US Election: 2016

[PPCLI Guy]

So a Canadian, a Cuban and a White Supremacist walk into a bar.

The bartender says















What can I get you Senator Cruz?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Nasty!  [

 

[Kilo_302]

Interesting piece that exposes the pro-corporate sham that is the Democratic Party. This whole campaign has been a joke.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_graveyard_of_the_elites_20160228

“If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called ‘misrepresentative or clientry government,’ ” Sheldon Wolin wrote in “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” “It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy.”

“Managed Democracy,” Wolin continued, “is the application of managerial skills to the basic democratic political institution of popular elections. An election, as distinguished from the simple act of voting, has been reshaped into a complex production. Like all productive operations, it is ongoing and requires continuous supervision rather than continuing popular participation. Unmanaged elections would epitomize contingency: the managerial nightmare of control freaks. One method of assuring control is to make electioneering continuous, year-round, saturated with party propaganda, punctuated with the wisdom of kept pundits, bringing a result boring rather than energizing, the kind of civic lassitude on which a managed democracy thrives.”

Bernie Sanders, who at least acknowledges our economic reality and refuses to accept corporate money for his presidential campaign, plays the role of the Democratic Party’s court jester. No doubt to remain a member of the court, he will not condemn the perfidy and collaboration with corporate power that define Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party. He accepts that criticism of empire is taboo. He continues, even as the party elites rig the primaries against him, to make a mockery of democratic participation, to hold up the Democrats as a tool for change. He will soon be urging his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton, actively working as an impediment to political mobilization and an advocate for political lethargy. Sanders, whose promise of a political revolution is as hollow as competing campaign slogans, will be rewarded for his duplicity. He will be allowed to keep his seniority in the Democratic caucus. The party will not mount a campaign in Vermont to unseat him from the U.S. Senate. He will not, as he has feared, end up a pariah like Ralph Nader. But he, like everyone else in the establishment, will have sold us out.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I wonder, to what extent, that piece also applies to Canada?

 

[Kilo_302]

I wonder, to what extent, that piece also applies to Canada?

I think it definitely applies, to a slightly lesser extent because we have more stringent campaign funding rules here. But I think the Liberals and Conservatives are equally driven by neo-liberal corporate interests at the expense of Canadian jobs, our sovereignty and the environment. If the NDP had been successful in the last election, they would also be owned by corporate interests, if their campaign was any indicator.

One only has to look at the revolving door between C level corporate jobs and government postings to see the corruption at play.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't want to derail further by asking more questions.

Back to the US election.

 

[CougarKing]

How is it that Trump already has a "Secret Service" detail when he's still just a candidate and not even a serving politician unlike the Republican Senators like Cruz who are his rivals?

I assume the Times photographer couldn't tell the difference between hired security and actual Secret Service agents.

CNN

Photographer: Secret Service agent choked me at a Trump rally

By Jim Acosta, Kristen Holmes, Julia Manchester and Jeremy Diamond, CNN

Updated 7:35 PM ET, Mon February 29, 2016

(...FULL VIDEO AT LINK ABOVE)

 

[cupper]

How is it that Trump already has a "Secret Service" detail when he's still just a candidate and not even a serving politician unlike the Republican Senators like Cruz who are his rivals?

I assume the Times photographer couldn't tell the difference between hired security and actual Secret Service agents.

CNN

I had my suspicions too, however the Secret Service has already said that it is aware that one of it's agents was involved in an incident. If it was a hired security person they would have been all over it pointing out that it was not one of their agents.

http://time.com/4241899/donald-trump-rally-time-photographer-chris-morris/

The Secret Service also put out a statement: “The Secret Service is aware of an incident involving an employee of the Secret Service that occurred earlier today in Radford, VA. At this time, our local field office is working with their law enforcement partners to determine the exact circumstances that led up to this incident. The Secret Service will provide further details as warranted once additional facts surrounding the situation are known.”

 

[CougarKing]

The possibility of Super Tuesday becoming a Trump rampage has his opponents praying it won't come to pass:

Canadian Press

The Trump Schism: Why some Republicans literally praying for party's future

Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press

February 29, 2016


WASHINGTON - Some Republicans are so distressed by the thought of Donald Trump as their presidential nominee that they've turned to a higher power for electoral guidance.

"I have prayed about it," said Kathy Hughes, a retired South Carolina schoolteacher who supports Sen. Ted Cruz.

(...SNIPPED)

"I don't think I could vote for him. ... Never. (And) never have I voted Democrat... I guess I would stay home. That would be a first for me. I am 68 years old and I have voted in every election."

 

[PuckChaser]

I had my suspicions too, however the Secret Service has already said that it is aware that one of it's agents was involved in an incident. If it was a hired security person they would have been all over it pointing out that it was not one of their agents.

http://time.com/4241899/donald-trump-rally-time-photographer-chris-morris/

Cops moonlight as security all the time, could this be a similar situation? Guy is off duty trying to make some lucrative bucks?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Secret Service coverage, for nominees like Trump kicks in after threats have been received. They meet, define the threats and then ask Congress to OK it. Congress typically does.

Obama, then Senator, received SS protection early in 2007, well before he gained the nomination, because of threats.

Carson, Trump & Sanders have had SS details since, at least, the beginning of the year. Clinton has had a SS detail since the time she's been the First Lady.

 

[Kilo_302]

The Secret Service coverage, for nominees like Trump kicks in after threats have been received. They meet, define the threats and then ask Congress to OK it. Congress typically does.

Obama, then Senator, received SS protection early in 2007, well before he gained the nomination, because of threats.

Carson, Trump & Sanders have had SS details since, at least, the beginning of the year. Clinton has had a SS detail since the time she's been the First Lady.

I think Trump might be using an SA detail. He'll graduate to a different SS once elected.

 

[CougarKing]

I think Trump might be using an SA detail. He'll graduate to a different SS once elected.

Doesn't Godwin's law apply to this post above?  :blotto:

 

[Kilo_302]

Doesn't Godwin's law apply to this post above?  :blotto:

I'm mainly having fun with the SS acronym here, BUT

Seeing as Trump regulary retweets a white supremacist, quoted Mussolini a couple days ago, appeals to the worst kind of racism, xenophobia and fear (and has largely based his campaign on these ideas), encourages violence at his rallies, and will say absolutely anything at all to get elected, no I don't think it applies any more.

On another note, did any one noticed how he refused to condemn Planned Parenthood in the last debate? In fact he supported it. Hitler's main political achievement was a balancing act between what are usually quite divergent interests, throwing the word "socialism" into his party name, helping him to appeal to everyone. Similarly, Trump actually sounds like Sanders on some issues. Very interesting.

Now, he's obviously not a Nazi, but I think comparing fascist tactics and strategies is reasonable. I can easily imagine a scenario where Trump orders the round up of all Muslims and puts them in camps but if he's compared to Hitler someone will immediately invoke Godwin's Law because they aren't Jews and no one is wearing an SS uniform. Will a direct and serious comparison ever make sense? Of course not.

 

[Flavus101]

I think Trump might be using an SA detail. He'll graduate to a different SS once elected.

I see you've been taken off your warning, good to have you back contributing.  :facepalm:

 

[a_majoor]

I'm wondering how the Democrats will handle the millions of dissapointed Sanders supporters if/when Clinton buys enough superdelegates to secure the nomination? That is a lot of money and potential volunteers/campaign workers to leave on the table:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-fundraising/471648/

Bernie Sanders's Big Money
The Democratic presidential candidate’s populist rallying cry has helped him rake in cash, and infused massive amounts of money into the political process.
Jim Young / Reuters

When Bernie Sanders makes a demand for money, he gets it. After winning the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic presidential candidate broadcast a plea. “I’m going to hold a fundraiser right here, right now, across America,” Sanders declared, urging anyone who would listen to visit his website and make a donation—“whether it’s 10 bucks, or 20 bucks, or 50 bucks.” Money poured in at a rapid clip. By the end of the next day, the campaign had collected a staggering $8 million.

As it takes in massive sums, the insurgent presidential campaign has upended conventional wisdom about money in politics. Most presidential candidates consider super PACs, the reviled political-spending operations capable of accepting unlimited amounts of corporate money, a central part of their strategy to win the White House. Even candidates who suggest super PACs should be done away with, like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have embraced them in their presidential bids, effectively arguing that you have to play the game if you want to one day change the rules. Sanders has taken a different path. The Vermont senator is the first high-profile Democratic presidential candidate to loudly insist he doesn’t have or want a super PAC in the aftermath of Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to a flood of money into politics. Instead, Sanders has relied on average Americans to donate whatever they can, a strategy that has proved remarkably successful.

In the process, Sanders has effectively outlined a political purity test for future candidates. The campaign claims the moral high ground by emphasizing that Sanders is not beholden to special interests since he shuns super PACs and sidesteps the influence of mega donors. Of course, the extent to which future White House hopefuls follow suit may hinge on the ultimate result of Sanders’s 2016 bid. If the campaign runs aground, there will be less incentive for next-in-line candidates to follow the example Sanders has set. Right or wrong, defeat might even be interpreted by future campaigners as evidence that super PACs are a necessity to win the White House.

So far, however, Sanders’s strategy has worked well. The senator promises to fight a broken political system commandeered by wealthy elites. Asking for small-dollar sums and renouncing super PACs is a way to telegraph sincerity. It has also been extremely effective. The campaign has set fundraising records and fostered a grassroots network of individuals now literally invested in the candidate’s success. On the trail, Sanders is quick to note that the average donation is a mere $27 and that the campaign has taken in more than 4 million individual contributions. “Sanders’s ability to attract small donors has truly been remarkable,” said Anthony Corrado, a professor at Colby College who tracks campaign finance and presidential elections. “Small-dollar donations have become the bedrock of his campaign, and he has been able to motivate more donors more quickly to raise more money from small amounts than was the case for [Barack] Obama or [Howard] Dean.”

Sanders’s campaign proves that it is possible to mount a competitive presidential bid without relying on super PACs. That alone could encourage candidates without deep ties to the political establishment to run for office. The success of the campaign’s fundraising strategy shows that it is possible to challenge the status quo simply by refusing to give in to it.  Still, it is ironic that a campaign built around the idea of getting big money out of politics has infused so much money into the political process. To some extent, the political establishment is taking Sanders seriously precisely because he has raised so much money, a metric that risks reinforcing conventional wisdom that only candidates capable of marshaling significant sums deserve mainstream attention. The campaign’s towering fundraising benchmarks could also inadvertently set the bar higher for future insurgent campaigns looking to compete in presidential elections.

“People develop a deeper investment and appreciation for the campaign when they’re being counted as part of something bigger than themselves.”
It might not be easy for just anyone to replicate what Sanders has so far achieved. Few candidates can make appeals for money so perfectly tailored to their overall message. The campaign has worked hard to translate voter enthusiasm and anger into donations, and Sanders has seized on opportune moments to make appeals. In addition to his solicitations after his New Hampshire victory, Sanders asked for donations during the first Democratic debate. Both times, the campaign saw a spike in contributions. When Sanders makes a fundraising pitch, it’s a way to forge a connection with supporters. The requests themselves are typically framed as an invitation to take part in his populist crusade.

A digitally savvy fundraising operation helps the campaign hit fundraising targets. Sanders doesn’t have a traditional, stand-alone fundraising team. Instead, Team Sanders raises most of its money online, an effort managed by the campaign’s digital team. Emails asking for money emphasize that Sanders is running a different kind of campaign powered by everyday Americans. Somewhat surprisingly, campaign aides say that lengthy, in-depth emails that run anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 words prove particularly popular, suggesting that supporters hang on the candidate’s every word. “We find that people develop a deeper investment and appreciation for the campaign when they’re being counted as part of something bigger than themselves,” said Robin Curran, the campaign’s digital-production director.

The campaign has also worked to pioneer fundraising technology not previously deployed in presidential campaigns. During a Republican primary debate, it rolled out a text-to-donate tool asking supporters to text the word “NOW” each time they felt outraged, a command that triggered a $20 dollar campaign donation.

Cultivating a pool of small-dollar donors creates several advantages for the campaign. Since most are giving small increments of money, the campaign can return to supporters again and again to ask for additional sums without running the risk of hitting the legal limit. It can also help with field organizing and voter turnout. “If you can build a broad base of support, it’s not just a financial payoff. It builds a network of support that you can turn to for volunteers and organizing,” said Joe Rospars, former chief digital strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns and founder and CEO of Blue State Digital, a digital-strategy firm that has worked with both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns.
“We’re not going to unilaterally disarm as long as the other side and the Koch brothers and their ilk are running amok.”
While Sanders touts the idea that he’s not beholden to mega-donors, he is still reliant on his grassroots funders. That support is not without limits. It’s difficult to motivate donors when they believe there’s little their money can do to help. If the presidential race begins to seem incredibly lopsided in Clinton’s favor, the cash flow to the Sanders campaign may start to dry up.

At times, well-meaning fans even unwittingly put the campaign in an awkward spot. Sanders can’t stop super PACs from supporting him, and a handful of super PACs have decided to do just that. The campaign has insisted that super PACs “spend their money somewhere else,” but that hasn’t stopped enthusiastic supporters. National Nurses United for Patient Protection, a nurses’ union super PAC, has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars backing Sanders. “We’re not going to unilaterally disarm as long as the other side and the Koch brothers and their ilk are running amok,” said Joshua Grossman, the president of Progressive Kick, a super PAC that has endorsed Sanders. (note by me: The Koch brothers are far behind various "Liberal" doners like the Tide foundation, the Ford Foundation and George Soros Open Society Foundations in terms of dollar amounts and influence, but since that does not advacne the narrative, we'll just overlook that fact

Of course, not all super PACs are the same. When Sanders says he doesn’t have or want a super PAC, he’s effectively using the term as a shorthand to denounce what he believes is the corrupting influence of wealthy elites buying elections. A nurses’ union super PAC doesn’t quite match the description of the big-money political machines Sanders claims to despise. Still, the fact that it shares the same “super PAC” label muddies the waters and makes Sanders vulnerable to attack from critics.

For all his success, Sanders has a steep climb ahead. After a victory in New Hampshire, Sanders lost primary contests in Nevada and South Carolina, and he faces challenging political terrain on Super Tuesday, when voters from states across the country pick winners in the Democratic primary. Ahead of the event, the campaign blew past a goal of raising $40 million. If his campaign falters without enough votes, however, Sanders may soon be forced to confront a reality that could be cold comfort: Money alone won’t be enough to win the election. 

Whatever happens next, Sanders has pioneered a model that future candidates are sure to look to, if not attempt to emulate outright, as they strive to convince voters of their own political purity.

 

[cupper]

I have to wonder about some of the comments made by Trump supporters about why they voted for him in various primaries and caucuses. Today is the Virginia primary and I saw the same thing on the evening news.

The most common answer is that Trump can't be bought. But they don't seem to realize that yes he can't be bought, but in fact is is buying the election for himself.

It isn't hard to imagine that Trump may have his own agenda to getting elected, to put forth policies and getting legislation through that favours him personally both from a business standpoint and a personal standpoint. Instituting changes to laws to benefit His own specific businesses and being able to move on things that otherwise would be hamstrung due to regulations. Broadening or opening up liable laws allowing him to sue persons whom he feels slighted by. Creating better tax breaks for business like his.

It's not like the Koch's would be unfavorable to those types of measures. But even they see the downside of a rogue Trump in the White House and are holding off their money until things get clearer, and maybe set up an independent candidate to take on Trump in the General to ensure a Dem victory for 2016, force the GOP to resolve it's internal structural issues and come back strong in 2020.

 

[CougarKing]

Super Tuesday results so far:

Associated Press

Clinton, Trump each win 6 states on Super Tuesday

The Associated Press
The Canadian Press
March 1, 2016

WASHINGTON - Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton moved closer to winning their parties' nominations with a series of victories in the Super Tuesday elections, the biggest day of the primary campaign.

Clinton and Trump each won at least six of 11 state races as they distanced themselves from party rivals and looked ahead to a November presidential election showdown.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[daftandbarmy]

I had an interesting conversation recently with a couple of folks from the US about Trump ( of course I brought it up).

They were pretty clear that, like Obama, who came into office with fairly radical views on how he would change things, Trump would encounter the realities of the US bi-cameral system and find himself mired in the realities of a process designed to prevent the emergence of another 'absolute ruler'.

Gawd Bless those enlightenment philosophers!

 

[ModlrMike]

I have to wonder about some of the comments made by Trump supporters about why they voted for him in various primaries and caucuses. Today is the Virginia primary and I saw the same thing on the evening news.

The most common answer is that Trump can't be bought. But they don't seem to realize that yes he can't be bought, but in fact is is buying the election for himself.

At least he's buying it out in the open. I have to wonder what billionaires are buying the Democrat half of the contest... behind the scenes.