is THE swing state, demographics are very much relevant.

Florida is winnable for Trump, due to its Republican leanings. Even in 2008 and 2012, the race was still pretty close. Trump is doing well in current polls of the state.

The state's primary Latino demographics are Cubans, who lean Republican, although younger generations have voted Democratic.

Edited July 24, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Nobody]

Florida is winnable for Trump, due to its Republican leanings. Even in 2008 and 2012, the race was still pretty close. Trump is doing well in current polls of the state.

The state's primary Latino demographics are Cubans, who lean Republican, although younger generations have voted Democratic.

I mean, Florida is obviously winnable by trump, considering that's the definition of swing state. Cubans aren't a majority of its hispanic population anymore, though:

"As of 2010, those of Hispanic or Latino ancestry ancestry accounted for 22.5% (4,223,806) of Florida's population. Out of the 22.5%, the largest groups were 6.5% (1,213,438) Cuban, 4.5% (847,550) Puerto Rican, 3.3% (629,718) Mexican, and 1.6% (300,414) Colombian."

The republicans used to get between 25 and 35% of the hispanic vote. Trump is forecasted to get around 12%. That alone makes Florida way harder for him to win. You can be sure if the republican party's nominee was someone more "normal" (or if Florida was less hispanic), the odds of it going red would be higher

speaking of Florida, the last time i checked Trump was winning that state.

i could be wrong now of course.

Just checked it and they seem pretty tied, with hillary having a small lead in the average of polls. It's still too far from the election to consider them reliable, though Edited July 24, 2016 by Nobody

[Irysa]

How conservative are Torries? Are they Tea Party levels of jingoism or barely right? As an American, I can't really gauge British politics.

The Tory party (plural is Tories btw) in the UK itself has next to no remenants of social conservatism (in fact, with regards to many social concerns they are rather progressive) and adopt a neoliberal approach to economics. Whilst they have a history of "trimming" state benefits and public services, they're not particularly against such systems existing. However, they like to promote the general idea that instead of such systems being open and free to everyone, there are cutoff points at which you should be paying for it yourself. It's probably fair to say that the Tory party in living history has generally espouted a fairly paternalistic (patronising to some) platform, with Thatcher swerving the party (and British politics for that matter) more towards neoliberalism and globalisation, which is what tends to put them at odds with the proletariat. Thatcher also ressurected a strong sense of individualism that used to be more of a feature of the old Liberal Party from the 19th Century.

I suppose the conservatism of the UK Conservative party is more about the belief in the meaning and purpose of our established systems, social classes and hiearchies, and rather than seeking to rebuild them, they want to tweak them to what they consider to be fair. They believe the upper and ruling classes have responsibilities towards lower classes, but they see wealth and privilege as an opportunity to help those below them, so being well off is desirable and honorable, something to strive for. This type of Conservatism is usually called "One Nation Conservatism".

Obviously more traditional left wingers tend to have a less rose tinted view of the rich and upper class, and instead sort of vilify them, so the Tories being "The Party of the Rich" is true, but not in the way that some think it is.

EDIT: I wasn't too happy with how I summarised my political views in a previous edit, and further attempts to amend the post resulted in more urges to clarify further. However this is irrelevant, as the main reason I wanted to state my views was in case someone got the impression I was a Tory supporter. I'd describe myself as a radical centrist, and I feel that will do.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Irysa

[tuvarkz]

when the #1 reason somebody might get elected to the most powerful post in the world is that they have a big ego, you know you're in for a bad time

I was making a descriptive list mostly, not explicitly made to show the best of Trump while minimizing his worst. Had I intended to place the parts that I valued most higher, I'd likely have placed Meritocratic First and Nationalist second. However, I believed that describing the movement's nature first before listing what it stood for was a better way of doing so.

[BBM]

Well that was my point; I wasn't referring to your reasons for voting Trump; I was referring to what the general movement was based on- the fact that he has a big ego.

The funny thing about meritocracy is that politically speaking its advocates are generally the people who would least prosper in a true meritocracy where everyone started off on an equal footing. It's especially ironic to vote Trump based on it.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Well that was my point; I wasn't referring to your reasons for voting Trump; I was referring to what the general movement was based on- the fact that he has a big ego.

The funny thing about meritocracy is that politically speaking its advocates are generally the people who would least prosper in a true meritocracy where everyone started off on an equal footing. It's especially ironic to vote Trump based on it.

Or how they use it to justify acting against policy that aids disadvantaged groups, which makes it less 'meritocracy' and more 'fuck you, got mine'.

[eclipse]

I mean, i'm not anyone to tell others what they should vote or believe in, so i wouldn't really say i have a issue with it, it's just something that puzzles me, so yeah, eclipse's opinion would also confuse me a lot, if she's a sanders supporter refusing to support clinton (i'm not sure if she is).

I didn't really support Sanders, either. My stance during that time was who I didn't want as the candidate, and it was Trump/Clinton. Since I got the two candidates I don't like, I'm not going to vote either of them. Third parties exist, no matter how small, and I'd rather vote for someone who I actually want to see as president, rather than the lesser of two evils.

[Tryhard]

I mean, i'm not anyone to tell others what they should vote or believe in, so i wouldn't really say i have a issue with it, it's just something that puzzles me, so yeah, eclipse's opinion would also confuse me a lot, if she's a sanders supporter refusing to support clinton (i'm not sure if she is).

My country is furthest to the left of the UK and the US, believe it or not, so yeah, i know what actual left wing politics are, but Obama and Clinton are not right wingers, if that's what you're saying. They're at most centrists.

You see, the part i don't get is thinking clinton would be just a little less shitty than Trump, because he's possibly one of the worst kinds of shitty out there. In presidential systems you are, in the end, also voting for parties' platforms. A president can't do stuff their party disagrees with while easily getting away with it. They also depend on the parliament, which is actually why Obama couldn't do more, considering republicans hold both the senate and the house of representatives.

They are according to politicalcompass if you have any faith in their justification under it, though centre-centre right is what I would justify the democrat party as.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

I don't believe in tactical voting. Just vote for the fuckers that you actually want. To vote to be against something is just depressing and negative, it's not really surprising that Sanders voters are disillusioned and apathetic about a political system that does not represent them. When you are, it's hard to care about choosing between two political candidates that you hate. And like eclipse said, I'd rather support Jill Stein if anyone.

Relevant.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[-Cynthia-]

I'm honestly not that big on Jill Stein. She supports homeopathy, which has almost no real scientific basis behind it and really hedges her bets on vaccines which I consider to be a clear cut and important public health issue. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/07/jill-stein-promotes-homeopathy-panders-on-vaccines/

She also voiced her support for Brexit before realizing that progressives weren't in favor of it. She then changed her statement and proceeded to pretend that she never made the previous one. For people voting for Jill Stein because she's more honest and idealogically pure than Clinton, this is a major red flag IMO. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/green-party-jill-stein-busted-cover-up-praise-bigotry-driven-brexit/

Her political experience is also quite limited. Her biggest accomplishment would likely be considered having a town meeting seat for Lexington, Mass. One would really have to question whether she has the sufficient experience to go from this to the highest office in the nation.

I really have no desire to vote for Jill Stein given the above issues and the fact that she has no realistic shot at winning the presidency.

[Tryhard]

Eh, maybe not then. I'm not too familiar with Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, honestly, and it's not like they are in the public eye at all. Just that America needs more than a two party system. And I wouldn't really vote for Gary Johnson either. So yeah, stay home and get high and forget about election day, then?

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[Ansem]

I've concluded I'll for the lesser of the two evils and then see what four years of her presidency will bring and then vote beyond party lines if I don't like her.

[CyborgZeta]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been removed as a speaker from the DNC this week in response to the DNC leaks.

Bernie calls the leaks awful, but says he won't oppose the DNC or Clinton. So much for principles.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289010-sanders-says-dnc-email-leak-doesnt-change-his-support-for

And in a really odd bit of news, apparently Obama's half-brother is voting for Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289013-obamas-half-brother-voting-for-trump

Edited July 24, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Person123]

I really do feel pretty bad for Sander's supporters. Even after Bernie sold them all out to the DNC there are still a few who legitimately believe he's still trying to win and his endorsement's just "part of his plan." They can't really accept that he's just spineless. Or maybe Sanders just doesn't want to be found dead from an "apparent suicide" with 2 bullet holes in the back of his head.

I can see that they're trying to scapegoat DWS in order to deflect blame but it's shamelessly transparent what they're trying to do. The DNC so far is doing a very good job alienating Sanders supporters. I was expecting Hillary to pick some progressive VP as some sort of unity play but I guess her campaign just expects Sanders voters to be good little tools and just "fall in line" like he has.

[BBM]

I don't really understand what people are expecting from Sanders. Do they want him to run as an independent? If he couldn't beat Hillary in the primaries, he has no chance of beating her in the general election considering she's much better positioned than he is to get moderate states. Him running as an independent would basically be the best way to ensure Trump wins. Him telling people to stay at home and not vote Hillary is also tantamount to telling them to vote Trump.

@tryhard- tbh I think the problem is more with the way that the electoral system in the US makes some votes matter more than others. This is true in Canada too, to a lesser extent, but electoral reform was an issue in the last election, whereas there's little mainstream support in the US for changing it.

A multi-party system is tough unless there are equal numbers of parties on both sides- see: Canada, which has 1 party on the right and 3 parties on the left. Otherwise either one side's votes get split and the other side profits, or people make a conscious effort to not split votes and consolidate for one of the parties, and then the other party on that same side gets screwed over. The former scenario is what happened in Canada in 2011, where the NDP made a big surge and it led to a Conservative majority, whereas the latter scenario happened this year and the NDP lost almost half their votes to the Liberals so the left vote wouldn't get split, and the Liberals won a majority instead. And the Greens perpetually get almost no votes because everyone knows they have no real shot at winning.

Edited July 24, 2016 by BBM

[Person123]

At this point there are no winning moves for Sanders to play in order to please all of his followers. His "true believers" want him to somehow swipe the nomination from Hillary on the convention floor despite very obviously giving up. I'm sure there are some other supporters who want him to rescind his endorsement of Hillary and endorse someone like Stein, or even run third party which would obviously just hand the election to Trump.

Most will just give up like he has and submit to Hillary due to all the anti-Trump fear mongering. The rest would be too demoralized to bother showing up to vote and a small chunk will end up going over to Trump.

[BBM]

"give up and submit to Hillary"... they're part of the same party. When someone loses in the primary election, endorsing the person who won is the normal thing to do. Hillary did it for Obama, and most of the people who ran against Trump did it for him. Tearing down people who're on the same side as you in the primaries and then supporting them after you lose is literally what the USA electoral system is based on.

Edited July 24, 2016 by BBM

[CyborgZeta]

Update: DWS will resign as DNC chair after the convention.

...and will become honorary chair of Hillary's campaign.

https://twitter.com/errolbarnett/status/757312748321726464

She did set things up in Hillary's favor, after all. Least Hillary could do is give her a job!

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757277230250745856

Edited July 24, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Person123]

It takes some impressive balls to double down on cronyism so shamelessly.

I'm sure this will help unify the party!

[Ansem]

The party is more united than the Republican party so...

[tuvarkz]

"give up and submit to Hillary"... they're part of the same party. When someone loses in the primary election, endorsing the person who won is the normal thing to do. Hillary did it for Obama, and most of the people who ran against Trump did it for him. Tearing down people who're on the same side as you in the primaries and then supporting them after you lose is literally what the USA electoral system is based on.

Except that Sanders was, until this election, an independent. It's clear that Sanders needed the DNC's support if he was to make a serious bid for the presidency, but as someone who has been elected Senator without being affiliated to the DNC, it wouldn't be disadvantageous to cut his losses and separate from the DNC. Trump, similarly, was an outsider, and the oath that he and the other 3 frontrunners were made to swear was to make sure that Trump wouldn't go 3rd party if he didn't win.

Edited July 24, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Person123]

The party is more united than the Republican party so...

The thousands of people currently protesting in Philly might disagree with you.

[CyborgZeta]

New DNC interim chair will be Donna Brazile...who is also implicated in the mocking/rigging against Sanders.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757328611884036096

The convention this week is looking to potentially be quite a trip.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-bernie-list-directory-photos-most-damaging-worst-rhode-island-delegate-fec-jvf/

Edited July 24, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Phoenix Wright]

They can't really accept that he's just spineless.

how the hell is he spineless lol. there's only so much shit a person can wade through before you just gotta stop. and even then, he went far longer than most expected him to.

[Person123]

I would understand if he just quit after being treated unfairly by the DNC, but literally endorsing the face of crony capitalism even after it's revealed to everyone just how thoroughly the DNC rigged everything against him kinda flies in the face of his little "revolution." Not to mention there were many donors of his who expected him to take his campaign to the convention, only to just hand that money off to the same DNC that rigged the process against him and his supporters. No refunds lol

I can't say I'm surprised really, this is the same man who had his rally hijacked by 2 activists. He still has a small chance to redeem himself at the convention but that's terribly unlikely.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I would understand if he just quit after being treated unfairly by the DNC, but literally endorsing the face of crony capitalism even after it's revealed to everyone just how thoroughly the DNC rigged everything against him kinda flies in the face of his little "revolution." Not to mention there were many donors of his who expected him to take his campaign to the convention, only to just hand that money off to the same DNC that rigged the process against him and his supporters. No refunds lol

I can't say I'm surprised really, this is the same man who had his rally hijacked by 2 activists. He still has a small chance to redeem himself at the convention but that's terribly unlikely.

Refusing to support Hillary divides the democratic voters and increases the chances of Trump winning the election, never mind the fact that the democratic party winning the election is the only chance he has to implement any of the policies he believes in. There's a difference between being 'spineless' and being rational.