Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.

[Cain]

Well, I spent the last half hour climbing out of the adit, and in that solitude it occurred to me that I still have three reasons - which I am not here to discuss- that I have for holding my nose and going to vote for whomever the dem candidate is.  So I guess I gotta.

Doesn't mean I have to be pals with any of their shitbag fanatical partisans, though, and it most assuredly means I don't have to forgive and/or forget a Goddamn thing.

Yeah, the partisans are why I have to hold my nose while voting for Labour in this country.  Any look at how Labour supporters conduct affairs among themselves is...well, it's like that quote which compares law-making to sausages.  Only in this case, laws aren't even being made.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm gonna vote, but I may just write in a big middle finger for the presidency if this keeps up much longer.

Like a joke candidate, or an actual moddle finger drawn on the ballot?

(And if a joke candidate, who do you favor? Vermin Supreme? Incitatus (Caligula's horse)? "Yo mama"?

EDIT:
Of course it could be argued that Trump is every bit as ridiculous a candidate as Incitatus or Vermin Supreme

A literal middle finger. My normal "I don't really like the democrat" strategy is to vote for a third party just to keep needling the system, but really fuck 2016.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

DOO BEE DOO BEE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/bernie-sanders-left-dc-primary-ballot-after-democr/

Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders' name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.

Both the Vermont senator's team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork, but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.

The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders' registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders' eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested.

Confusion appeared to reign late Wednesday over just what happened and whether it could be fixed.

D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party's primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m.

[Cain]

Meanwhile, Trump has gone from "Planned Parenthood does some good things" to "women who get abortions should be criminally prosecuted" to "doctors who perform abortions should be prosecuted, not women" in the space of about 6 hours.

Unless it's changed again since I slept.

[Faust]

Is it a case of he's trying to offend everyone, or trying to appeal to everyone by giving each possible answer to the same question.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm beginning to think I've completely underestimated Trump or whoever is behind him. I figured he was just another bog standard nazi fuckhead but he's managing to surgically appeal to every fuckhead position on every divisive issue facing the semi-sentient majority of the US electorate. Dumb white fuckers love him cos he says he hates the blacks, dumb black fuckers love him cos (in the same sentence) he says he hates the whites. His fans have such tunnel vision, they only hear the small percentage of his words that align with the opinions the media gave them.

Meanwhile the intelligent minority are scratching their heads and wondering what the fuck. They are meaningless in an election. It's the idiots who decide who shills for corporate for the next term.

He's not stupid - he's the perfect democracy exploit! 

[Cain]

Is it a case of he's trying to offend everyone, or trying to appeal to everyone by giving each possible answer to the same question.

It's hard to say, because a lot of his supporters can't give coherent reasons as to why they support him.

I realise Reddit may not be the best place to do this kind of "research", but I read the pro-Trump forum there, /r/The_Donald.  People will say in one breath that they like him because of his integrity and outsider status, then dismiss his comments on abortion because he's just trying to pander to traditional Republicans, and it doesn't matter anyway as Trump is entitled to his beliefs.

It's actually really bizarre to watch.

[Junkenstein]

Is it a case of he's trying to offend everyone, or trying to appeal to everyone by giving each possible answer to the same question.

It's hard to say, because a lot of his supporters can't give coherent reasons as to why they support him.

I realise Reddit may not be the best place to do this kind of "research", but I read the pro-Trump forum there, /r/The_Donald.  People will say in one breath that they like him because of his integrity and outsider status, then dismiss his comments on abortion because he's just trying to pander to traditional Republicans, and it doesn't matter anyway as Trump is entitled to his beliefs.

It's actually really bizarre to watch.

Cognitive dissonance in action. It does seem to get a little worse every cycle.

I do get what you're saying about the likely impact of Trump of various people compared to Clinton, I'm just quite sceptical that she'll amount to much better, really. I suppose there's a degree of paranoia that she may push comparable/worse policies with the justification of "Trump wanted to go much further. This is a reasonable compromise"

How much actual power does the President actually have?

[Cain]

Over domestic policy?  They're constrained to an extent by Congress, but through appointments and the bully pulpit they can shape outcomes.  Congress is currently Republican controlled, but extremely unpopular.

Over foreign policy?  Practically limitless below the nuclear war threshold.  The Senate confirms Ambassadors after they are appointed by the President, but the President has huge discretion over foreign affairs, military deployments etc.

[East Coast Hustle]

It's sort of like proving a negative.  If Clinton wins, you can only speculate what horrible manner of shit the current crop of GOP candidates would have done. 

I ask myself, "is it more probable than not Trump or Cruz would do something spectacularly disastrous as president as opposed to Clinton?"

I find the answer to be yes.

And to belabor a point, boycotting the election means not casting votes for local and state races as well as the presidential.  Which maintains the current conservative status quo.

To combine both our viewpoints, I wonder if anyone has suggested not voting in the presidential race, but still voting local and state?  Because to me, that's a tad more ideologically acceptable.

That's what I've been doing since 1996. Only time I've cast a presidential vote since then was for Obama in '08 but that was just me going and turning in my dad's ballot because he was too sick to do it himself. But yeah, who's on the school board or the county council has WAY more effect on my daily life than which suit is currently taking all the money in DC.

[East Coast Hustle]

I have also long been of the opinion that we'd be better off if we were one of those countries that splits its foreign and domestic agendas between a president and a prime minister.

[Junkenstein]

It's probably been mentioned in the thread, but have we looked at candidates media links yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/03/04/fox-newss-bill-oreilly-embarrasses-self-colleagues-country-in-post-debate-debacle/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandomuk_3_na

To be precise, the idiocy started at 11:02 p.m.: "I don't know who this guy — he's been following me around all day. Now look, we're standing mano a mano here, you're not gonna be taller than me," said O'Reilly alongside Trump. Whatever that was supposed to mean. Lame, vacuous, inside-softball questions ensued — about Mitt Romney's speech hammering Trump — "You think he's a phony?" O'Reilly asked — and about Hillary Clinton. All the sort dialogue you'd expect O'Reilly and Trump, who are longtime friends, to enjoy over a pair of vanilla milkshakes.

Shallow, Trump-centric questions continued into an O'Reilly chat with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who deserves a Fox News medal for sitting patiently through insulting interviews. For example, O'Reilly said, "The Trump phenomenon seems to have changed politics. Would you say it has changed it?" Another: "Do you believe that if Trump is the nominee in Cleveland, he gets his butt kicked by Hillary Clinton?" Another: "How would Hillary Clinton with all the scandal surrounding her . . . why couldn't Trump convince all these people to go with him and not her?" Another: "Do you think Donald Trump's an honest man?"

I'm sure you're shocked about the standards of journalism here.

Anyway, I think it's prettty safe to say that the Trump bullshit wouldn't exist without Fox and other outlets pandering to it. There's probably quite a complicated discussion to be had about Media influence on election results as the Murdoch (And for balance, others.) press has had significant impact on UK elections for decades. I'm sure there's at least an equal impact in the US. I think the problem I'm trying to get at is how do you get away from a candidate that media interests are determined to push? My best guess is "ridicule" but the fact that there's still a significant portion of the population that don't view the candidates as a gang of clowns makes this difficult.


Fuck it, let's just start campaigning for Bernie Madoff for 2020. It's not like he'd present as a worse candidate to the current crop.

[Cain]

FOX are pretty conflicted on Trump.  O'Reilly is sucking up to him, but I don't think you can expect similar from Megyn Kelly, for example.  And Roger Ailes doesn't like Trump either.

Breitbart, on the other hand, have gone completely in for Trump (and for the alt-right generally)...to the point that when Trump's campaign manager assaulted one of their reporters, they were gagged from talking about it.

And of course, the New York Times are shamelessly in the tank for Clinton.

[Junkenstein]

The inevitable:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36127175

Donald Trump's two rivals for the Republican party's presidential nomination have announced they will now co-ordinate strategies against him.
Ted Cruz will cut campaigning in the Oregon and New Mexico primaries to help John Kasich, while the latter will give Mr Cruz a "clear path" in Indiana.

In other news, shit slinging anticipated to reach record high.

[Cramulus]

too little, too late