Is there a politics thread? Guess I'm making one

[Excal]

Excal: Perhaps I should let Snowfire respond, but from my perspective, I completely agree with him. My government is supposed to represent my interests, and my interests include increasing happiness for other countries, too. There are big parallels for immigration and refugees here, of course. Like yeah, there's a chance that closing off your country to all refugees like Marine Le Pen wants is the absolute best thing for France, but it's still a bad thing for the world, and even if you're French you should be concerned about that. (And in general isolationism and thumbing your nose at the rest of the world is a bad long-term plan even for pure self-interest, but I'd still take issue with it even if it weren't. Countries who give no shits about anyone but themselves are pretty much the national equivalent of asshole hyper-libertarians, and both make the world a worse place for everyone.)

Governments prioritizing the happiness and well-being of their own citizens over those of other nations doesn't necessitate having to be an asshole to other nations.  Hell, by this standard, governments are necessarily pitted against each other unless they can find ways where both countries can mutually benefit their own people in a win-win agreement.  Free-trade agreements and mutual defense pacts being great examples of agreements where a government can provide happiness for other nation's citizens while also benefiting their own.  This is without getting into the trade-off of accepting minor harms or short term losses in exchange for greater gains in the long term.

However, unless there's a specific mandate from the citizenry to act against their interests, then if there is a case where pure isolationism does happen to be the correct answer to protect the happiness and prosperity of the people of the nation, then it would be immoral not to do so.  Governments exist to serve their people, not the world.

[dunie]

(Zenny, no prob about the black voter stuff; I had already said understanding the psychology of voters wasn't my cup of tea, but am totally annoyed by the US's near tropic use of black/white voters, black/white people, in nearly all conversations about what's wrong with the US -- cos', you know, more people here than just north american plantation blacks and stuff; also, I have this venom towards the overexplanation of things in generalities, so I ran into my own wall (

Warning #1: I'm chiming in without fresh knowledge about markets or economics, so, in essence, how I feel. Warning #2: I am super critical of globalism and global enterprise because of aggressive cultural imperialism, labor standards and the exploitation of women and children (TPP's totally notorious for this, money over human rights) under a system that does not benefit less powerful countries with the returns for places like the US.

So, a question: how free is the F in NAFTA? I hear Canada's lost control over its water resources through NAFTA, specifically with regard to its aquifers, and is required to, annually, send no less water to the US than it did the year prior. NAFTA wasn't designed, it seems, for other countries to control their domestic need.  NAFTA has a bad rep in the US, esp. after Mexico's continued economic decline for farmers as crop subsidies crippled them. The USA is not unused to government subsidies stirring up a lot of imbalances with farming in the US. To the production of food crops, I still do not understand why the US needs to rely on external country assistance. It exacerbates the fact that our current system is self-serving to a finite few.

I'm totally in the camp of "Made in the USA" and community-supported agriculture, because we need to live on a smaller scale, where it seems completely unnatural to have cantaloupe or pineapples year-round! The US government should intercede when land and space, at home, can be used more efficiently. Sidebar: I just read an article about trinity homes in Pennsylvania and it sounds like such a brilliant idea that could be encouraged in many other forms of government-subsidized home building, rather than getting rid of it altogether as is the fashion statewide.

Countries having less bargaining power in NAFTA/TPP makes it to where the "mutual benefit" is entirely questionable, positive only through intangible ideals, and negative in lots of different moral issues (for example, I had read an article that said the US should not engage in trade with countries that are the godfathers of human trafficking, so that the economic penalizing encourages more humanism -- when you know, the US is great at that too) that I feel uncomfortable stepping in.

This is not necessary at all, but I'm going to stand behind Dhyerwolf's feelings about Hillary's pandering. Hillary's remarks go beyond gaffes, they're not inconsequential and their repetitive nature only certifies the ridiculously superficial nature of campaigning for elections. Silence on real issues, or displacing others in sake of focusing on easier targets (say, the Moynihan Report and US Dept of Labor's collusion w/ "black folk is messed up" image) is disgusting -- women's rights, LGBTQI, low class exploitation and venture capitalism in crumbling neighborhoods, and all. Although I will agree with mc that Hillary's ideas for progress encapsulate more than she enunciates, but I don't like the principle of picking between two lesser evils.

This connects to what seems to be a serious moralizing issue that follows a remark that Elf made in the context of allowing Trump or Cruz to win. The US voting system is what isn't impressive to me. Why must one's vote, like Dhyer's, be undermined by two lesser evils? This is totally out of keeping with the freedom to exercise one's vote. That I'm even deciding to vote for Hillary, whom I do not find suitable in any regard, is oppressive, and oppressive is the right word here. That my vote wouldn't, and historically has not, impacted GA or TX elections to sway their momentum in the electoral college as Republican states, yet it could yield such a strong response about accountability is……..

& those evil people, both Republic and Democrat, have done a great job at making it more difficult to vote in general.

[Cmdr_King]

I'm willing to accept a certain degree of 'lesser of two evils'.  In any situation a certain amount of political coalition is going to be required, because forming new parties and running candidates for each noteworthy ideology will generally mean everybody gets nothing until they consolidate back down.  And while the US' particular case is pretty bad since we have basically a hard-right party and a center-right party, considering that the only functional part of the government is the Supreme Court ANYWAY I'm certainly willing to take a knock to keep them from getting pushed any further right.

The amount of people calling for everyone to "get in line" now, hell even as far back as January, in this primary disgusts me.  If you wanna vote based on who might be a stronger candidate or who might be a more effective head of state rather than ideology, that's great, you do you.  But we're still in the fucking primary.  One of the main points of which is getting actual feedback on the current beliefs and priorities of the members of the coalition.  Now if you want to debate the merits of the remaining candidates on said ideology, or argue that non-ideological aspects of the race are particularly important with these specific candidates, that's fair, reasonable discourse usually is.  But telling me not to vote for ideology when I think the current party line is so badly out of whack in a primary where the consequences are so marginal?  Fuck off, talk to me again in August.*

*this hasn't been a problem here.  But I've seen a lot of it, so a lot of Sanders supporters that aren't raging assholes (which yeah there's a lot of them and it's one reason I temper expectations on his candidacy so hard, practices for yelling at THEM when we in fact aren't in the primary) are rather prickly about the matter.

[metroid composite]

I mean, to clarify my opinion on NAFTA a bit, I wouldn't be working in the US right now if it wasn't for NAFTA.  I'm on a working visa that exists because of NAFTA.  (And Americans can get similar working visas to work in Canada).  One place where I strongly, strongly disagree with Bernie Sanders is that he doesn't like this aspect of NAFTA: he wants to decrease the number of highly skilled non-US workers who get engineering or mathematics based Visas to work in the US.  Like...Bernie's policies on undocumented immigrants from Mexico are fantastic and welcoming, that's cool, but for me personally I would be at much greater risk of being deported under a Bernie Sanders presidency than I would be under a Hillary Clinton presidency.  (Although hopefully I'll have my green card by the time either of them are sworn in and then I won't need NAFTA visas anymore).

As for the effect of NAFTA on stuff like the Canadian economy--some Canadian companies went out of business--like Canadian trucking companies, which American trucking companies previously weren't allowed to compete with.  The American trucking companies undercut prices on the Canadian trucking companies, and took over that business.  But like...people still drive trucks, obviously.  Canadians still drive trucks, obviously, they just work for a different company now.

The nature of lowering trade barriers is that it's usually good for everyone involved.

Why the TPP is different from NAFTA is that it's angled to benefit corporations.  (Note: I'm going off of vague memory here, so I might be misremembering parts of it).  It would undoubtedly have a big economic benefit to corporations, but everything in the bill that would set a standard of working conditions, set a standard of not using child labour, etc, is non-binding.  So, for instance, American and Canadian workers would have to compete directly against child labour working 14 hours a day working in factories that would break environmental regulations in the Americas.  (I invented this example, but this is the impression I get of the TPP).  The TPP does have some labour provisions, but they are all non-binding, whereas all the provisions that benefit corporations are binding.

This is not necessary at all, but I'm going to stand behind Dhyerwolf's feelings about Hillary's pandering. Hillary's remarks go beyond gaffes, they're not inconsequential and their repetitive nature only certifies the ridiculously superficial nature of campaigning for elections. Silence on real issues, or displacing others in sake of focusing on easier targets (say, the Moynihan Report and US Dept of Labor's collusion w/ "black folk is messed up" image) is disgusting -- women's rights, LGBTQI, low class exploitation and venture capitalism in crumbling neighborhoods, and all. Although I will agree with mc that Hillary's ideas for progress encapsulate more than she enunciates, but I don't like the principle of picking between two lesser evils.

To be honest, I would assume that the very good and detailed plan that is on Hillary's website about LGBTQI rights was not written by her, but written by an adviser who specializes in this field.

And...that's ok.  If Hillary is able to seek out very good advisers, picks them well, and listens to their advice, that's cool.  It's certainly better than what she was doing in 2013 (when she was still claiming to oppose gay marriage).

Truth be told, I don't feel like LGBTQI issues (or race issues for that matter) are the primary issues that drive either Hillary or Bernie.  Bernie is most strongly driven by economic issues, whether it's campaign finance reform, providing health care as a right, free college education, reducing the unreasonably large amount of poverty in the US.  Hillary, I always get the feeling that she's driven partly by ambition, but I do honestly think women's issues also drive her.  When she was Secretary of State she actually made empowering women in other countries one of the cornerstones of US foreign policy (there's a book called The Hillary Doctrine written about this).

The one thing I will say about Bernie vs Hillary is that Bernie doesn't waffle on issues that aren't his core economic issues.  he was arguing for gay rights in 1970, Hillary's support in this area was weak until relatively recently.  He was arrested protesting segregation in the 1960s, while Hillary (who admittedly was in high school at the time) saw herself as a Goldwater girl (here's a pretty interesting analysis of the parallels between Goldwater and Trump).  There's a pretty interesting article about how a lot of the worst mass incarceration laws came in under Bill Clinton and were championed by Hillary--and two things I'll say about that--first, African American community leaders at the time were coming to politicians with concerns about high crime, wanting tougher crime laws; second, she's since changed her views on these laws.  But ideally a politician would have foresight and not impose laws that would be judged poorly by history 10 years down the road.  So...yeah, if you're looking for an unwaveringly consistent politician, it's definitely Bernie and not Hillary.  But taking a snapshot of Hillary's positions right now, they're actually pretty damn good, way better than they were in 2008.  Like...I only strongly disagree with her on the death penalty (she's for it) and the patriot act (she's for that too).

[superaielman]

Hillary has slipups like this.  She also said "All Lives Matter" while giving a talk in a Black Church recently.

That said, her list of policies on LGBT issues is actually pretty comprehensive (and quite a bit longer than the equivalent page on Bernie's website).  She specifically calls out that the end of DADT only applies to LGB and not LGBT, and that she wants to fix that, for example.  That's the kind of thing that could slip through the cracks (and did slip through the cracks with Obama) so it's good to see it specified.

Was Hillary caught saying something bad?  Yeah, but then again Bernie made a comment that didn't come off well about Ghettos recently.

Gaffs happen.  Joe Biden is still the motherfucking king of them.  I don't really feel like they're worth deciding a vote over.

I don't blame Dhyer for getting angry over this. It's more than a gaffe, it's completely misrepresenting what happened and the impact of the early AIDS crisis in America.  (I don't blame Nancy Reagan for what happened, that would belong to her husband. But she did a lot of good in her life, why pick that one thing to focus on?) And  it isn't like Hillary is amazing on issues re gay rights to start with.

THAT SAID I will likely have to vote for Hillary in the general election at this rate. Fucking kill me.

And I strongly agree with Excal re: a nation's responsibility to it's citizens. 

[Dark Holy Elf]

Dhyer: If it's not clear, my "not the end of the world" was referring to Hillary's gaffe, not the effects of Reagan's policies.

However, unless there's a specific mandate from the citizenry to act against their interests, then if there is a case where pure isolationism does happen to be the correct answer to protect the happiness and prosperity of the people of the nation, then it would be immoral not to do so.  Governments exist to serve their people, not the world.

Governments exist to serve their people, but that doesn't mean approaching things from a point of view of "the maximum benefit to my country matters. Nothing else" is a moral way to do things. It isn't moral to do this as an individual, and it isn't moral to do this as a corporation (in fact, some would argue that one of the reasons we have governments is to prevent individuals and corporations from behaving this way). Why should it be moral for a government?

The argument you're making feels like it could be made to support a lot of isolationist, xenophobic nonsense similar to what European far-right parties support. It also can be used as argument against foreign aid (and I have seen it used as such). I don't have much respect for either. Consider: There probably wasn't much benefit to Canada/the US to send aid to Haiti following their major earthquake a few years ago (a poor country likely isn't going to be able to return the favour in case a disaster strikes us... there are other purely selfish benefits I can think of to us, but most of them are murky/questionable). Yet it was clearly still the right thing to do.

Like yeah obviously the Canadian government is gonna care much more about the average Canadian citizen than the average Haitian citizen, I do agree that that is their job. (Much like I care more about my friends and family members than strangers.) But that doesn't mean that no care at all should be given to the prospects of the rest of the world.

[metroid composite]

Isolationism can happen on the right or the left.

On the right, as Elfboy describes, it's against foreign aid.  And, at least for certian countries, against climate change legislation.  (At least in the US, the expected downsides of climate change are much less severe than in many other countries).

On the left it's stuff like opposition to all war.  (I was against the Iraq war from the start strictly on the basis that it would be expensive.  Even if Sadam is the most evil guy on the planet, who cares?  Not our problem).

Trade deal opposition shows up on both the left and the right (notably one of the few policies in common between Trump and Sanders).  On the right because the right is partially about tradition and keeping things the same, which means maintaining the same jobs in the town where you grew up, and jobs moving overseas means your way of life changes.  On the left because rah rah go proletariat, boo bourgeoisie!

[dunie]

I'm willing to accept a certain degree of 'lesser of two evils'.

Well, yeah. I hear you. And for me, full acceptance is a stage of defeat. No, I will never find a candidate whom I wholeheartedly agree with, and I understand the mechanics behind coalition building, but the forcing seems unprincipled and with lame parameters. Since Trump will never be the first xenophobic and racist US president anyway, I wonder if post-election time is a moment of even more circumscribed voting or more enfranchising. During his keynote interview at SXSW,  Obama, who ate at Torchy's btw, claimed ever-so-easily that some entrepreneur needs to develop a reliable online voting system, and therefore an argument is even stronger for the government to close the digital divide for internet access throughout the US. Sounds interesting, to say the least and unenthusiastically. My non-profit internet was just devoured by Sprint; the government'll have to do a lot with the Comcast, Time Warner, Sprint, ATT kerfuffle.

I saw that Michigan voted for Bernie. What were the numbers? (Google Moment) NYT reports that, of that win, Sanders had 30% of the black vote. I wonder what your thoughts are about that, since you seemed so curious about black voters in the South. Plus you're in Michigan, right? Do you think if the water crisis wasn't mainstreamed in media, Sanders would have the same stats? This is just a game of "Maybe/Maybe Not." I ask because Flint isn't the only place, there was DC, then Sebring, Jackson, Mississippi….

I mean, to clarify my opinion on NAFTA a bit, I wouldn't be working in the US right now if it wasn't for NAFTA.  I'm on a working visa that exists because of NAFTA.  (And Americans can get similar working visas to work in Canada).  One place where I strongly, strongly disagree with Bernie Sanders is that he doesn't like this aspect of NAFTA: he wants to decrease the number of highly skilled non-US workers who get engineering or mathematics based Visas to work in the US.  Like...Bernie's policies on undocumented immigrants from Mexico are fantastic and welcoming, that's cool, but for me personally I would be at much greater risk of being deported under a Bernie Sanders presidency than I would be under a Hillary Clinton presidency.  (Although hopefully I'll have my green card by the time either of them are sworn in and then I won't need NAFTA visas anymore).

This piques my interest for a couple of reasons, because I have very limited knowledge about NAFTA/TPP. Presumably, your deportation wouldn't occur sporadically, and has legal backing compared to all illegal immigrants and their families, whose labor often slips conveniently under radars, pending feelings/market stability. You have stated, contractual details. Is this true? I have a few friends on work visas. I'm not sure if they're NAFTA-approved, but they cannot work at any other job due to their field, and the pressure of convincing another business to sponsor them. You've moved between jobs since you've been in the US with a NAFTA visa? 

I ask because I think there's a false parallelism here: deportation by not observing contractual agreements versus deportation, because, well, -illegal-, from a mixed bag of nationalism, xenophobia, racism and more within a system that schizophrenically allows it. And I wouldn't imagine that there aren't elements of that with legal agreements too. I'm sure you're more familiar with these fields, but news has raised red flags over the last several years about a saturated tech market and many unemployed folk in sciences, non-creative tech industries. It must be a weird position to be placed. I'm thinking of Germany, Britain and France's foreign immigrant-work policies and really uneven, unfair and even exploitative (tax money going to German citizens and not the Turkish workforce, for example) applications.

And, after that slew of words, I don't mean to imply that you should rethink Sander's criticisms of NAFTA/TPP. I'm surprised, however, that there isn't more back-scratching between Canada and the US for foreign workers who've spent years in either country, serving in the max of their capacity as non-citizens, to have no option for naturalization or dual citizenship once a longer-term visa expires.

Why the TPP is different from NAFTA is that it's angled to benefit corporations.

During a moment of corporate personhood and Citizens United. I need to research more about the management of TPP. I remember Obama received flack for lightening up on Malaysia (human trafficking queen bee).

[Cmdr_King]

I wonder what your thoughts are about that, since you seemed so curious about black voters in the South. Plus you're in Michigan, right? Do you think if the water crisis wasn't mainstreamed in media, Sanders would have the same stats? This is just a game of "Maybe/Maybe Not." I ask because Flint isn't the only place, there was DC, then Sebring, Jackson, Mississippi….

Nobody's particularly sure.  The speculation I've read focuses on different community organization, but it could also be a few other things.  I'm curious how other states in the area (Ohio, INdiana, Illinois) vote.  That said, they actually held a debate in Flint a couple days before that, which... I don't really watch the debates but I got the impression both were pretty well received.

Most liberal slanted people I know locally were very much in favor of Sanders so I always thought that the polls were pretty off (most showed Clinton with a ~25 point lead) though him actually winning was still a bit surprising.   I'd have figured she'd win with 5-10.

[metroid composite]

Presumably, your deportation wouldn't occur sporadically, and has legal backing

Presumably.  I've never broken the law, but yes, I know I have a couple of weeks to clear out or find a new job usually, and I've used that grace period for sure.

I have a few friends on work visas. I'm not sure if they're NAFTA-approved, but they cannot work at any other job due to their field, and the pressure of convincing another business to sponsor them. You've moved between jobs since you've been in the US with a NAFTA visa? 

Depends on the visa.  H1B is transferable.  TN is not.

I ask because I think there's a false parallelism here: deportation by not observing contractual agreements versus deportation, because, well, -illegal-, from a mixed bag of nationalism, xenophobia, racism and more within a system that schizophrenically allows it.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that my life is somehow worse than an undocumented immigrant, just that Sander's proposed policies are much more humane than existing polcies towards undocumented immigrants, while simultaneously scaling down on high skilled temporary workers.

And yes, of course, I'm still plenty more privileged either way--even if I do get kicked out, I just go live in Canada.  (I hear the prime minister cuddles pandas).

I'm sure you're more familiar with these fields, but news has raised red flags over the last several years about a saturated tech market and many unemployed folk in sciences, non-creative tech industries.

I'm not familiar with that.  I know there's a lot more demand to bring in foreign technical workers than there are visas, in large part because the number of visas provided each year has not increased, so we now slam up against the visa limit very quickly.  I doubt that would be an issue if there was a large local supply of talent.

[dunie]

Nobody's particularly sure.  The speculation I've read focuses on different community organization, but it could also be a few other things.  I'm curious how other states in the area (Ohio, INdiana, Illinois) vote.  That said, they actually held a debate in Flint a couple days before that, which... I don't really watch the debates but I got the impression both were pretty well received.

You remember Mephistopheles? He's in my living room as a Bernie hopeful and voted early for Ohio. He thinks Bernie may win out for Ohio. Who knows.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that my life is somehow worse than an undocumented immigrant, just that Sander's proposed policies are much more humane than existing polcies towards undocumented immigrants, while simultaneously scaling down on high skilled temporary workers.

And yes, of course, I'm still plenty more privileged either way--even if I do get kicked out, I just go live in Canada.  (I hear the prime minister cuddles pandas).

Yeah, I didn't get that you argued that at all. But deportation and visas casts an entirely different lens is all, and I most definitely don't have firsthand experience like you.

I just googled your PM, and um, too cute, http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/canada-fears-photo-of-prime-minister-with-pandas-could-worsen-american-refugee-crisis

[metroid composite]

So...the Washington Post sat down and spoke with Donald Trump for an hour, and then posted the unedited transcripts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/

It starts out with Trump sounding actually kind of reasonable--suggesting building schools in inner cities rather than Iraq.

Then it gets rather ridiculous, as he claims he's not inciting violence when he offers to pay the legal fees of anyone who punches protesters at his rallies.

And he complains endlessly about "libel" that the Washington Post has printed without actually detailing what they've libeled.  And he seems to have changed his mind a little bit on libel laws not being strong enough because Hulk Hogan won his lawsuit against Gawker.


(I normally wouldn't have read a Trump interview, but it came recommended by a Black Lives Matter organizer and feminist, and...yeah, this was...interesting at least).

[metroid composite]

Bernie Sanders TYT interview--interesting for a few reasons.

Notably, he says that if he loses (looking likely now) he won't be throwing his endorsement and campaigning behind Hillary unless Hillary agrees to some of his policies like single payer health care:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFitmOTSok&feature=share

[Cmdr_King]

I've been a little sketchy on Sanders remaining in the race at this point.  The level of vitriol towards Clinton from a lot of folks in the Sanders camp is unhealthy, especially in the circumstances.  But since the race is basically over we're already seeing her head back rightward despite... everything, so I guess I was wrong and we need to hold on to the salt for a while.

Mind, Clinton being the sort of politician she is I think we mostly need to clean out the senate and get some more liberal democrats in there and we'll see a more lasting change.  Of course there literally weren't any other primaries on my ballot here so dunno how much opportunity there is for that.

[SnowFire]

Single payer is tricky, from a political perspective.  Part of the totally unfair reason why Obamacare got a bad name was that the Republicans were unified in saying "this sucks" and the Democrats feuded amongst each other about detail X, Y, & Z.  Most notably, the choice of some of the Blue Dogs in the Senate to make themselves look independent by pushing back on certain provisions probably backfired...  it enhanced the narrative of "this is a far-leftist plot to take over health care that even some Democrats are queasy with."  To Joe Average, the fact that the Democrats had this inter-party debate was successfully portrayed as Obamacare being "problematic" in some way.

What's the solution?  Part of it is that the Democrats need to sing Obamacare's praises to the public and not drift off script about their favorite little fix they'd implement.  Yes everybody has their own little enhancements, but when a program is on such patchy grounds of public support, sometimes you just gotta pound the table with "THIS IS AWESOME."  If the Dem presidential candidate's message is "we agree that we screwed up with Obamacare, but trust us, we ivory tower leftists have a NEW plan to solve health care, you just need to place our government bureaucrats in charge of everything, give us another chance here," that's not gonna work. 

There's something to be said for simultaneously hyping Obamacare as being great *and* propounding "improvements" that will make it even better, but that's gonna take real skill to execute & message correctly in a way that doesn't shoot Dems in the foot.  My hopes aren't high considering past Dem failures on this note.

[Cmdr_King]

The ACA burned all political goodwill and capital that is available for healthcare, even went into the hole.  Nobody can make a real push towards it.

That's the problem with the ACA.  You've set in stone any healthcare programs that could be done for the next 20 years, and it amounts to a tourniquet.  Oh good, the economy isn't going to bleed out from these gaping healthcare costs.  Pity everyone's too busy crowing about how awesome stopping that bleeding was to operate on the patient before the whole arm has to be removed.

So uh... yeah.  Your plan sucks Snowfire.  Because that's the point at which I'm pretty sure the lefties that are already on the fence really DO throw up their hands and vote for Jill Stein.

[SnowFire]

I was speaking strictly in terms of political messaging there, not on the merits of any proposal.  Painful experience has shown that policies that are literally driving the country into the ditch can continue if stopping the crazy policy is seen as some radical plot.  I should add that I'm down for single-payer if we're talking strictly from a policy perspective!  I do think that selling single-payer to the public is gonna be crazy tough.

I will say that if by some miracle the Democrats retake the House, I wouldn't be shocked if the ACA was pushed toward single-payer...   at least barring Republican fillibusters (which there WILL be, considering the history of the ACA originally, and also why some of its softening provisions were made in the original effort to get 60 votes rather than 50).  I'd just keep it a secret or something.  Or file it under "expansion of Medicare" or some such.

[Cmdr_King]

Well, see, messaging is the problem.  Well, not strictly.  Hillary's history suggests that, from her perspective, the ACA is an unqualified success and exactly the sort of health care reform she wanted in place.  Heading more strongly in that direction, from the liberal perspective, is her becoming even more conservative.  My experience is that she's already 100% considered a Republican-except-not-racist/sexist, and intentionally selling that image harder could so, so easily be the breaking point.  Seriously, as far as I can tell the only thing going for her is just how psychotically terrible either Trump or Cruz would be.

Actually, related.  Here's a trouble I've been having; what are Clinton's priorities?  I don't mean her policy positions.  I mean, which ones is she personally invested in.  Which ones are the issues she'll be chomping at the bit to tackle on January 21st 2017?  I can't really seem to get a good sense of that from her supporters that I run into, and most interviews she prefers to contrast herself to other candidates or talk up her experience rather than her ideology.

[superaielman]

Seriously, as far as I can tell the only thing going for her is just how psychotically terrible either Trump or Cruz would be.

The worst thing that could happen to Hillary outside of being arrested (Which is certainly possible) is the Republicans having a brokered convention and getting Romney/someone else the nomination. Trump winning the nomination is about the only thing I could think of that would get progressives (And a lot of the Republican base for that matter) to stomach a vote for Hillary.

[Shale]

Cruz would do it to a lesser extent.

[Captain K]

Mission complete.

[dunie]

 

[Cmdr_King]

So we're seeing that the numbers in the primary suggest about 40% of the Democrats are vastly left of the current party line.  Except I don't think that's true, because I've honestly yet to meet a Hillary voter who actually found her more agreeable ideologically.  And some people cite various factors like "has actual foreign policy experience", "is better vetted and more seasoned against Republican negative ads", "no President will be able to get much done under the likely makeup of congress in 2017, and the symbolic victory of First Woman President is meaningful even if she can't accomplish legislative goals", which are good and factual reasons.

But on the whole I see people claim she's generically "more electable" which is what I've been thinking about.  I'm going to ignore national polls because they don't function in way that effects actual election results, and just look at the theory here.  Because as best as I can figure, there's three things people MIGHT mean by this:

1) Clinton will motivate more of the Democratic base to go out and vote.
2) Sanders will galvanize more of the Republican base to go out and vote.
3) Actual Swing Voters (tm) are more likely to swing Democratic for Hillary than Sanders.

So before going further (and also because I've gotta get moving), am I missing a substantial area where who the Democratic nominee is makes a difference?

[Dark Holy Elf]

(3) is the one I'd put stock in. The political centre does exist, and while it may be smaller than it once was it still occupies a crucial place on the political spectrum and goes a long way to determining elections, and especially in a year where the Republicans might be nominating someone extremely unpalatable to centrists.

(1) is hard to say, because obviously both motivate very different parts of the base. On the whole I tend to agree that a more left-wing candidate would be a better motivator, but I'm not really certain. (2) is also hard to say. The Republican machine has been basically operating against Clinton for the past decade, so if you ran the election tomorrow I'd certainly agree, but a few months of scare-mongering about socialism could close this gap. Again, I'm unsure.

[Cmdr_King]

I don't want to call US swing voters "centrist" because US politics is so damn out of whack.  There are certainly voters that fall in the ideological overlap between Republicans and Democrats, but by almost any measure those people are very conservative.  'Centrists' are deep into Democrat territory.  But that's me nitpicking and being bitter.

But certainly my sense is that people are focusing on the swing vote.  And while a conservative Democrat might appeal to them more, if we're talking about tactical voting we need to look at likely outcomes.  And I'm baffled at people seeing a need for tactical voting after the first few weeks of voting because it's clear the GOP is in full meltdown.

I mean I'm just being sorta bitchy here, but like... okay.  There are two relevant outcomes for the Republican nomination now: Donald Trump or Anyone Else.  If you get Trump, you're going to demotivate a huge chunk of the base because as psychotic as the Republican party line has gotten, Trump is still bad enough to be completely unpalatable to most of them.  In case of not-Trump... more likely than not he runs anyway.  And if he doesn't, the contest has gotten so FUBAR over there that even people who might not be for Trump in the abstract will sit the election out because of how many shenanigans were required to stop him. 

Like, seriously, I don't think it MATTERS who the Democratic nominee is in terms of winning the election and nudging down-ticket candidates to victory.  So people who say they vote tactically are just beyond frustrating to me this year.  Support a candidate for whatever reason, but when there's so little at stake in terms of winning elections, why stick to the 'safe' choice?  Who's that helping?  klja;.