2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Berkut]

Really?  Okay, let's assume for a moment that neither party tries to reform.  Wouldn't you still prefer parties that don't actively roll back reforms?  Or will you still claim that both parties are equally bad at this?

I would prefer someone willing to shake things up and upset the apple cart to either party.

You keep insisting that one MUST prefer one to the other, but the reality is that the only way to ever actually change anything, as both parties have proven time and again, is to reject both of them in their traditional sense.

Supporting Nader, or Sanders for that matter, is rejecting the game, rather than trying to play it as best you can - because we've shown that if nothing else, playing the game means the game doesn't actually change, you just get different "winners" every couple cycles who are not fundamentally different from one another in the context that matters for people like Ank and myself who think the Big Problem has little to do with whether or not we get Obamacare or whether Planned Parenthood gets federal funding.

There is nothing more silly than repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again hoping that *this time* the result might be different. It won't be, and to the extent that Clinton actually DOES try to change anything, it will be *because* of the success of people like Sanders and Nader forces them to change.

[Admiral Yi]

This guy's take is really, really simple - the DNC/DLC/New Democrats are swine only surpassed by the RNC.

They are trying to hide behind some vague 'progressive' figleaf that is both disingenuous and rather hollow to all but the true-blue Clintonistas, but it doesn't cut the mustard anyone who actually gives a shit about institutionalized political corruption of the danger of vast, well-heeled political machines beholden to entities which ARE NOT ABLE TO VOTE SO THEY BUY ALL THE GODDAMN POLITICIANS.

I don't understand what the connection is between vague progressive figleaf and being beholden to entities.  Sounds to me like you're just equating centrism with corruption.  That interpretation is strengthened by your inclusion of the DLC in your list.

[Martinus]

The Trump Bump has arrived.
(snip)

Presumably when Sanders drops out (probably not before the Democratic convention), Clinton's numbers should go up as well like they are doing right now for Trump. The trouble with that from Clinton's perspective is that it gives Trump at least one month during which he can shape the narrative of being a challenger whose chances of winning keep growing - so by the time Bernie bows out, it may be difficult for Clinton to regain the momentum.

[Martinus]

The Trump Bump has arrived.

After wrapping up an acutely fractious primary in which Donald Trump and his opponents lobbed scores of personal, playground insults at one another, the presumptive GOP nominee has quickly unified the vast majority of Republican voters around one goal: defeating Hillary Clinton, his prospective Democratic opponent.

Entering the general election trailing by about 7 points, Trump has rapidly erased most of that gap: As of Friday, Clinton's advantage was down to roughly 2 points, according to the HuffPost Pollster average. And some polls, like a Fox News survey out on Wednesday, show Trump inching ahead of Clinton.
The main reason for Trump's surge over the past few weeks? He is earning increasingly larger shares of the Republican vote — even as some prominent GOP leaders, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, haven't yet committed to supporting their party's apparent nominee. But rank-and-file Republican voters are lining up behind Trump in large numbers, closing the gap with Clinton's support among Democrats, which had been higher during earlier stages of the campaign.
"Republican voters are consolidating around Trump, and it's been beneficial to him not to have other Republican opponents constantly attacking him," said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who advising the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA.

The data point to a close race in the fall, with about a dozen or so states likely to be decisive in the Electoral College — all consistent with recent history.
In the Fox News national poll, Trump led Clinton among all registered voters, 45 percent to 42 percent – a reversal from last month, when Clinton had a 7-point lead, 48 percent to 41 percent. In the new Fox poll, Clinton wins 83 percent of self-identified Democrats, while Trump takes 82 percent of Republicans. Trump's lead is built on a 16-point edge among independents, 46 percent to 30 percent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-poll-surge-223419#ixzz49G0PJETM

Presumably when Sanders drops out (probably not before the Democratic convention), Clinton's numbers should go up as well like they are doing right now for Trump. The trouble with that from Clinton's perspective is that it gives Trump at least one month during which he can shape the narrative of being a challenger whose chances of winning keep growing - so by the time Bernie bows out, it may be difficult for Clinton to regain the momentum.

[AnchorClanker]

This guy's take is really, really simple - the DNC/DLC/New Democrats are swine only surpassed by the RNC.

They are trying to hide behind some vague 'progressive' figleaf that is both disingenuous and rather hollow to all but the true-blue Clintonistas, but it doesn't cut the mustard anyone who actually gives a shit about institutionalized political corruption of the danger of vast, well-heeled political machines beholden to entities which ARE NOT ABLE TO VOTE SO THEY BUY ALL THE GODDAMN POLITICIANS.

I don't understand what the connection is between vague progressive figleaf and being beholden to entities.  Sounds to me like you're just equating centrism with corruption.  That interpretation is strengthened by your inclusion of the DLC in your list.

No, the DLC/DNC et al decided in the 1990's that to fight the GOP, they had to fundraise like the GOP.  The fact that the leadership was bought / browbeaten by the Clinton political machine has nothing to do with 'centrism' - which I generally endorse, unless that 'centrism' is actually just a grab-bag of whatever doesn't piss off the big donors, doesn't actually fix anything that is broken, and only embraces progressive social policy when forced to by public opinion.  I am not impressed in the slightest by that, and I utterly despise their machine-politics...

True centrism suits me just fine.  Political corruption in drag as centrism annoys me intensely.

[Admiral Yi]

No, the DLC/DNC et al decided in the 1990's that to fight the GOP, they had to fundraise like the GOP.  The fact that the leadership was bought / browbeaten by the Clinton political machine has nothing to do with 'centrism' - which I generally endorse, unless that 'centrism' is actually just a grab-bag of whatever doesn't piss off the big donors, doesn't actually fix anything that is broken, and only embraces progressive social policy when forced to by public opinion.  I am not impressed in the slightest by that, and I utterly despise their machine-politics...

True centrism suits me just fine.  Political corruption in drag as centrism annoys me intensely.

So true centrism is that which embraces progressive policies.  That clears things up.

I didn't realize large scale fundraising only started in the 90s.  I thought that unions had always given the Democratic party a lot of money, and that corporations split their money.

[AnchorClanker]

No, the DLC/DNC et al decided in the 1990's that to fight the GOP, they had to fundraise like the GOP.  The fact that the leadership was bought / browbeaten by the Clinton political machine has nothing to do with 'centrism' - which I generally endorse, unless that 'centrism' is actually just a grab-bag of whatever doesn't piss off the big donors, doesn't actually fix anything that is broken, and only embraces progressive social policy when forced to by public opinion.  I am not impressed in the slightest by that, and I utterly despise their machine-politics...

True centrism suits me just fine.  Political corruption in drag as centrism annoys me intensely.

So true centrism is that which embraces progressive policies.  That clears things up.

I didn't realize large scale fundraising only started in the 90s.  I thought that unions had always given the Democratic party a lot of money, and that corporations split their money.

Yi,

You missed my point and put words in my mouth.   

Centrism from a conviction that a moderate policy is best is 'true centrism' in my mind.  I'm not see that, I'm seeing pandering to their donors, since everybody decided to make elections an arms race.

As for union money, that's a drop in the bucket, and you are correct about many companies hedging their bets... but yes, the 1990's is when the Democrats began to ditch regular folks and opted for fat donations instead.

[Admiral Yi]

Yi,

You missed my point and put words in my mouth.   

Centrism from a conviction that a moderate policy is best is 'true centrism' in my mind.  I'm not see that, I'm seeing pandering to their donors, since everybody decided to make elections an arms race.

As for union money, that's a drop in the bucket, and you are correct about many companies hedging their bets... but yes, the 1990's is when the Democrats began to ditch regular folks and opted for fat donations instead.

Union money is definitely not a drop in the bucket.  Big Labor always shows up in tables of top donors.

I didn't put any words in your mouth.  You said  "'centrism' - which I generally endorse, unless that 'centrism' is actually just a grab-bag of whatever doesn't piss off the big donors, doesn't actually fix anything that is broken, and only embraces progressive social policy when forced to by public opinion."  The inescapable inference is that the centrism you do endorse is that which embraces progressive policies more then when forced to by public opinion.

[Capetan Mihali]

So has Ank's return doubled the number of unapologetic Bernie "Bros" on the forum?  Just to take a headcount.

[Admiral Yi]

So has Ank's return doubled the number of unapologetic Bernie "Bros" on the forum?  Just to take a headcount.

Zoupa has made some statements that, if analyzed through a post-modernist, deconstructionist perspective, could be seen as supporting Bernie.

[Berkut]

I support the *idea* of Bernie! But I think he should drop out of the race on the condition that he gets the VP spot for Clinton.

[Ed Anger]

So has Ank's return doubled the number of unapologetic Bernie "Bros" on the forum?  Just to take a headcount.

Zoupa has made some statements that, if analyzed through a post-modernist, deconstructionist perspective, could be seen as supporting Bernie.

I've disallowed him. Sorry Zoups. No foreigners.

[Capetan Mihali]

So has Ank's return doubled the number of unapologetic Bernie "Bros" on the forum?  Just to take a headcount.

Zoupa has made some statements that, if analyzed through a post-modernist, deconstructionist perspective, could be seen as supporting Bernie.

True, Zoups should probably added to the roster, maybe with an asterisk.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, that's doubled the "I Pout With McGovern '72" buttons around here.

Zoupa is a dirty ass furriner, so his left-wing bullshit doesn't count any more than Neil's or BB's right-wing bullshit.

[Capetan Mihali]

I support the *idea* of Bernie! But I think he should drop out of the race on the condition that he gets the VP spot for Clinton.

I guess I'd agree he should drop out if given the VP spot, but I just don't see Clinton and Sanders being able to work together in any capacity.