Hillary vs Bernie

[Malthus]

We had to destroy the Presidency in order to save it! 

[Capetan Mihali]

Thanks - before you look it up make sure the dictionary also has "puerile" in it.  Just to save time. 

I'll take this as a non-response.

[The Minsky Moment]

  Just something you slip into an argument to be extra pompous, condescending, unproductive, and trite.

I take issue with unproductive.

[Martinus]

For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).

That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.

You missed my point. I said I can think why Trump could seem a better choice for a Bernie supporter than Clinton is - that's not hard to understand, is it? You may disagree with this conclusion but some people may reach it.

My point was that if you think Trump is Hitler, you shouldn't abstain from voting even if it means you vote for Hillary. But if you don't think he is Hitler (I don't think he is a Hitler)

That's absurd.
Being not as bad as Hitler is a very low bar.  I would think a Pole of all people would understand that.  It is possible to be far better than Hitler, and yet extremely bad.  It is not only possible it is actually the case right now.   The human brain is capable of comprehending qualitative gradations.  100 degrees is a lot less than 120 degrees.  But it is still way too damn hot.  90 degrees is better.

As for this stuff about shutting down rallies and "poltical assassination" that is pure strawman.  No one is doing any of that.

You missed my point. It is not that you should vote Trump if he is not Hitler - but if you think he is not Hitler, he can be more appealing to a Sanders supporter than Hillary.

It is quite clear that from your perspective (and mine, if I were an American and held a similar social and economic position in the American society as I hold in the Polish one), Clinton is vastly superior to Trump as a POTUS. But for many people it may not be so.

[garbon]

We had to destroy the Presidency in order to save it! 

So we need to trash America to make it great again?

[Capetan Mihali]

  Just something you slip into an argument to be extra pompous, condescending, unproductive, and trite.

I take issue with unproductive.

Productive in the cough sense of the word, certainly.

[LaCroix]

mihali, what if actual hitler were up against hillary? I get your view, but is there a circumstance where you'd vote strategically?

[Martinus]

Mihali is exactly what I am talking about when I try to convince people that Trump (or rather the problem that he is a symptom of) is NOT a "Republican" problem.

The GOP has created the most fertile ground for someone like him to thrive in with their xenophobia and intolerance and embrace of the stupid, but Trump is getting votes from Republicans and a lot of independents who recognize that the system itself is broken, and people like Clinton cannot be a solution, since they are actually the problem.

Now, IMO here the solution is considerably worse than the problem. Or rather, the solution cannot solve the problem anyway, and hence all the incredibly negative baggage he carries with him cannot possibly be worth it.

But I completely understand where he is coming from, and fundamentally agree with his stance - at least in theory.

Indeed, and for those who think the system is broken may feel that it needs to be discredited first before a new one can be started. In that sense leftists may prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one as although it would incur short term pain, it would be worth it if a better system comes out of it. Of course, it could mean that the short term is much worse than envisioned before a better one comes along, just as Hitler and the Nazis discrediting the Weimar system in Germany did huge damage to Germans and Europe before a better system came along after the war.

Yes, this is exactly my point. If Trump is Hitler, then choosing him over Clinton is immoral, as it plunges the US into too much pain. But if he is just a bad but not genocidal president, then perhaps it is worth it.

[The Minsky Moment]

You missed my point. It is not that you should vote Trump if he is not Hitler - but if you think he is not Hitler, he can be more appealing to a Sanders supporter than Hillary.

If a Sanders voter was really motivated by trade issues, to the exclusion of just about everything else, then maybe that could be case.  b/c Trump is clearly taking a more protectionist line than Clinton.  On every other issue Clinton is far closer to Sanders than Trump.

[Martinus]

I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric.   As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.

Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.

OK, I'll go re-read it (if the words aren't too big for me), while you think about how to tell me you didn't post a load of puerile alt-history up above.

Thanks - before you look it up make sure the dictionary also has "puerile" in it.  Just to save time. 

You are being catty. That's what we gays do. Stop this cultural appropriation. 

[derspiess]

mihali, what if actual hitler were up against hillary? I get your view, but is there a circumstance where you'd vote strategically?

I'll take that one step further.  What if Hitler were running against Hitler?  Who would you vote for then???

[Martinus]

For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).

That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.

He'd be a shitty candidate even in Poland, M.

I am not sure. Have you looked at our current President?

[DGuller]

I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.

I don't think we actually followed that approach at all.  Instead of voting for the least worst choice, voters yaw-yaw regardless of the merits of the two parties and their candidates.  That's almost precisely the opposite approach:  it does nothing to incentivize being the least worst choice, because your cycle will come soon enough anyway.

OK, but that is because each partisan group thinks their slightly less worse choice is the right incremental step.

It will *never* be the case that one party just dominates every election for a length of time long enough to enact that change in question, and what is more, if they did, the incentive for them to destroy the very system they are dominating would be gone!

Your system *cannot* work even if you managed to convince enough people to vote for Dems all the time. Only the threat of losing could theoretically force either party to buck the system, and if that threat exists, then it is the case that they will not consistently win enough for your incremental plan to take effect, since we will get that churn back and forth.

There are a couple of assumptions here.  You're assuming that all voters are partisan.  There are in fact enough unaligned independents.  Problem is that too many of them make up their mind for stupid reasons, like "we need balance" or "we need gridlock", even when the merits don't change at all.  Or, alternatively, elections are decided on voter turnout because the party in power just naturally can't keep up the enthusiasm as much as the party in opposition can.  So, again, with these dynamics, there no reason for parties to cater to voters, the fickle middle will come to them eventually by default.

Another assumption is that parties are not going to change.  If one party does stay in power for some length of time, the other party will have to decide how to adjust their agenda so that they would be more competitive.  Some issues that just don't play well will have to be dropped, while other issues that the party in power is weak on will be emphasized more.  The point is that the party in power should be threatened by the other party broadening its appeal rather than by voters' fatigue.

[Capetan Mihali]

mihali, what if actual hitler were up against hillary? I get your view, but is there a circumstance where you'd vote strategically?

Look at the other thread, of course I'd vote Hitler.

Seriously: yes, the profundity of the difference there is Mariana Trench level of course, but Holocaust and innumerable other atrocities aside, we knew in 1932 that Candidate Hitler did not believe in democracy and was very likely to dissolve the institutions protecting it.  I would use my democratic ballot in favor the candidate who endorsed democracy, whatever his or her views, policy programs, donors, background, etc.

In real life, Freud surprised his friends by remaining a Dollfuss supporter during all the excitement of Red Vienna, and even until the Anschluss was nigh.  Why did this very intelligent and perceptive man support the Austrofascist?  Well, to be a "grown up," since who knew what trouble the Communists would make, and sometimes you just have to pick the best of a bad lot.

[viper37]

And he says he isn't a one issue voter...

Economy is the foundation of everything.
Without a strong economy, the US will be unable to buy our exports.  If there is no free trade, not only does it hurt the US, but it hurts us too.  If the citizens of South Carolina want to commit mass economic suicide, I don't really care.  But the entire country?  That's hurtful to my economy, the foundation of everything.

Free trade is part of a good economy.