2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Malthus]

As I say when's the last time a major Presidential candidate said the election was going to be stolen from him and his supporters 100 days before the vote?

It isn't the real concerns that people have that can be remedied that worries me. It's this language of the entire electoral process is rigged and illegitimate from a major candidate (and media figures like Hannity) that I find worrying. Maybe Trump will be a one off but maybe not this sort of language is corrosive because it destroys belief in the system and in the democratic process. Trump's the first, if future candidates pre-announce that their opponents are stealing elections you're getting into trouble.

Well Andrew Jackson outright claimed the election of 1824 was stolen from him, contributing to an uncertain and dangerous time in our Republic. Now, you're probably right in the modern era no one has outright claimed an election will be stolen, at the Presidential candidate level. But a lot of people have persistently made these claims for years. Romney supporters believed inner city Cleveland districts that had zero Romney votes were signs of fraud, and that the polls underrepresented Romney's real support due to a large conspiracy. Libs claimed W. Bush stole both of his elections. Nixon privately made the argument for the rest of his life the 1960 election was stolen from him.

I'm not sure if a larger portion of people believe in systemic rigging than in the past, but maybe it is being spoken louder and is more visible in part because everything is more visible now than it once was.

While all true, there is I think a qualitative difference between saying an election has been stolen, to saying an election will be stolen. Or, what Shelibh is saying. 

Though I do think that in some ways Trump resembles Jackson - let's hope it isn't in the 'committing massacres after becoming president' ways. 

[Valmy]

Jackson was just serving the interests of the common man instead of the rich and corrupt oligarchy. Nothing like Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well Andrew Jackson outright claimed the election of 1824 was stolen from him, contributing to an uncertain and dangerous time in our Republic. Now, you're probably right in the modern era no one has outright claimed an election will be stolen, at the Presidential candidate level. But a lot of people have persistently made these claims for years. Romney supporters believed inner city Cleveland districts that had zero Romney votes were signs of fraud, and that the polls underrepresented Romney's real support due to a large conspiracy. Libs claimed W. Bush stole both of his elections. Nixon privately made the argument for the rest of his life the 1960 election was stolen from him.

Jackson did win the popular vote, and Jackson won the most electoral college votes.
Nixon was the victim of some vote rigging, even if the exact impact is debated.
W lost the popular vote, had a recount certified by fiat by his state campaign chairman, and then confirmed by the Supreme Court in a non-precedential decision.
The Romney thing is new to me but yes a large number of zero vote districts is suspicious - you would think there would be at least one or two mistakes.

All these instances involve some quasi-legitimate beef.
Does not compare with declaring a vote fraudulent 100 days before it occurs, but only if it favors the other guy. That's just a blanket refusal to accept the legitimacy of the entire process.

[PJL]

Well if I were a Trump supporter, I'd be using pens rather than the dubious pencils they hand out for voting...

[garbon]

Trump is just so awful. I can't even imagine another presidential candidate 'joking' about his opponent being killed.

Of course, to re-purpose a phrase - dig, baby, dig.

[dps]

As I say when's the last time a major Presidential candidate said the election was going to be stolen from him and his supporters 100 days before the vote?

It isn't the real concerns that people have that can be remedied that worries me. It's this language of the entire electoral process is rigged and illegitimate from a major candidate (and media figures like Hannity) that I find worrying. Maybe Trump will be a one off but maybe not this sort of language is corrosive because it destroys belief in the system and in the democratic process. Trump's the first, if future candidates pre-announce that their opponents are stealing elections you're getting into trouble.

Well Andrew Jackson outright claimed the election of 1824 was stolen from him, contributing to an uncertain and dangerous time in our Republic. Now, you're probably right in the modern era no one has outright claimed an election will be stolen, at the Presidential candidate level. But a lot of people have persistently made these claims for years. Romney supporters believed inner city Cleveland districts that had zero Romney votes were signs of fraud, and that the polls underrepresented Romney's real support due to a large conspiracy. Libs claimed W. Bush stole both of his elections. Nixon privately made the argument for the rest of his life the 1960 election was stolen from him.

I'm not sure if a larger portion of people believe in systemic rigging than in the past, but maybe it is being spoken louder and is more visible in part because everything is more visible now than it once was.

While all true, there is I think a qualitative difference between saying an election has been stolen, to saying an election will be stolen. Or, what Shelibh is saying. 

Though I do think that in some ways Trump resembles Jackson - let's hope it isn't in the 'committing massacres after becoming president' ways. 

I'm not particularly a Jackson fan (I probably would have supported Adams in 1824 and 1828 if I'd been around back then), but I'll be pleasantly surprised if either of this year's nominees turns out to be as good a President as he was.  I figure which ever one of them wins is going to eventually end up compared to Harding or Pierce.

[garbon]

As I say when's the last time a major Presidential candidate said the election was going to be stolen from him and his supporters 100 days before the vote?

It isn't the real concerns that people have that can be remedied that worries me. It's this language of the entire electoral process is rigged and illegitimate from a major candidate (and media figures like Hannity) that I find worrying. Maybe Trump will be a one off but maybe not this sort of language is corrosive because it destroys belief in the system and in the democratic process. Trump's the first, if future candidates pre-announce that their opponents are stealing elections you're getting into trouble.

Well Andrew Jackson outright claimed the election of 1824 was stolen from him, contributing to an uncertain and dangerous time in our Republic. Now, you're probably right in the modern era no one has outright claimed an election will be stolen, at the Presidential candidate level. But a lot of people have persistently made these claims for years. Romney supporters believed inner city Cleveland districts that had zero Romney votes were signs of fraud, and that the polls underrepresented Romney's real support due to a large conspiracy. Libs claimed W. Bush stole both of his elections. Nixon privately made the argument for the rest of his life the 1960 election was stolen from him.

I'm not sure if a larger portion of people believe in systemic rigging than in the past, but maybe it is being spoken louder and is more visible in part because everything is more visible now than it once was.

While all true, there is I think a qualitative difference between saying an election has been stolen, to saying an election will be stolen. Or, what Shelibh is saying. 

Though I do think that in some ways Trump resembles Jackson - let's hope it isn't in the 'committing massacres after becoming president' ways. 

I'm not particularly a Jackson fan (I probably would have supported Adams in 1824 and 1828 if I'd been around back then), but I'll be pleasantly surprised if either of this year's nominees turns out to be as good a President as he was.  I figure which ever one of them wins is going to eventually end up compared to Harding or Pierce.

Clearly you need to spend more time with a history book.

Oh and less time spent as chicken little.

[Zoupa]

Quelle arrogance, monsieur.

How are they "the worst", pray tell?

Cultish devotion to their guy. Middle class white lads who'll be fine regardless of who wins getting all St. Sebastian over supporting someone unelectable. Entitled with a little hint of sexism/racism/homophobia.

They're like benign Corbynistas, or even more dangerous Naderists

Well, that's a crock of shit.

You don't think Sanders' supporters actually, you know, believed in his policy platform? How is he unelectable? Where do you see sexism racism and homophobia?

Could it be that *gasp*, you're just a condescending prick? Say it ain't so.

[garbon]

Quelle arrogance, monsieur.

How are they "the worst", pray tell?

Cultish devotion to their guy. Middle class white lads who'll be fine regardless of who wins getting all St. Sebastian over supporting someone unelectable. Entitled with a little hint of sexism/racism/homophobia.

They're like benign Corbynistas, or even more dangerous Naderists

Well, that's a crock of shit.

You don't think Sanders' supporters actually, you know, believed in his policy platform? How is he unelectable? Where do you see sexism racism and homophobia?

Could it be that *gasp*, you're just a condescending prick? Say it ain't so.

Well I think the racism was pretty apparent in the constant commentary that if only black people would have been wiser they would know Bernie actually fights more for their rights than Clinton.

I think the unelectable thing is pretty obvious and stands out its own.

I don't doubt that his supporters believe in his cause, but you gotta know when to fold 'em (like say when your candidate does) and when to swallow a bitter pill (vote Hil) to avoid a worse outcome (electing Trump). It is frankly rather immature and short sighted to stick with one's principles and vote Green or abstain with the American electoral system as it is. Also as S noted, something that only a person with privilege can reasonably do as such a person is not likely to suffer unduly much under either regime.

[garbon]

Could it be that *gasp*, you're just a condescending prick? Say it ain't so.

Oh and you calling someone a condescending prick? That's rich.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not particularly a Jackson fan (I probably would have supported Adams in 1824 and 1828 if I'd been around back then), but I'll be pleasantly surprised if either of this year's nominees turns out to be as good a President as he was. 

Before becoming President, Jackson served as a US Representative, a Senator, a state supreme court judge, military governor, and of course a general.  He wasn't some wild ingnorant yahoo.  He was far more prepared for the presidency than Trump.

[Zoupa]

Quelle arrogance, monsieur.

How are they "the worst", pray tell?

Cultish devotion to their guy. Middle class white lads who'll be fine regardless of who wins getting all St. Sebastian over supporting someone unelectable. Entitled with a little hint of sexism/racism/homophobia.

They're like benign Corbynistas, or even more dangerous Naderists

Well, that's a crock of shit.

You don't think Sanders' supporters actually, you know, believed in his policy platform? How is he unelectable? Where do you see sexism racism and homophobia?

Could it be that *gasp*, you're just a condescending prick? Say it ain't so.

Well I think the racism was pretty apparent in the constant commentary that if only black people would have been wiser they would know Bernie actually fights more for their rights than Clinton.

I think the unelectable thing is pretty obvious and stands out its own.

I don't doubt that his supporters believe in his cause, but you gotta know when to fold 'em (like say when your candidate does) and when to swallow a bitter pill (vote Hil) to avoid a worse outcome (electing Trump). It is frankly rather immature and short sighted to stick with one's principles and vote Green or abstain with the American electoral system as it is. Also as S noted, something that only a person with privilege can reasonably do as such a person is not likely to suffer unduly much under either regime.

I'm not American, I don't have a horse in this race. Of course, as a left leaning dude, I agreed more with Sanders' policies. I've never met "Bernie Bros". Maybe fahdiz on Facebook. I'll have to take your word for it that they called black people unwise for picking Clinton. Honestly, only time will tell if they fucked up by picking her but considering her husband's policies in the 90s, I wouldn't be optimistic.

I stand by the unelectable comment, especially this year with Trump as adversary. Sanders didn't have all the negatives Clinton has. Polls consistently showed him doing better against Trump than Clinton.

I agree that those people arguing Bernie or bust are kinda dumb considering how your electoral system works. I would definitely argue that people should always vote according to your principles, but yeah. Trump would be a catastrophe, so maybe not this year.

As to the prick comment, bah whatever. You could see the contempt dripping from the post. I'm sure the old chap will be fine.

[Sheilbh]

You don't think Sanders' supporters actually, you know, believed in his policy platform?

Yeah. I've no doubt they sincerely think he's the best and they agree with his policies. But that's not necessarily a virtue. They are also overwhelmingly going to be okay. These guys who are so disappointed in Obama are not people who are affected by the Republicans winning Congress. The extent to which it has an impact on them is probably student debt, which is a big issue, but you compare it with the effects on poor communities. So they can afford to be pure and angry and passionate about Bernie because they won't lose much and it feels good.

How is he unelectable?

Fair question this year

I do think it's an issue that he's not a Democrat even if this year he actually probably could win.

Where do you see sexism racism and homophobia?

The behaviour of the Bernie Bros. All of these attacks on Hillary only winning conservative, Southern - by which they mean African-American - states, not enlightened lily white liberals in Vermont. And all of the talk of the Clinton machine. These guys vote for Bernie because they support his policies. African-Americans especially, but also women vote because of the 'machine'. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Bill's Presidency was the first time in American history that black unemployment fell and black incomes rose faster than the national average.

But also all of this:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-bernie-bros?utm_term=.amwAPDpOL#.ecybzqv0B

Could it be that *gasp*, you're just a condescending prick? Say it ain't so.

Fair bit of that too

[Sheilbh]

As to the prick comment, bah whatever. You could see the contempt dripping from the post. I'm sure the old chap will be fine.

As with being pretty rigid about the GOP I think it's maybe more a reflection of Corbyn here in which case yeah, absolutely dripping with contempt.

[Razgovory]

I'm not American, I don't have a horse in this race.

Actually, as a citizen of a NATO nation, you kind of do.