2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

I wanted George HW Bush part deux. I didn't end up getting that until midway through his second term. Too little too late.

The fuck you get that one from, man; Poppy never checked out from the job because he was bored and made his brain hurt. 

I thought he was going to surround himself with Poppy's old people. I had no idea he was going to get a bunch of psychotic Nixonites instead. James Baker and company didn't show up until he was a lame duck.

[11B4V]

Don't worry, bitch.  You got the President you wanted, and everything that came with him.

He was incredibly entertaining.

Yes, it was a ton of yuks. LOL LAUGHANISTAN

I'm sorry Gore had the personality of a burp.

[Valmy]

I'm sorry Gore had the personality of a burp.

He did, however, have a lock box.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm sorry Gore had the personality of a burp.

Like I said, you got the disengaged and intellectually disinterested drunken fratboy you wanted, and everything that came with him.

[garbon]

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

I can in the future. The strategy is increasingly to say something that gets you talked about on Twitter and Facebook.

Why? Trump is being talked about a lot now and not doing well.

[FunkMonk]

General question: If something were to happen to Hillary, like some nut going through with Trump's implied directive to assassinate her, and she were incapacitated or killed, would Kaine take up the top of the ticket and choose a new VP candidate? Or would the DNC pull some paperwork voodoo and nominate someone else for the top of the ticket?

Also, being viewed as the instigator of your opponent's assassination seems like a guaranteed way to lose an election.  Good work, Donald. 

[jimmy olsen]

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.

Flouted the rule of law by ignoring the Supreme Court. Confiscated private property illegally and ethnically cleansed Georgia. Destroyed the US economy by torpedoing the National Bank.  His presidency was a disaster.

There are only two things he did that were good, expanded the franchise and threatened to hang Calhoun.

[Valmy]

It would entirely be up to the party. There is no precedent for a nominee to be assassinated or die during an Presidential election, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. But I could be wrong about that, I just don't remember one. But I doubt the VP candidate would just be promoted.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

Sanders is hardly out there by British standards. He'd be in the mainstream of the Labour party, way to the right of Corbyn.

[Valmy]

Flouted the rule of law by ignoring the Supreme Court. Confiscated private property illegally and ethnically cleansed Georgia.

Georgia itself was ignoring the Supreme Court. I think Jackson saw the situation as untenable and thought his solution was the only way. Remember he thought of himself as the savior of the Native Americans. Granted that does not mean that was not a disastrous or inhumane policy. But I would ask what would have happened if the nations had been left there in the South? Would they still be there today? Would the situation today be better or worse? It is hard to say.

Destroyed the US economy by torpedoing the National Bank.

Yes but he made Libertarians everywhere rejoice and stuck it to the big fat bankers.

His presidency was a disaster.

No the Martin van Buren presidency was a disaster

There are only two things he did that were good, expanded the franchise and threatened to hang Calhoun.

Which were pretty significant. Ultimately I think South Carolina shouldn't have worried, the Democrats were victorious in the tariff debate which is why I always found it puzzling people still advance the notion that tariffs were the real cause of the Civil War.

[Valmy]

Sanders is hardly out there by British standards. He'd be in the mainstream of the Labour party, way to the right of Corbyn.

Well he is Jewish so that would make him unacceptable to the current Labour Party.

Ok I am just kidding. I hope.

[jimmy olsen]

I dislike Jackson's policies, but with historical context. Most modern historians like to put a lot of weight on racial justice issues that frankly, I think are bullshit to apply as a valuable means of learning about the past. Andrew Jackson was terrible to native Americans. But so was John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington. Not to mention his successors. In fact until maybe the early 20th century we never had a single President whose behavior towards natives was anything but reprehensible (I'm talking about Teddy here.) Now, many of the Presidents before then may not have actively done terrible things to natives, but a lot of the tale of American mistreatment of natives doesn't necessarily involve the federal government. Much of it is the government signing treaties, and then turning a blind eye while armed whites (often backed by State government or territorial government leaders) dispossessed and forced out native peoples. A lot of Presidents other than Jackson did oversee vast warfare, deprivations, and forced locations of natives. The broader policy of "Indian removal" from "white" lands started at least two Presidents before Jackson, and continued in different ways long after Jackson was gone.

So basically what I'm saying is Jackson's fuckery towards Indians wasn't out of line with the times. The reason I dislike Jackson is far more to do with his behavior with regard to the Second Bank of the United States, and the significant impact this had on the ensuing panic/depression that persisted for years afterward, and also the fact that it set us back in terms of monetary policy 50 years.

Grant had a lot of political pressure on him to annhilate the plains Indians after Custer's Last Stand but he resisted.

[Valmy]

Grant had a lot of political pressure on him to annhilate the plains Indians after Custer's Last Stand but he resisted.

Yeah there were plenty of people in Washington who had not entirely bad intentions with the Native Americans. The problem was despite what Grant wanted the Plains Indians were in serious trouble after that. Custer's Last Stand was really their last stand.

[Sheilbh]

Sanders is hardly out there by British standards. He'd be in the mainstream of the Labour party, way to the right of Corbyn.

Well he is Jewish so that would make him unacceptable to the current Labour Party.

Ok I am just kidding. I hope.

Corbynistas love Sanders but if he were a British politician I think this would be an issue depending on his views on Israel

Sanders is hardly out there by British standards. He'd be in the mainstream of the Labour party, way to the right of Corbyn.

I can't think of a social democratic leader anywhere in the developed world who isn't way to the right of Corbyn

But I don't see why this matters, he was running in the US.

[Phillip V]

General question: If something were to happen to Hillary, like some nut going through with Trump's implied directive to assassinate her, and she were incapacitated or killed, would Kaine take up the top of the ticket and choose a new VP candidate? Or would the DNC pull some paperwork voodoo and nominate someone else for the top of the ticket?

Also, being viewed as the instigator of your opponent's assassination seems like a guaranteed way to lose an election.  Good work, Donald. 

How Does a Party Replace a Nominee if He or She Quits?

http://on.wsj.com/2aQFcZo