Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Hillary is supporting a $15 minimum wage. And yes, she should support some other policies, like making healthcare more accessible, but those same people said they were in support of Bernie Or Bust if they don't get their way. And at that point, they're endangering thousands of people just because they didn't get what they want.
Hillary was persuaded to back that minimum wage during the Brooklyn debate. So yeah, she is supporting it.
I am not certain if having it as a blanket rule is good policy, though.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Ultimately, unless the democrats legitimately fear their voters will abandon them, there's no incentive for them to try and enact any major reforms; it took the very real fears that there would be a communist revolution to force the enactment of the New Deal during the Depression. The degree of leftist militancy that Bernie Or Bust represents isn't even close to what was going on back then.
Ideally, minimum wages would be set by the central government on a provincial basis depending on the local economic situation, but since America isn't a unitary state, that's not something that can be done. The minimum wage should actually be more like $12.50, but if it's not $15.00, a lot of places where it should be $15.00 will flat out refuse to raise it that high.
edited 4th Jun '16 3:50:28 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's so if there is a roughly similar deadlock/head-to-head between the party favorite and a dark horse reformist, the party can make sure the reformist doesn't get in.
The Superdelegates were put in place so when they changed to popular voting instead of backroom dealing, the Democratic elties could still effectively backroom deal.
If people really hate Hillary so much, maybe they should do what my mother and I did during Dubbya's administration, and what some others did during Obama's administration:
- Vote for her, as the lesser of two evils.
- Grit your teeth while she serves two terms.
- Take comfort in the fact that, thanks to the 22nd Amendment, she could never again be elected to the Presidency (and probably wouldn't be elected to any other political office, either. Ex-Presidents are funny that way...)
edited 4th Jun '16 3:48:04 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.I mean if they really hated Hillary they would vote against her but seeing as how she's got the popular vote and the delegate count and the supers it just seems like the anti-hillary vote has a hard time getting out.
I'm still secretly hoping that the establishment republicans will decide to run an independent so the circus can truly be a three ring affair.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?![]()
Sanders got a sizable fraction of the vote, it's not like it was a 95%-5% curbstomp, which is what's supposed to happen when one candidate gets all of the insider support. Now, most of his voters will, when it comes down to it, vote for Clinton, in the same way most of Clinton's voters ultimately voted for Obama in 2008, despite exit polls from Mid-May which asked showing as many as 50% of her voters felt they couldn't support Obama even if he got the nomination. Which incidentally is quite a bit worse than the 30% of Sanders' supporters who said they wouldn't vote for Clinton.
edited 4th Jun '16 4:00:08 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Aren't the Libertarians drawing an equal number of Republicans and Democrats this round? Seems more that a minority of people are siding with the Libertarian Party because they hate both Clinton and Trump as choices.
edited 4th Jun '16 3:59:36 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyHe still soundly lost even ignoring some questionable things during the primary. At this point his stubbornness is only increasing the chances of a Trump presidency. If he was truly a progressive champion of the people he'd realize that dropping out and throwing his full weight behind Hillary is the only way any of his agenda will get done.
Given that Sanders' single-payer system would require overhauling Obama Care which is already in place and already helping people, Clinton not wanting to dismantle it is pretty reasonable. You don't throw millions of people under the bus in the hopes you can help a few more in the future.
RE: Libertarian polling
One poll had them at ten percent. How accurate it is, I don't know.
It's not like Obamacare would be automatically repealed if Sanders' single-payer plan failed to pass, and while there would probably be some initial administrative difficulties if it did (much like Obamacare itself did), in the long run it'd be much better for the American people; gradually building upon Obamacare is the backup plan, and saying Clinton is right to be ruling out supporting singlepayer healthcare is a needlessly defeatist attitude.
@Kostya: Not really, if history is anything to go by, while people might say they aren't voting/are voting for the opposition if their candidate doesn't win the primaries, in the end the vast, vast majority of voters will vote for their party's candidate in the general election when it comes down to it. That's something that's been fairly consistent throughout the modern history of primaries.
edited 4th Jun '16 4:22:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
Single payer is still politically untenable, even if the democrats somehow took both houses. Too many entrenched interests are ready to work against it at every turn. I mean, considering how teeth pulling was required just to pass the ACA, I can't imagine Sanders even getting a third of the stuff he wants.
That being said I do agree that Clinton's dismissal of single-payer was a needlessly cynical move, but that's more hindsight talking.
edited 4th Jun '16 4:23:17 PM by Mio
Not if the next President gets 5 supreme court justices, which is something that's well within the realm of possibility, or if a mass movement actually materialized and elected a bunch of progressives to congress. Barring either of those, the democrats will be struggling to prevent Obamacare for being gradually picked apart like other welfare programs typically are.
edited 4th Jun '16 4:27:13 PM by CaptainCapsase
A president who appoints that many justices has way more power than the executive branch was ever intended to have, and can threaten to have pretty much any legislation struck down to force congress into complying with their agenda. Barring a mass movement, in the current political climate, that's the only way anything significant could be passed.
edited 4th Jun '16 4:34:37 PM by CaptainCapsase
The GOP is a much bigger obstacle than the democrats ever could be; literally no progressive reforms are going to be enacted so long as they retain enough of congress to continue blocking it, and the GOP has no intention of making any compromise that isn't entirely their way.
edited 4th Jun '16 4:53:10 PM by CaptainCapsase
Sanders would only make the situation worse. He's as much of a no-compromise type as the GOP which is why he's gotten a grand total of three pieces of legislation passed in a career that's lasted 25 years—two of them to rename post offices. Clinton would at least try to work with Congress, while Sanders is liable to degenerate into shouting matches with them. And while the end result might be the same, only the latter makes the President and the Democrats look as bad as the GOP.

And in the case of the second article, some are threatening to vote Trump, or stay home. Because if they make things lousy enough they'll get their precious revolution.
Interesting look at what happened the last time an outsider took over a party: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
Here's hoping something similar happens to the GOP.