Wow, these are bad candidates (2016 Presidential race)

[tullsterx]

I’m a somewhat conservative independent. . .

Among the field, I really consider Hillary to be a fairly reasonable candidate. I fear she’s being pushed too far left by the young Democrats that Bernie is stirring up, but she’s still pretty pragmatic. I mean, using your power, name, and influence to garner wealth. . . I get it; it’s reasonable.

I think I would vote for Hillary over Cruz. . . and maybe over Trump.

But, really, Hillary and Bernie and nowhere near the candidate that Obama was and will not be able to match his voter intensity. In that light, I don’t think it looks good for the Democratic candidate.

[adaher]

Not nearly the candidate, but I think both will make a better President than Obama.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Martin_Hyde

Historically this is a cycle that should favor the party out of power–two terms of the other party, the outgoing President has been stuck in the 40% range for approval ratings for some time etc. But due to basically “own-goaling” itself with stupidity t he GOP, whoever they nominate, is likely to be a very bad candidate in terms of unfavorability.

This was a good post overall, but I think the part I quoted here is too context-free.

First, I think we need to dispel with the notion (sic) that two consecutive terms of one party in power somehow leads to a disadvantage for that party. Specifically for the presidency, there are too few data points, and too many of those data points are counterexamples. If you broaden your data to include that from other countries, states, or legislative bodies, I think single-party control for a lengthy period of time is relatively common.

Second, it’s true that Obama has had mildly negative favorability ratings throughout his second term, but the fundamentals don’t really support that. Unemployment and inflation are extremely low, and unemployment in particular is and has been dropping; wages are starting to tick up; the economy is continuing to grow; there haven’t been any major foreign policy disasters. Yet he continues to struggle with favorability and right-track vs. wrong-track polls continue to show some malaise among the public.

One reason this could be is that the Republican party has gone all-in on opposing every single thing Obama has tried to do, starting with the stimulus (which was a great success) back in 2009 and continuing on through his Scalia-replacement today. There have been shutdown threats, major Republican candidates scaring children, fear-mongering on immigration, and the occasional overreaction to middle east flare-ups. This Republican rejectionism has worn on Obama’s favorability, but it’s also worn on the favorability of the Republicans. And it’s created a trap that Republican presidential candidates can’t seem to get out of. In other words, the very same actions that are hurting Obama’s favorability are forcing Republicans to score those own-goals you refer to.

The fundamentals of the economy and world suggest a victory for the Democrats. (Today, at least. A lot can obviously change in eight-and-a-half months.) It’s only by myopically looking at Obama’s job approval without considering its context that one can conclude it’s a favorable environment for Republicans.

[adaher]

That’s a good argument to make, plus a lot of Obama’s favorability and unfavorability alike is driven by his personality, not his performance. A lot of people just like the idea of President Obama but still see the country as headed in the wrong direction and want change, and a lot of people hate President Obama but have benefitted a lot under his Presidency. If Obama’s ratings are primarily driven by his person rather than his job performance then it might not affect the Democratic nominee as much as you would expect.

But count me as skeptical. The country is in an ornery mood, and that never bodes well for the party in power.

[DigitalC]

@tullsterx

But, really, Hillary and Bernie and nowhere near the candidate that Obama was and will not be able to match his voter intensity. In that light, I don’t think it looks good for the Democratic candidate.

They don’t have to. Obama won very comfortably, specially his first time. Four more years of demographic swing might just be enough for either Dem candidate to win just as comfortably without the same level of enthusiasm, but even if it isn’t they are extremely unlikely to lose. I can’t look at all the baked in Democratic advantages, not to mention the quality of the GOP candidates vs theirs and not think that pretending Republicans have a chance is just one big media con to keep interest in the biggest story every four years.

[foolsguinea]

@Martin_Hyde

He doesn’t have serious policy wonks who are willing to feed him doses of realism–and I’m not convinced Bernie is interested in listening. That’s important because it affects the type of staff he’s going to hire to translate vision into policies.

Yes, I find this concerning.

Plus, Hillary’s self interest as President will often coincide with doing things that are good for the country, just as Bill’s did.

Yes, I agree. This is a good argument for her. Except for the times when her personal self-interest has led to her hurting the country. She’s a bit of a weathervane.

I don’t think that Hillary’s foundation has actually been funneling money to her campaign under the table, and nor do I believe it’s a vehicle for her to be influenced by foreign governments. I actually find that whole line of thought very little different from all of the specious Republican claims about Benghazi.

I hope you’re right.

I think Hillary’s Presidency, management wise, will be a lot like George H.W. Bush, a man whose presidency has been reevaluated as being quite positive for his adept management and placement of good people in the right positions.

Let’s not get carried away. Hillary’s cabinet will probaby be a lot like Bill’s: a bunch of cronies of dubious aptitude, chosen for superficial appearance–an acceptable mediocrity, perhaps. That Bill Clinton’s administration resembled Poppy Bush’s more than either resembled the more recent two is largely due to Dubya’s being a nightmare & Obama’s being subject to a viciously partisan opposition Congress.

[inscrutable]

I’ll probably sit this one out. Trump’s a joke, and I don’t want my Country turning into any more of a liberal shithole…

[wonky]

@inscrutable

I’ll probably sit this one out. Trump’s a joke, and I don’t want my Country turning into any more of a liberal shithole…

Thank you for increasing the power of my vote for liberal shitholiness!

[ElvisL1ves]

@inscrutable

I’ll probably sit this one out. Trump’s a joke, and I don’t want my Country turning into any more of a liberal shithole…

Then you need to get ready for eight years of “Madame President”, without the right to complain about it.

[inscrutable]

@jsgoddess

Thank you for increasing the power of my vote for liberal shitholiness!

Surprised it took so long for that comment!

[inscrutable]

@ElvisL1ves

Then you need to get ready for eight years of “Madame President”, without the right to complain about it.

Would have supported her eight years ago, but now, the Party has been hijacked by the far left.

[ElvisL1ves]

So you’re getting your complaining in early. Just as long as you zip it after you decline to do your duty.

[Captain_Amazing]

@ElvisL1ves

Then you need to get ready for eight years of “Madame President”, without the right to complain about it.

We’re America. You’ve always got the right to complain about your government.

[marshmallow]

Democracy is such a wonderful system of control since it allows you to blame your neighbor for the actions of the elite. Talk about divide and conquer.

Partisans continue to display an entitled “nice guy” logic when it comes to soliciting votes. It wasn’t Gore or Kerry’s fault they couldn’t beat Dubya, or that Gore couldn’t even win Tennessee. It wasn’t the fault of the system for alienating tens of millions of would be voters. No, it’s those guys who voted Unsafe at Any Speed. It won’t be Hillary’s fault if she crashes and burns against Trump. It’ll be those self righteous Bernie Bros staying home and depressing the vote by pointing out all her flaws. Dems might still be holding two minute hates against Bernie in 2032, as they do for Nader now.

@ElvisL1ves

Then you need to get ready for eight years of “Madame President”, without the right to complain about it.

I always loved that one. Blame the actions of the voters on the non-action of the non-voter. How about those who vote for Madame President? Do they have the right to complain about her actions or not?

Out of curiosity, do you support mandatory voting laws?

@foolsguinea

How does that translate to voting for someone who sold the services of State to profit her husband’s corporate entity? She made the Foundation a pimp and Foggy Bottom its whore, and all for oil money from Norway, UAE, and Algeria.

That’s standard politics. The point of government at all, in many ways.

[Jragon]

I still think the biggest issue in the nation is electoral reform. This stuff about not getting to complain because you didn’t “do your duty” is nonsense. If you’re presented with choices you consider roughly equally catastrophic, then you may as well not vote. It’s no more morally right to vote for a part that has no chance.

Something like a proportional system or a mixed system like MMP (keeps the idea of voting for a specific candidate with a face and a personal stance, but adds a proportional aspect on top); along with something like IRV for president would do a hell of a lot to alleviate the false choice problem, allow people to really say who they want, and reign in some of the worst parts of the primary cycle. Like Bernie most but think Hillary is safer? Vote Bernie first and Hillary second, if Bernie loses all his votes go straight to Hillary. Think Hillary would do a better job but would prefer Bernie to any republican? Vote Hillary. Want to stick it to “the establishment”? Vote Bernie, Trump, Carson, and then everyone else. It’s simple to understand too.

Unfortunately, you can’t run on that. President? The President already can’t pass laws, but it would be doubly difficult to sell “I’ll lead Congress in an initiative to amend the Constitution.” Congress? More doable, but in this political climate? Only if you can get both parties on board, and the big parties both won’t want to lose their standing in-built power and there’s too much hailing of “The Constitution Is A Sacred Document Perfect As Written” in the public consciousness, deterring especially anyone who has to try and get ultra-conservatives to vote for them.

The best you could do is try and sell it to the parties as a way to consolidate power (since the proportional aspect of MMP is selected off a party list), while selling it to the people as a way to have their voice matter by giving more refined choices. Both are true, but a hard sell together.

There’s also the thought that having a two-party system forces some nebulous “moderateness” because they need to “appeal to the center”, but I think it’s become clear in recent years that’s not the case. And proportional systems should generally have the largest parties support centrist stances to varying degrees.

The biggest problem is their ramifications aren’t as immediately tangible to people as “get money out of politics” or “universal healthcare” or “address racial issues” so it’s hard to get fired up about. It’s a meta-problem. It’s a problem to solve before you start addressing the actual problems, because it’s a precursor to fixing the system to get shit done. Not that electoral reform can’t be worked on concurrently with those other issues, but it’s hard to get people campaigning for a change in system. Especially since most people like “their” guy in DC, but just hate Congress as a whole.

E: To be clear, I’ll be voting for Sanders, or Hillary if that fails, but in principle I can’t fault anyone for taking a “I legitimately hate both sides” stance.

[foolsguinea]

@ElvisL1ves

So you’re getting your complaining in early. Just as long as you zip it after you decline to do your duty.

We do not buy our freedom of speech with votes, and certainly not with votes for a specific subset of contending parties.

Someone has the right to vote Libertarian and complain.
Someone has the right to write in “Lizard People” and complain.
Someone has the right to complain even if they were unable to vote.
Someone has the right to complain even if they chose not to vote.

[foolsguinea]

Despite starting this thread, I actually think Bernie is a good candidate, for people like me who are reformist and pro-socialized medicine.

What gets me is that I also understand that he has some deficiencies (no law degree, not actually very good at drafting precise legal language) and handicaps (the enmity of certain partisans for his independent background and associated stances). I can see how he’s a “bad candidate” in many eyes.

But the perfect candidate does not exist.

[Urbanredneck]

I think we need Sanders in as president because we need to put a stop to the slide towards our current system where all the money and power in the US is falling into the hands of a small ruling class. The rich guys arent paying their fair share of taxes and the rest of us are getting screwed over. I actually like some of the aspects of socialist Denmark.

[Fear_Itself]

@foolsguinea

Someone has the right to complain even if they chose not to vote.

And I have the right to mock them mercilessly.

[Dr.Drake]

@inscrutable

Would have supported her eight years ago, but now, the Party has been hijacked by the far left.

You don’t have any idea of what the far left looks like, do you?

The Democrats are pretty center-right (in my far left opinion); they just lie to the left of the Republicans. Sanders is certainly left-wing, but Clinton? The current leadership in Congress? I recommend looking beyond your borders for a minute to recalibrate the scale.