2016 U.S. Presidential election

756 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 30 2016 03:43

Seems like more & more of the Repub establishment are getting in line with Trump. Now Rubio apologized for his remark about Trump's genitals. Repub pols can see which way the wind is blowing among the base. On the other hand the neo-con warhawks have naturally gravitated to Clinton...birds of a feather and all that.

Now there is word the main corporate media are going to declare game over & Clinton as nominee during daytime on June 7th while people in California are still voting....the elite really can't stand Sanders. Paul Street had a piece about the stance of the elite on Counterpunch, "Feel the Hate".

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 7 2016 08:07

I'm sure most will have seen it by now, but tonight, first the AP and-- then quickly thereafter-- other news agencies declared HRC the presumptive Democratic nominee. Apparently, some combination of the delegates she won from this past weekend's primaries in addition to a few previously undeclared super delegates declaring for HRC (some of whom will still not pledge their support on the record for fear of retribution from Sanders' supporters) put her over the threshold tonight--a little under 24 hours before the final contests tomorrow.

The Byzantine nominating process and delegate allocation system used by Democrats is opaque enough for this seemingly oddly timed decision to lend even more credibility to claims of a rigged system, claims that will likely further alienate Sanders' supporters (many of whom, as first time participants, don't have a solid grasp of the party's nominating rules), making a party rapprochement that much more difficult at exactly the point in time that party leaders had hoped to unify around Clinton.

If HRC's campaign had even a modicum of competency, her operatives would have the candidate come out strongly against the call, asking that all votes be counted before the election is called, in the spirit of "transparency." The result will still be the same, but Clinton would look generous, having risked nothing. However, if we've learned anything from both the '08 and the '16 primaries it's that the Clinton team, time and again, is quite adept at clawing defeat from the jaws of victory.

The larger point we've learned this cycle is how little actual control of the process the political and media elites currently have. Like many other aspects this go around, this lack of control is nearly equal parts exciting ( in that this could open more space within which to organise a radical movement) and terrifying (because of both the ascendancy of right-wing authoritarianism and the lack of a class- based movement strong enough to fight it.) So yeah, on further thought, it's actually quite a bit more terrifying than exciting.

PS hello all...long time, no see.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jun 8 2016 20:01

Now that this excruciating Democratic primary series is over, it becomes clear, as Jack Rasmus points out, Sanders has no plausible Plan B, now that it's clear he was defeated.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/does-bernie-sanders-have-a-plan-b/

Getting "progressive" clauses in the Democratic Party platform is laughable. The platform is not worth the paper it is printed on. It has no force whatsoever. And now that he says he's going to focus on defeating Trump, this suggests he's basically moving to capitulation to the Democratic Party establishment....the party of Wall Street, the tech billionaires, big capital in general, and the military-industrial complex.

The November election looks to be a choice between an "I-want-to-bomb-Iran" neocon war witch and a bombastic racist loose cannon.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 8 2016 22:58

I'd be interested to get thoughts on this study released a few months back. It connects the rise of Trump to the recent growth of an authoritarian strain in the wider populace.

The researchers claim that while many are predisposed toward an authoritarian worldview, external events can 'activate' authoritarianism in others. The methodology is Interesting in that the researchers ask seemingly benign questions about child rearing methods in order to detemine those who are susceptible to such a worldview.

One obvious problem with the study is the researchers appear to connect all authoritarians with right-wing politics. As libcoms, we're painfully aware that lefties obviously have more than their fair share of authoritarians.

Anyway, I'd be really interested to hear what people think.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jun 20 2016 01:26

After his threats to ban Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., Trump has backtracked to banning immigrants from regions with a "proven track record of terrorism". Even that would be the most drastic immigration controls since the First Red Scare....

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jun 21 2016 03:08

Trump is addicted to essentializing groups, in other words, thinking in terms of racist or fake generalizations about whole groups the older Red Scare era restrictions were aimed at particular individuals, such as excluding anarchists or communists. So of course Trump endorses group profiling, even tho it is completely fallacious as a methodology.

As a number of Republican politicians have been moaning about, they say Trump is a total amateur so he constantly makes gaffes, and ends up getting worse and worse negatives. Currently 70 percent they say. So the American Iron Lady, the neocon war monger & capitalist shill Clinton is the likely gainer. Latest poll has Jill Stein at 4 percent and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) somewhere around 6 percent, I think. So if that is the way it goes, Stein would get about 10 times as many votes as in 2012. Meanwhiile Greens now say they are an eco-socialist party. But not really any class politics there.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jun 21 2016 13:35

I suspect that the Libertarians and Greens will both end up doing better than the current polling has them. Significant numbers of Sanders supporters will defect to Jill Stein. Wouldn't be surprised if they both passed the 5% threshold for federal funding.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jun 21 2016 13:55

I think the 5% thing is not going to happen. Even Nader, with all the publicity, money, excitement he had during an election year , where many were fed up with 8 years of a centrist Democrat, only got 2%. The Greens will not break 1% this year and doubt the Libertarians will either (although they may come closer).

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 21 2016 20:21

The long running power struggle within the Trump campaign has come to an end. Corey Lewendowski, he of the physical assault on a friendly reporter, is out, and Paul Manafort now has the reigns of the campaign apparatus--as much as one actually exists.

If you're unfamiliar with Manafort's history, he comes from the same political family tree as Trump: acolytes of the infamous Ray Cohn. He has a proven track record of helping unpalatable right-wing authoritarians smooth out their rough edges. It's not an exaggeration to say his client list literally includes some of the worst authoritarians of the past 30-40 years.

This article is a pretty good primer on Manafort:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_he_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jun 21 2016 21:11

What do folks think of the dual conspiracy that both Bernie AND Trump are actually purposeful sheepdogs for hawk candidate Hillary? I've been seeing it an awful lot lately and remain a skeptic.

I really don't see a need to construct these sheepdogs in that they both could very well be organic features of the current political climate. Particularly Trump's right-wing populism.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jun 21 2016 21:49

This country has too much of a tendency to generate conspiracy theories. has to do with people not knowing how the system is structured to operate. Berndawg operates as a lone wolf so I can see him sensing the political winds post Occupy & doing this campaign to push the issue of economic inequality.

If the polls look really bad for Trump by November, we may see higher vote for Stein more than just 1 or 2 percent. But also likely to be low turnout.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jun 21 2016 22:02
Juan Conatz wrote:
I think the 5% thing is not going to happen. Even Nader, with all the publicity, money, excitement he had during an election year , where many were fed up with 8 years of a centrist Democrat, only got 2%. The Greens will not break 1% this year and doubt the Libertarians will either (although they may come closer).

I just saw a breakdown on CNN today....

Quote:
Clinton continues to lead Trump when Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party are included in the list of options. Nationwide in that match-up, Clinton holds 42%, Trump 38%, Johnson 9% and Stein 7%.

Found it interesting that CNN will be hosting a prime time on air town hall with the LP (sic) candidates. Betcha some of the pro-Romney anti-who but Der Drumpf friends got to CNN to host it. After all, former Massachusetts govern Bill Weld is one of the L (sic) candidadtes.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jun 21 2016 22:49
syndicalistcat wrote:
This country has too much of a tendency to generate conspiracy theories. has to do with people not knowing how the system is structured to operate. Berndawg operates as a lone wolf so I can see him sensing the political winds post Occupy & doing this campaign to push the issue of economic inequality.

If the polls look really bad for Trump by November, we may see higher vote for Stein more than just 1 or 2 percent. But also likely to be low turnout.

There is also a theory, buttressed by last week's leeks, that the DNC actively tried to get its media allies to give more coverage to far-right republicans in order to sideline the more moderate ones.

This is given some sinister dimension by the story which was reported last year the Bill Clinton had encouraged Trump in 2014 to get into politics.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jun 22 2016 00:26

Trump is indeed an ideal candidate for Clinton to run against to ratchet up the lesser evilism. She is going to ramp up the picture of Trump as a fascist looney. Will simply embed the status quo in cement.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 22 2016 01:31
syndicalistcat wrote:
Trump is indeed an ideal candidate for Clinton to run against to ratchet up the lesser evilism. She is going to ramp up the picture of Trump as a fascist looney. Will simply embed the status quo in cement.

I can't remember if it was Halperin or Heilman who made the point yesterday that this also holds true for Trump. That both candidates' matriculation lead them to, essentially, the one General Election candidate that they could possibly beat is anomalous. I think the fact that Trump's campaign has been run so terribly and yet he's still just barely outside the margin of error, and running much closer than that in OH and PA pretty much shows just how vulnerable HRC's candidacy really is.

As far as tin-foil hat conspiracies go, to me the most interesting (and somewhat less unbelievable) one puts Trump as essentially a Kermlin-beholden Manchurian Candidate. Of course, it's unlikely, but there are well-known Establishment Republicans who are questioning the various connections there (ie Putin's stated preference, the Russian-linked hack of Oppo on Trump, the aforementioned Paul Manafort link to Kremlin backed campaigns, etc).

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jun 22 2016 03:10

If Stein does reach 6 percent, running on the Green's new eco-socialist program, that would be the highest a left candidate has gotten since Eugene Debs in 1912 I think. Debs got 6 percent that time, but the Republican party had split on that occasion, so there were three mainstream parties.

Drumpf's problem is that he is demographically boxed in. His negatives among Latinos right now are 89 percent and 79 percent with women. To elect a president, Republicans have to take at least one of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jun 22 2016 04:21

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I find the notion that Stein will get 5% of the vote just unrealistic. What base does she have? In 2000, when Nader was running, Green Party people campaigned for him even in the tiny town in Iowa that I lived in at the time. I see no such infrastructure, even in the liberal Twin Cities, for her campaign.

Nader had national name recognition among people of many ages. Stein does not have that. I think some of the polling right now that is showing Stein at 4 or 7% is the result of Bernie Sanders voters who are mad/disillusioned. I'm not convinced that the vast majority of them will not end up voting for Hillary, Trump or just abstaining. It's already started to happen, but Sanders is eventually going to officially drop out and then do a full court press for Hillary against Trump.

In June 2000, Nader was polling at 6%. He ended up getting 2.74% in November. Of course, 2000 was a very different election year, but there were some similarities, namely, widespread disillusion with both parties and the feeling that the Democratic candidate was too centrist.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 22 2016 04:31
syndicalistcat wrote:

Drumpf's problem is that he is demographically boxed in. His negatives among Latinos right now are 89 percent and 79 percent with women. To elect a president, Republicans have to take at least one of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida.

ABSOLUTELY. All the fundamentals point to a landslide Electoral College victory for HRC. As one anti-Trump Republican operative, Tim Miller, said Hillary could even beat Trump from jail. This was back in April so obviously before Orlando, but Miller also assuaged fears that a terrorist attack could lead to a Trump win by asking if the attack would kill all the women and brown people in the US because demographics alone make a Trump win very difficult, if not entirely impossible. I imagine he wasn't entirely serious, but it definitely gives an idea how Republicans view the fundamentals.

Of course, fundamentals/demographics or not, all this does require a modicum of competency from the HRC campaign. While there have been flashes of this recently, I remain unconvinced.

All of that said, in the last few weeks there have been a few recent rumblings that the demographic modelling of the 2012 electorate as ascertained from exit polls may have skewed toward under-representing white male voters. This possibility has lead some to speculate that there just might be enough white male voters to give Trump a fighting chance.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 22 2016 06:27

People tend to vote outside the mainstream more before the big elections, although that's what they said about Trump, and a lot of people will remember voting for Nader and getting Bush, so I think the two-party system will win out. To me it seems more likely the libertarian candidate will get 5% because a lot of right-wingers won't vote for Trump.

In terms of conspiracy theories I think it comes down to a basic inability to accept losing. I think the polarised situation (not particularly new I admit) means people have trouble accepting that the lost when they were 'right' so they find another reason. The basic inability of politicians to tell the truth, behave honestly, stick to promises (now they simply don't make any) helps.When everything is partisan it's easy to believe it's all part of a conspiracy and to an extent it is, how long have people been rambling on about Trump. Obama achieved some stuff but ultimately the president doesn't hold much of the real power (as has been said before)

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jun 22 2016 12:27
Quote:
If Stein does reach 6 percent, running on the Green's new eco-socialist program, that would be the highest a left candidate has gotten since Eugene Debs in 1912 I think. Debs got 6 percent that time, but the Republican party had split on that occasion, so there were three mainstream parties.

Fair Vote have been tallying the votes and have almost 13 million votes cast for Sanders. I think that beats Debs.

Quote:
I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I find the notion that Stein will get 5% of the vote just unrealistic. What base does she have? In 2000, when Nader was running, Green Party people campaigned for him even in the tiny town in Iowa that I lived in at the time. I see no such infrastructure, even in the liberal Twin Cities, for her campaign.

What base did Sanders have a year ago? It seems like some base flocked to him when Warren refused to run against HRC, and a lot of it has come "out of nowhere", so to speak. Sure, some of his supporters will vote for Clinton while holding their noses, but I would not be surprised if a lot of them defected to Stein. I'm not necessarily predicting that, but I can picture it happening. In many ways, Stein's biggest problem so far has probably been that people who might normally support her were focusing on Sanders when it seemed like he had a shot.

Honestly, a year ago, when I heard Sanders was running, I laughed it off and thought he'd get Nader-like results and drop out with no real impact. I think most of us on the far left totally dismissed the possibility that he might get any traction, much less the amount that he did get. So I'm holding back my skepticism for awhile.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jun 23 2016 03:03
Quote:
Fair Vote have been tallying the votes and have almost 13 million votes cast for Sanders. I think that beats Debs.

That's in the primaries, an apples vs oranges comparison. I have no idea how many votes Stein will ultimately get. In 2012 she got less than 0.5 percent. I'm sure she will get at least several times that level of vote in November. But I don't think the comparison to Nader's performance in 2000 works. The Dem candidate, an enviro, didn't have anything like the massive negatives of Clinton.

Sanders had no organization to speak of when he started out. It was all a top-down affair. And yet he put fear into the Democratic party establishment. This has been an unusual election, and reflects deep seated economic problems & insecurities & various kinds of cultural & political polarization.

And then there is the virtually disfunctional federal government. Due to things like gerrymandering at state level, the GOP has gained a structural majority but the appeal to the most extreme elements has them paralyzing the government.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jun 23 2016 04:12

I just meant that it's the new high water mark for the number of votes that a "socialist" has received in the US.

The total voter turnout in 2012 was 126 million. So if it's similar this year, and Jill Stein gets 6% (which would be huge for her!), she'd get something like 8 million. Still only 3/5 what Sanders got in the primaries.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 24 2016 17:00

It's good to see Trump's relationship with Roy Cohn is starting to gain some mainstream traction.There are several good links in this article

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 30 2016 05:32

Nate Silver's 538 released their 1st General Election model today. They give an 80% probability to a Clinton victory. All the usual caveats apply to modelling based off polls this far out in a General Election, but Silver summed up Trump's chances:

538 wrote:
...the same chance the visiting team has when it trails by a run in the top of the 8th inning in a major league baseball game.*

so, unlikely but far, far from impossible. there are a lot of interesting insights in the model.

.
.
.

*obligatory baseball reference for our british comrades smile

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jun 30 2016 15:42

i've now seen stein polling 4% and 7% (green party claim).

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jul 1 2016 03:01

there have been nine national polls since the California primary June 7. Clinton's lead over Trump varies from 1 to 10 percent in those polls. The average for Stein in those polls is between 4 and 5 percent. I think only one poll gave her 7 percent. Her lowest rating was 3 percent in one poll. 4 percent seems to be the most common poll result. That would be about 10 times her result in 2012.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 1 2016 09:23
jesuithitsquad wrote:
Nate Silver's 538 released their 1st General Election model today. They give an 80% probability to a Clinton victory.

That was similar to the probability given for a Remain victory in the UK referendum. Up until the last week before the referendum I was pretty confident of a Remain win.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hilary will win, but after that result I wouldn't be too sure of anything

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jul 1 2016 10:04

People lie to pollsters, people change their minds, pollsters lie and manipulate and finding representative samples is very difficult so I wouldn't put huge trust in polls on national issues.
I still think CLinton will win, largely on the basis that he is the only politician people hate more than her and more people seem to be afraid of him.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jul 1 2016 12:20
Steven. wrote:
jesuithitsquad wrote:
Nate Silver's 538 released their 1st General Election model today. They give an 80% probability to a Clinton victory.

That was similar to the probability given for a Remain victory in the UK referendum. Up until the last week before the referendum I was pretty confident of a Remain win.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hilary will win, but after that result I wouldn't be too sure of anything

There's also a possibility of the skeletons in her closet becoming more visible. I have a sneaking feeling that there's a lot that will come out right after she's officially nominated.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jul 1 2016 18:14
jef costello wrote:
People lie to pollsters, people change their minds, pollsters lie and manipulate and finding representative samples is very difficult so I wouldn't put huge trust in polls on national issues.
I still think CLinton will win, largely on the basis that he is the only politician people hate more than her and more people seem to be afraid of him.

For sure and that's one reason all polls are not created the same. Things like asking a respondent questions about their neighbor's feelings about race or whatever sensitive question they are polling on helps weed out dishonesty.

Topic locked