Presidential Race 2016

[Destarius]

I think both candidates look strong on most issues, except on foreign policy. Sanders looks quite weak in comparison there.

That’s unsurprising given that is in her job description, and so something she manages every day. However, I can imagine that it can be frustrating trying to explain policy when you’re privy to information that most people won’t/can’t have.\

edit: watching the debate now. Awesome - I really like this.

[Timex]

Debates with only two people are inherently better than clown cars. People get to actually argue points instead of simply fighting for a few minutes of airtime.

[Pyperkub]

I’m reminded of a sexist joke about aging and college girls.

New suckers every eight years.

Thing is tho, it’s a similar phenomenon to the Trump voters.

[Destarius]

Debates with only two people are inherently better than clown cars. People get to actually argue points instead of simply fighting for a few minutes of airtime.

Maybe so, but even in a two person debate I think Trump would have had a problem. He speaks in generalities.

[Sarkus]

Don’t Cubans tend to vote republican, thus the Florida difference. Or is that a thing of the past.

Even if it is still the case, Cuban origin Latinos are only a bit over a quarter or so of Florida’s Latino population. They are the largest sub group, but clearly plenty of non-Cuban origin Latinos supported Rubio in 2010.

I’m not saying Rubio would win the national Latino vote if he’s the nominee, but I do think he might pull as much as 45% of that vote, which could be key in a close election. Latinos are not as skewed to the Democrats as people sometimes assume.

[MrGrumpy]

Part of what made the Dem debate compelling IMO is the moderators moderated - they were in the background and you barely noticed them as they let the candidates have free exchanges. They also didn’t asked completely idiotic questions like “should people call the police on Muslims receiving packages.”

[Oghier]

Even if it is still the case, Cuban origin Latinos are only a bit over a quarter or so of Florida’s Latino population. They are the largest sub group, but clearly plenty of non-Cuban origin Latinos supported Rubio in 2010.

Possibly not. From the Washington Post:

The Latino Decisions analysis pointed to polling done on the eve of last year’s election of 4,200 Hispanic voters, and found 31 percent had a favorable view of Mr. Rubio, compared to 36 percent who had an unfavorable view. Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton was viewed favorably by 64 percent of Hispanics in that same poll.

Familiarity didn’t help Mr. Rubio much. In his home state of Florida, he was viewed favorably by 39 percent of Hispanics and unfavorably by 42 percent, the pollsters said.

I’m not sure that Hispanics consider themselves a single identity.

[LMN8R]

I thought the debate last night was fantastic. Not only did it more clearly distinguish Clinton from Sanders, but it confirmed my belief that I’d be happy with either.

Sanders is too idealistic about what he’d be able to accomplish. But if elected, it might rally the base to ensure a win in the general election in ways compared to how Clinton could turn off too many liberals. I’d just hope it extends to the local/state elections too in 2018, which is where it really matters.

Clinton isn’t the evil manipulator that Republicans (and many liberals) want you to believe. Benghazi was bullshit. The email thing is mostly bullshit. Her votes for the Iraq war is terrible, but she was in tremendous company for that so I can’t really condemn her for that forever. And the criminal justice over-policing she pushed for in the 90s were completely naive, but I don’t think outright malicious. Overall though, I think she’s push for pragmatic legislation in the same way Obama has.

But most importantly? Both Sanders and Clinton would nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United, won’t roll back the progress we’ve seen in social issues, and countless other important issues. Those supreme court justices more than anything else will define the future of this country for decades. With Republican nominees, we’ll regress in ways which will undoubtedly damage the country forever, in ways Citizens United could only dream of.

[Timex]

Both Sanders and Clinton would nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United

This seems incredibly unlikely.
The supreme court doesn’t just overturn prior rulings like that.

[CraigM]

This seems incredibly unlikely.
The supreme court doesn’t just overturn prior rulings like that.

For CU they damn well should though.

[LMN8R]

I understand there needs to be a brand new case that might eventually result in CU being overturned. But without a democratic president, there’s never a chance of that happening. And at the same time we’ll probably see far worse.

[Pyperkub]

I thought the debate last night was fantastic. Not only did it more clearly distinguish Clinton from Sanders, but it confirmed my belief that I’d be happy with either.

Sanders is too idealistic about what he’d be able to accomplish. But if elected, it might rally the base to ensure a win in the general election in ways compared to how Clinton could turn off too many liberals. I’d just hope it extends to the local/state elections too in 2018, which is where it really matters.

Clinton isn’t the evil manipulator that Republicans (and many liberals) want you to believe. Benghazi was bullshit. The email thing is mostly bullshit. Her votes for the Iraq war is terrible, but she was in tremendous company for that so I can’t really condemn her for that forever. And the criminal justice over-policing she pushed for in the 90s were completely naive, but I don’t think outright malicious. Overall though, I think she’s push for pragmatic legislation in the same way Obama has.

But most importantly? Both Sanders and Clinton would nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United, won’t roll back the progress we’ve seen in social issues, and countless other important issues. Those supreme court justices more than anything else will define the future of this country for decades. With Republican nominees, we’ll regress in ways which will undoubtedly damage the country forever, in ways Citizens United could only dream of.

True, tho I expect that Clinton would actually vote for the Iraq war again. She may not be a neocon, but she’s about as hawkish as you get on the Dem side.

[Timex]

I understand there needs to be a brand new case that might eventually result in CU being overturned. But without a democratic president, there’s never a chance of that happening. And at the same time we’ll probably see far worse.

To be clear, CU is really never going to be overturned. That simply isn’t how the supreme court works. That case has been decided. There aren’t any “do overs”.

And frankly, this is good. Because the type of politicization of the court that you seem to desire is really a terrible, terrible idea. The court is, specifically, supposed to be above that.

There could potentially be some other case which perhaps refines the opinion somewhat, but it’s extremely unlikely to ever result in the type of reversal that you are hoping for.

If you want for campaign finance reform that limits campaign funding, at this point you would likely need to have some sort of new legistlation and potentially a modification to the constitution. If spending money is considered speech, and I think this is a very difficult point to argue against at this juncture, then it’s constitutionally protected. And what’s worse, the right that is being protected is one of our most important and fundamental rights… i.e. it’s not something you want to remove.

[Stepsongrapes]

To be clear, CU is really never going to be overturned. That simply isn’t how the supreme court works. That case has been decided. There aren’t any “do overs”.

That’s simply not true. Stare decisis, the principle that underlies our reliance on precedence, is a strong doctrine, but it isn’t a complete bar to overturning/overruling previous cases.

Plessy v. Ferguson (finding segregation constitutional) being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education is probably the most famous one on the following (long) list. Many of the other cases on the list are commonly taught in law school.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

[CraigM]

If spending money is considered speech, and I think this is a very difficult point to argue against at this juncture

Oh it is exceptionally easy to argue against. Accepting that money = speech is on the same level of bullshit as corporations = people.

Fuck. That.

I’m not willing to concede anything on this either. That we have allowed these atrocious rulings is a pox on our system. It is literally allowing the buying of the political system, abandoning democracy in favor of plutocracy (even more so than we had been). I will refuse to view the rulings with any legitimacy. I look forward to few things more, politically, than the day Scalia is no longer a sitting Justice.

then it’s constitutionally protected. And what’s worse, the right that is being protected is one of our most important and fundamental rights… i.e. it’s not something you want to remove.

Which is fine, were I to view the Citizens United ruling as legitimate. Which I don’t. But Supreme Court rulings have been overturned in the past, and they will in the future. Laws and judgements change. And make no mistake the strong protections on speech were precisely why CU was framed the way it was. Having no recourse to prevent the buying of politicians and laws is an oligarchs wet dream.

[Timex]

That’s simply not true. Stare decisis, the principle that underlies our reliance on precedence, is a strong doctrine, but it isn’t a complete bar to overturning/overruling previous cases.

Plessy v. Ferguson (finding segregation constitutional) being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education is probably the most famous one on the following (long) list. Many of the other cases on the list are commonly taught in law school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Well, I stand corrected then. I hadn’t really thought about Brown v Board of Education, but yeah, I was mistaken.

Oh it is exceptionally easy to argue against. Accepting that money = speech is on the same level of bullshit as corporations = people.

Except that it’s clearly not bullshit, which is why the supreme court ruled as they did.

The reason why money is spent on political campaigns is, specifically, for the purpose of engaging in political speech. How can you restrict that without effectively saying that people aren’t allowed to engage in political speech?

Certainly if I were to prohibit YOU from donating your money to candidates of your choosing, you would find a problem with that, right?

[MrGrumpy]

You aren’t prohibiting it, you are placing a cap. And you are not prohibiting YOUR speech, your restricting how much money you can give someone else to speak on behalf of your values. Further, in the ruling Kennedy posited that money does not lead to political corruption, which is clearly mistaken. Lastly, free speech isn’t or rather shouldn’t be measured in units of dollars.

[inactive_user]

CU is the perfect example of why I’m not a free speech maximalist. Because then I’d be posting absurd shit like Timex just did, and I wouldn’t be able to live with myself.

[ShivaX]

CU basically assumes that bribery isn’t real, which makes it all sorts of stupid. Bribery can be illegal, they even say so, then they come back around and say “well obviously giving people money to do what you want them to wont happen,” because evidently half the SCOTUS lives in a gumdrop kingdom someplace.

IIRC there was a line about how if you didn’t plan it ahead of time it wasn’t bribery. Which means I should be able to bribe cops as long as we didn’t meet over coffee beforehand and discuss said bribe. We can totally discuss it after the fact though, cause… reasons.

And to be fair, even Scalia doesn’t agree with how things are run with regards to PACs and the like. He’s said many times he doesn’t think there should be a limit or whatever, but that those donations should be public knowledge.

[Timex]

You aren’t prohibiting it, you are placing a cap. And you are not prohibiting YOUR speech, your restricting how much money you can give someone else to speak on behalf of your values. Further, in the ruling Kennedy posited that money does not lead to political corruption, which is clearly mistaken. Lastly, free speech isn’t or rather shouldn’t be measured in units of dollars.

So you’d be ok if I said you’re allowed to speak about your political beliefs, but only to a certain extent. So I could effectively put a cap on your speech, saying you can protest for say, no more than 80 hours a year or something. After all, it’s not prohibiting it, it’s just placing a cap.

In terms of spending creating corruption, I absolutely believe that it can and does. All influence does. But simply because a constitutionally protected right can lead to bad things, does not actually mean that right is no longer protected. All it means is that it could provide justification for changing the constitution.