2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually Sanders got the clear majority of votes from those up as far as 44. I hardly think those in the 30-44 year old range can be classed as inexperienced in the ways of politics.
Much of Sanders support is comng from people who are fed up with a political system that is corrupt dysfunctional and simply does not work for the vast majority of Americans.

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

Hillary already has about 4% of all delegates pledged from the superdelegates. Assuming the rest go the same way she'll have 9%ish, leaving Bernie needing to win 50/91% of the primary/caucus elected delegates, or about a 55-45 win. He has no chance alas.

You are right about the superdelegates and their support for Clinton which make it highly unlikely Sanders can win. But here is the problem for Democrats after how impressively Sanders has performed in Iowa. Firstly superdelegates are appointed and or elected democratic party people such as members of congress, members of the DNC, democratic governors. They are not people elected by the American voters directly to make this decision.
So if Sanders continues to perform well and Clinton only wins because of superdelegates they are history in the general election as a large chunk of those who voted for Sanders will see that as him being cheated out of the nomination by a rigged system and will stay at home and not vote for Clinton leaving the door wide open for the Republican nominee to win the presidency. Much of Sanders support is coming from those who agree with him that the American political system is corrup, rigged and dysfunctional and the American government does not work in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. Superdelegates are just another aspect of the system being rigged so although they give Clinton a clear path to the Democratic nomination if Sanders continues to perform well the Democrats are in big trouble come November if Clinton is their nomination given how rigged their nomination process is.

AbusesToilets

I think a President Sanders would be capable of operating shrewdly in his dealing with Congress. He has years of legislative action behind him, with a noted ability to get amendments passed successfully. He certainly has more legislative experience than any of the other candidates, on both sides.

Congress is entirely riven along party lines and if the situation were reversed, with a Republican President and Democratic majorities, you would see the exact same obstructionism that the Republicans are right being lambasted over.

Term limits across the board would be immensely useful, for Legislative and Judicial branches, to include the SC.

AbusesToilets

I think a President Sanders would be capable of operating shrewdly in his dealing with Congress. He has years of legislative action behind him, with a noted ability to get amendments passed successfully. He certainly has more legislative experience than any of the other candidates, on both sides.

Congress is entirely riven along party lines and if the situation were reversed, with a Republican President and Democratic majorities, you would see the exact same obstructionism that the Republicans are right being lambasted over.

Term limits across the board would be immensely useful, for Legislative and Judicial branches, to include the SC.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, but the previous post was a known socialist praising a Republican. So there is more balance than you seem to think.

K-9

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The coin tosses were in districts which had an uneven no. of delegates but the candidates were tied in the amount they received, eg in a district with 11 delegates, 5 went to Hillary, 5 to Bernie and the remaining 1 was in the coin toss. It sounds ridiculous and I think they'd be better off getting rid of that delegate's vote and declaring it a tie, but that's caucuses for you.

You pick a card, any card in UK local elections.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Congress is entirely riven along party lines and if the situation were reversed, with a Republican President and Democratic majorities, you would see the exact same obstructionism that the Republicans are right being lambasted over.

I dunno. I mean, sure: partisan digging in of heels is very much a two-way street. But I honestly can't remember there ever being a Congress whose publicly-stated aim from the very beginning was to make sure that the President didn't get anything whatsoever achieved.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

I dunno. I mean, sure: partisan digging in of heels is very much a two-way street. But I honestly can't remember there ever being a Congress whose publicly-stated aim from the very beginning was to make sure that the President didn't get anything whatsoever achieved.

After 8 years of the Republicans efforts, I would imagine Democrats would be less than motivated to support any legislative efforts of a Republican President.

Congressmen are barely in the door before they have to worry about re-election, which only increases their dependence and susceptibility to private money. Promotes short term thinking and a need to stiff the opposition.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think a President Sanders would be capable of operating shrewdly in his dealing with Congress. He has years of legislative action behind him, with a noted ability to get amendments passed successfully. He certainly has more legislative experience than any of the other candidates, on both sides.

Although Sanders often caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, he is technically an Independent, not belonging to either rival party. So this makes me wonder if elected how he might be able to use his Independent status to encourage cooperation and legislation between party lines in the House and Senate with more success than a president with a party label attached to their name? Could he moderate between warring parties and get legislation passed to benefit the diverse interests of the American voter?

Of course Americans will never elect Sanders with the forbidden S-word attached to his name, treating it thoughtlessly as if it was profanity. I am not in favour of RomneyCare or ObamaCare, but I do believe in universal healthcare for every man, woman and child in the USA (and elsewhere in the world), which Sanders advocates.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

Although Sanders often caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, he is technically an Independent, not belonging to either rival party. So this makes me wonder if elected how he might be able to use his Independent status to encourage cooperation and legislation between party lines in the House and Senate with more success than a president with a party label attached to their name? Could he moderate between warring parties and get legislation passed to benefit the diverse interests of the American voter?

To be honest, Obama passed hardly any legislation after his first 2 years which wasn't heavily compromised with the GOP, and he had the backing of the Democrat establishment. I think Bernie will do a better job of moderating between both sides, and some moderate Republicans have said that he's certainly one of the easier Senators to deal with because he's all for bi-partisanship and compromise.

As far as I can see, Rubio and him are the only contenders who could do a better job at building a better relationship between the White House and Congress. Cruz is the most rotten senator out there and led the 2013 shutdown which achieved absolutely nothing but pain and misery. It's no secret that even his GOP Senate colleagues can't stand him. Hillary is as fast to bash the GOP as Cruz and Trump are to her, so I doubt she'll build a solid relationship. Trump is despised by both sides so I can't see anything changing under him at all either.

Black Swan

I noted a chart earlier in this thread that showed Sanders Iowa support decidedly more youthful than Clinton in comparison. Anecdotally speaking, my university of 30 thousand students is absolutely wild about Sanders, with Bernie discussions, campaign meetings, support groups, signs, and bumper stickers seen everywhere; and it should be noted that this university sits in an historically Republican voting and dominated County. Bernie support hugely overwhelms GOP and Dem student groups. Unfortunately for the Sanders campaign, students tend to make a lot of pre-election noise, but are historically underrepresented at elections. But if he could mobilize them to come out in force and vote, it might make a difference during primaries, and if nominated, November 2016? The number of college and university students exceeds the total population of Eire several times: "In fall 2015, some 20.2 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities," per the National Center for Education Statistics.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I think Bernie will do a better job of moderating between both sides, and some moderate Republicans have said that he's certainly one of the easier Senators to deal with because he's all for bi-partisanship and compromise.

The art of compromise he has mastered in order to get anything passed being an Independent.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

As far as I can see, Rubio and him are the only contenders who could do a better job at building a better relationship between the White House and Congress.

One-party rule removes some of the checks-and-balances in their political system; e.g., Republican president and Republican both houses of Congress, along with the eventual stacking of the US Supreme Court with Republican justices. If Trump or Cruz or Rubio win November 2016, and if the GOP continues to control both US Senate and US House, many of those checks-and-balances will be absent.

Black Swan

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone know if has been established for sure whether Cruz is even eligible to be president since he was born in Canada?

“No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President" (clause from US Constitution). It depends on how you define "natural born." One interpretation of English Common Law, which may have influenced the writing of the US Constitution, contends that you must be born within the dominions of the state; i.e., within the US 50 states, Washington DC, and territories.

It becomes problematic when you review John McCain's birth status (GOP 2008 presidential candidate), given that he was born in Panama while his father/parents were stationed there for the US Navy in the Panama Canal Zone (i.e., zone leased from Panama at the time; not a territory or district, per se, while belonging to the country of Panama). But historically such persons born overseas while one or both parents were on active duty have been treated as American citizens, which included McCain, so his birther status never became a big issue in presidential 2008.

If Cruz is allowed to run for president November 2016, then I should be allowed to run too for the same reasons (after I hit the minimum age and residency requirements). Although born Galway of Irish Da, my Mum was American at the time. In a decade: "Swannie for President!!"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

I know that congress and senate elections are notoriously difficult to call in advance because they're so personality driven, but I find it hard to imagine why neutral or even moderate people would vote for many of the incumbent republican candidates given their disgraceful behaviour over the last number of years.

How could a politician stand for re-election on the platform that they will do everything possible to stop the government from functioning if there is a Democrat president.

The government shutdown in 2014 and the brinkmanship in 2015 affected millions of people directly.

I know electorates are a strange bunch that defy logic a lot of the time, but that kind of clowning around has to cost them some support?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Therein lies the problem.

I have met and befriended many people in my US travels whom I would consider die-hard Republicans. Not a single one of them was a no-compromise Tea Partier, albeit they did tend to suffer from the media echo chambers they confined themselves to.

Sooner or later, the grassroots of the GOP will have to take back control from the lunatic fringe, as represented (in different ways) by Palin and Cruz. That fringe in no way represents the good, decent, likeable and hardworking GOP supporters I'm proud to call my friends. Unfortunately, its success is largely down to making my friends terrified of compromise. As I've said before, fear is rarely the most useful emotion to bring to bear when making important decisions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

my friend

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do not post in this thread again.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually, a self-described democratic socialist. If you think the qualifier doesn't matter, try "national socialist". :pac:

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Being a democratic socialist is not an extreme position in any of the other developed countries. Sanders is not an extremist, he is a centrist. Just because the republicans are so far to the right doesn't mean that it's the responsibility of the democrats to accept moderate right positions as their centre.

In November we'll see what the real mood of the people is. if the republicans win majorities in the congress and the senate then neither Clinton nor Sanders will be able to accomplish any kind of reform, but if the democrats can hold the balance of power, (which would mean a huge number of republicans losing their seats) the appetite for these remaining republican representatives to obfuscate and block the business of government might be stifled out of their own sense of self preservation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Were they asked for their views on "mom" and "apple pie"?

Part of the task facing Sanders, and the progressive wing of the Democrats in general, is convincing Americans that there is no contradiction between any of the terms you've mentioned (with the possible exception of "free enterprise", depending how you define it) and democratic socialism.

Given the popularity of Sanders with the under 40s - not all of whom are likely to be fire-breathing communists - it seems that that process is well under way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I asked our nordic-lovers the SocDems about how they will fund their utopia..
(to match Denmark would require an extra €18bn in taxes per year)

I got no answer, predictably.

Did Bernie ever elaborate on how he would do ditto?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

And is it known how much tax is raised in the US?

I looked at % of 'GDP as taxation' & the US rates very low, but I don't know if it is total or just federal?

While I wouldn't aspire for Nordic taxation... it does seem that the US is underfunded relative to the rest of the western world

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A small increase in tax on the top 20% wealthiest citizens in the U.S. would result in a very large increase in tax revenue and would allow the state to provide the kinds of social services that the rest of the world takes for granted
(that 20% of people control 90% of all wealth in the U.S.)

Bernie Sanders is speaking to the 80% of voters in the U.S. who are left scrambling for the remaining 10% of the wealth pie.

The bottom 40% of the american population have 0% of the national wealth. In fact, they have less than zero, they're in debt.

If Sanders can convince the 40% of people have nothing and another 20% of people who have 3% of the national wealth between them that they're being screwed by the top 10% (and they are) then he'll be very difficult to beat.

Sanders is already on message by claiming, correctly, that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall street and this is resonating with an awfull lot of people who see the land of opportunity as a mirage and not anything that they can achieve.

Sanders' platform promise of free college education for all instantly appeals to young people, and the parents of college aged children and younger.

To challenge this, his opponents need to argue that leaving college with a mortgage worth of debt is a good thing.

Sanders' goal of free universal healthcare must be so attractive to those who have to pay tens of thousands a year in health insurance, or who have lost their homes due to medical expenses.

Sanders opponents will be forced to argue that America can't afford to offer the things that many in the rest of the developed world take for granted.