Hillary vs Bernie

[The Brain]

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.

Sometimes a vote is just a vote.

[LaCroix]

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.

if you're willing to vote strategically in some situations, why not here?

[Capetan Mihali]

if you're willing to vote strategically in some situations, why not here?

Oh ho!   I see you've been to law school!

But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

Of course.  But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.

This'll get me accused of being drunk, too, and maybe thrown off the boat, but I am pretty close. 

Working- and middle-class Americans stand to gain very little from either candidate.  Who has the more entrenched ruling-class interests, Clinton or Trump?  It's hard to say: Trump's richer, but not by that much, they have the same rich buddies, and while they're both swindlers, Trump might have made his fortune in a slightly more honest way.  (Comparing him with Berlusconi gives Trump too much credit almost to the extent that comparing with Mussolini does.)

As far as the welfare of non-rich non-Americans goes, Clinton already has a terrible track record as Senator and Secretary of State from my perspective (e.g. the Iraq War vote, Syria, Libya).  Could Trump fuck things up worse?  Yes, certainly.  He could also fuck them up better.  Experience is a net negative when you're an experienced hand at fucking things up.

It would be an embarrassment to have Trump as President, but maybe the US is an embarrassment of a nation right now and we need to look in the mirror.

The only thing is Ruth Goddamn Bader Fucking Ginsberg, who's had nearly eight years to bow out gracefully.  But I won't let her hold me hostage.

[LaCroix]

what if working and middle-class americans could stand to gain under a hitler-like candidate? or is it more that you're willing to vote strategically if the republic is threatened?

[FunkMonk]

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

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

It all makes sense now 

[Capetan Mihali]

what if working and middle-class americans could stand to gain under a hitler-like candidate? or is it more that you're willing to vote strategically if the republic is threatened?

No to the first, Yes to the second; why and when I'm willing to vote strategically is complex, and I don't vote "unstrategically" even now without some unresolved feelings.  (And that's ignoring the whole relevant issue of the Electoral College.)  But that's because it just isn't a simple question of being reasonable versus throwing a tantrum, as some would put it. 

I hope I don't live to see the extremes in your hypotheticals, but odds are I end up on the side of the strategic status quo'ers, but mainly because I am in fact not a committed revolutionary or someone with nothing to lose...

[dps]

I specifically said he seemed good for America.

And unsure if his stance of promoting domestic industries would be good for the world. 

I think it would be terrible for everyone in the long run. 

In the long run, IMO free trade is very much a good thing (granted, in the short run, it can cause some problems).  But Sanders seems to be at least as protectionist as Trump, so if you have doubts about protectionism, why are you such a strong Sanders supporter?

And we're not on the same side politically, a fundamental point that's much broader than just the two of us, and one that's been building and building for various reasons.  My political priorities are entirely different than yours, even though we share certain policy preferences, and the Democratic Party is just not a big enough tent for me with Hillary Clinton as the candidate

I understand exactly where you're coming from here, though from the other end of the political spectrum.  The Republican Party isn't big enough a tent for me to vote for Donald Trump for President.

OTOH, I certainly will vote in November, if for no other reason that there are other offices besides the Presidency to vote on.  And while at this point I'll probably vote for a 3rd party candidate if Trump and Clinton are the nominees, I am willing to vote strategically and pick Hilary if it seems possible that Trump could win and NC is close.

There's also, as DG sort of said, a bit about voting for the candidate who you think would be better for America and its citizens as a whole. Trump (and the current Republican crop) aren't really those people.

That's not an argument against voting for a 3rd party candidate, though, if you actually believe said candidate would be better for America than either Trump or Clinton would be.

2008 wasn't that long ago.  It followed 8 years of regulatory lenity for the financial industry.  8 years that might not have played out the same way had some people held their noses and voted for the "establishment" PAC-funded candidate Al Gore instead of Nader.   Is that something you are that eager to repeat?

Again, I find myself agreeing with Mihali here--there is no reason to believe that financial regulation under a Gore Administration would have been different to any significant degree than it was under the Bush Administration, because Gore was committed to continuing the policies of the Clinton Administration, which were about the same as Bush's when it came to financial regulation.  Though I would probably disagree with Mihali as to what appropriate regulations for the finance industry should be, the fact is the economic collapse of 2008 followed a period of roughly 20 years, under Presidents from both parties, in which the financial regulations in place created exactly the wrong incentives and disincentives.  Personally, I think the degree or amount of regulation in place was roughly appropriate, but the form or content of those regulations was all ass-backwards.

I don't care for either candidate in this likely matchup.  But Trump's so incoherent, so unpredictable I don't want him anywhere near the levers of power, so I'd rather a plain old corrupt candidate like Hillary take it.

<sigh>  Yeah.

In a democracy, the people decide and the people are responsible for the consequences.  It was an indisputable fact in 2000 that Nader would not and could not win.  In the context of a non-PR plurality vote Presidential electoral system, those voters were saying that they were entirely indifferent as to the outcome of the election. 

Speaking as someone who voted for a 3rd party candidate in 2000 (certainly NOT Nader!) I can say that was pretty much how I felt--I figured both Gore and Bush II would be pretty much equally poor Presidents, though in different ways.

Putting that in the present context, my own view is that someone who claims to be indifferent or sees no difference between HC and Trump must be off their rocker. 

I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly don't see Trump and Clinton as equally poor choices.  Well, I don't even see them as poor choices;  I see them as absolutely terrible choices, but IMO Trump is clearly even more terrible than Clinton.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not sure what "system" it is that hypothetical Bernie supporters could see discredited after a Trump presidency.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not sure what "system" it is that hypothetical Bernie supporters could see discredited after a Trump presidency.

The system where corporate money buys political outcomes retail instead of wholesale.

[CountDeMoney]

You go ahead and vote for President Goldman and Vice-President Sachs.  I'm done.

Politics isn't about principle: it's about compromise--and yes, that sometimes includes your vote.

Did I stay home and not vote after the only political campaign I ever volunteered for collapsed, oh, by Tuesday?  No.  I took all the power and the glory and the bumper stickers that was General Alexander Haig, internalized it, and moved on to Senator Bob Dole's campaign.  And then I did it again, lulz.
Did I decide not to vote because America always supports its troops except when they're Democrats named General Wesley Clark? Nope.
Am I going to stay home because the nation decided it wasn't worthy of the myriad complexities and beautiful nightmares that is Jim Webb?  Nope.   

No, I compromised.  And perhaps if more pretentious Nader assclowns did the same in 2000, a lot of messes could have been avoided; but we'll never know, and that's the great thing about sanctimony.  So go ahead and stay home and pout as somebody else puts Trump up +1.  DerWeiß approves of that message. 




Oh, and don't ever fucking lecture me on Wall Street and the damage done, Harvard.   

Fucking Ivies. Christ.

[Capetan Mihali]

Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect.  Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.

[garbon]

The man always keeping us down.

[Jacob]

Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect.  Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.

You're such a radical.

[Razgovory]

I'm really starting to dislike Sanders.  The Manichean thinking he inspires in people is getting old, real fast. 

[Ed Anger]

I'm really starting to dislike Sanders.  The Manichean thinking he inspires in people is getting old, real fast.

I tired of the Berniebros a long time ago. A bunch of leeches wanting free shit.