Sticks and Stones: Debate Season (POTUS)

[Bluewolf]

Oh this is fun. Ok.

I'd say at this point not many rabbits can be pulled out of the metaphorical hat. Meaning there isn't much room nor time left for little surprises or the coveted "Comeback Kid" moments. Sorry to say but not one will be starting from the bottom and bringing their whole crew here.

Gary Johnson takes up a 7% of the popular vote where as Jill Stein sits serenely at 2%.

The undecided votes amount to 3%, so Jill Stein is out of the question, period. Moving on. Let's talk about our buddy Gary. Honestly I don't know much about the guy. Honestly, not a lot of people do, and not really anybody wants to. Yes that sounds very biting and cruel but that's how the American people work. What I'm saying is that this late in the game, only two people and one number matters: Donald, HIllary, and the Undecided. Sure, he might have some nice things going on with his policy but no one really cares. He could be a great guy and might even be a better choice than both candidates, but he's going nowhere, especially with his first big TV appearance showing that he couldn't name ONE living foreign leader. And judging by the comments on Facebook and Twitter concerning the other two candidates, we have some VERY uninformed, uneducated and unrealistic voters who are just gonna push him farther into the darkness.

It's almost like Bernie Sanders. I loved the guy, I really did. His message really resonated with me. But being realistic I knew there was no way he was going to beat Hillary, whether she rigged it or not. This whole thing is like people trying to dance around the issue and by the sheer power of closing their eyes, won't have to deal with what's real and what isn't. It's stupid but that's what we've done to ourselves. Whatever happens to this country because of either candidate is what we deserve because we as the American people elected them. And yes, that includes the people who didn't vote, it's your fault too.

[Chase]

Yeah, see, I voted for Marco Rubio in the primary. Don't pin Trump on me.

In all seriousness though - that's absolutely true for those who A ) voted for the two major party candidates and will - or B ) won't vote. People who voted for Bernie shouldn't be blamed for Hillary winning. They did all they could to prevent Hillary from winning themselves. The same goes for people who voted for anyone but Trump on the GOP side. If you did vote - and not for either of the nomination winners - I fail to see how anyone can fault them for the current situation.

Third party candidates are an interesting difference though. There isn't a realistic chance for them at this point - but that doesn't mean voting for them "doesn't count." Mathmatically, it damages whichever major party you would normally vote for because they can't count on your vote to their total.

When I vote for Gary Johnson - does my vote count for "helping" Trump or Clinton? No. My vote doesn't go into either bucket. It still counts as a vote as well.

I think putting the whole country underneath this umbrella is a hasty generalization.

---

I expect Johnson to struggle with things outside of America's borders at this point. As an isolationist party, Libertarians don't tend to focus their energies on things like Syria or knowing who's the Prime Minister of Antarctica as much as they should. I think there are relatively few people that are voting for Johnson and Weld for sound foreign policy.

[mde2001]

I expect Johnson to struggle with things outside of America's borders at this point. As an isolationist party, Libertarians don't tend to focus their energies on things like Syria or knowing who's the Prime Minister of Antarctica as much as they should. I think there are relatively few people that are voting for Johnson and Weld for sound foreign policy.

But being the President had to have some form of foreign policy. While he doesn't need to be an expert, at this point I'm beginning to think Johnson hasn't ever picked up a newspaper. He's embarrassing himself every time he speaks, which really leads me to believe being included in the debates would end up going worse for him than staying out of them.

I don't necessarily view voting for third parties as throwing away your vote, my problem is when people vote for them to show they aren't happy. If people's political ideology lines up with Johnson or Stein, then sure, they should feel free to vote for them. There's a reason why they let more than 2 people run for President. That being said, I think Bernie supporters who are just showing their anger with Clinton by voting for Stein or Johnson are wasting their vote, because they aren't considering the consequences of their vote. Trump's ideology is the complete opposite of Bernie's, so by saying they're prepared to let Trump in if it stops Clinton they're doing one of two things. They're either showing how anti establishment they are without considering the consequences or they are uninformed about the policy differences and are being caught up in the anti-Clinton sensationalism. I really don't see how anyone who believes in the stuff Bernie believes in can justify considering a Trump presidency better than a Clinton one. Trump is all about the financially elite and is dismissive of Sanders' entire platform, so people who are just acting out to show they're unhappy don't care about the consequences.

[Chase]

If it were every time he speaks that would be an issue. The problem is, odds are so heavily stacked against a minor party candidate that the only thing that gets covered on the outside of the major party politics IS those "oops" moments. All this does for me is reveal the ugly catch-22 candidates like Johnson are stuck in. This isn't a candidate like Howard Dean who has a realistic shot at winning the presidency and then a gaffe ruins. (see: Dean Scream)

I've heard Johnson speak much more than the times on "Morning Joe" and where he was asked about foreign leaders and I can safely conclude that those moments are called "gaffes" for a reason. They are unintentional blunders or mistakes. Johnson came back and was humble about both accidents - referring to the leader thing as "an Aleppo moment." As an Australian - I would almost bet that you haven't been following Johnson's campaign as close as you may be following Trump and Clinton's from across the pond because the amount of news THERE is probably even less available than it is here.

With regards to protest voting - the biggest reason people do so is because it has historically reformed major party politics in the past. Already mentioned in this thread was the influential Green Party run by Ralph Nader in 2000, where yes, it cost Democrat Al Gore the election to Bush, but it also led to a leftward move from the Democratic Party in order to bring back those Green voters for John Kerry, President Obama, and a candidate like Bernie Sanders who is the most leftward Democrat to have been competent in a long while. Republicans shifted after independent Ross Perot gave an election to the Democrats even farther back.

There's also the reasons Bernie was so influential with his voter base. Many people actually do call him the "liberal" version of Donald Trump throughout various media sites. Not because of the man's demeanor or age - but because of the what his campaign stood for. Bernie wasn't just running on a platform that emphasized liberalism. He ran a platform that focused on fighting corruption in politics and enabling Americans in the political process. Hillary as an opponent is the perfect example of someone who historically is seen as the very blemishes Sanders strives to fight against. Secretary Clinton has taken large amounts of money for giving speeches on Sanders' much hated 'Wall Street', and there is universal (meaning not just conservative conspirators) concern over her Foundation being potentially linked to the State department through "pay-for-play". Then you have the fact where the DNC was actively trying to rig the primary election in Clinton's favor AGAINST Sanders on top of all of that.

Because Hillary's mishaps are so blatantly linked to the things Sanders voters mobilized to fight against, it's no wonder many in the Bernie train aren't enthusiastic about settling for Clinton. She's the politician - to many - that embodies those evils, and to vote for her after that primary fight would be to concede that things will never change for the positive. I think their anger and displeasure is very much well documented.

Here's what we have.

• a candidate who for sure has come off as a xenophobe, racist, and a demagogue
• a candidate who comes off as above the law and corrupt, who also has a problem appearing trustworthy
• a candidate who seemingly doesn't know anything about issues or even general knowledge abroad.
• a candidate who has only 2% of the polls locked down, but is similar to Bernie Sanders.

If Jill Stein gives disenchanted Sanders supporters hope about fighting political corruption, why should they vote for Clinton? Because she's a liberal so therefore she would agree with them on policy? It's probably more because Jill has no chance of winning.

Voting for someone because they are going to win rather than voting for someone you believe in is just as egregious as a protest vote. Except protest votes in the correct multitude actually come with results in the long term.

[mde2001]

The main reason why I think people shouldn't vote for Jill Stein is that she says some nice stuff, but all of her policies are an incoherent mess. While I might have found some of Sanders' policies a little unrealistic, they at least were policies. If Stein had any actual policies in regards to her ideals, I'd consider her a really strong candidate, but she doesn't. She ignores it, because its easier to sell yourself on a platform of eliminate all student debt, fossil fuels, racial discrimination, injustice, poverty and unemployment when you don't actually have to say how you'd do all of these things. I think that all of those things would be fantastic to get rid of, but in the end it would be incredibly difficult, and she hasn't presented a coherent plan on how to do any of it.

I'd agree I haven't been following the Johnson campaign all that closely, and he's been prominently in our news twice (the two massive stuff ups). However, from other stuff I've seen about him, while he doesn't make huge mistakes every time he speaks, he does come off as kind of uninspiring. He is nowhere near as knowledgeable as Clinton and lacks Trump's charisma (I personally don't see Trump as at all charismatic and just find me wanting to punch him through the TV/ computer screen whenever I see him, but he clearly had some kind of charisma to some people). I feel like if he were to take part in the debate he would either make mistakes or just be largely ignored.

I also have a bit of sympathy for the idea of protest votes changing a party platform. I would love to see the democrats further to the left than they currently are, and I guess that if protest votes will achieve that, they aren't terrible. However, in the end I think it is more important to elect someone who won't do damaging things to the country and world. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I would prefer someone like Elizabeth Warren to be the nominee, but Clinton is still exceptionally good in my book.

Anyway, in terms of the VP debate, I firstly don't think it matters all that much in terms of who wins, as this year hardly anyone will watch it (or at least the whole thing), just because the candidates aren't that interesting. Both Kaine and Pence are very traditional choices for their parties. Neither of them are particularly charismatic and they both stay on message quite well. It will be interesting to see Pence speak without Trump interrupting him every 2 seconds, but in the end I have no time for the guy. His stance on LGBT issues disgusts me and while he is less insane than Trump, his policies are just as bad.

Meanwhile, I quite like Kaine. Sure, he wasn't a particularly interesting choice for Clinton. He's a very safe bet and there's no way he'll be starting any controversies. I generally like his policies and I especially like that the NRA has given him an F grade. As an Australian, it is always nice to see American politicians who aren't afraid to speak out strongly against guns.

I'll watch the debate for sure, but I feel like it really won't influence anything that much. With personalities as big as Clinton and Trump as President and personalities as small as Pence and Kaine for VP, there is very little weight left on the VPs. This is no Palin/ Biden situation, where the VPs got an unprecedented amount of attention.

[Chase]

I would agree with your assessment on the general importance of the Veep debate, Mde, and would also add that it's as relatively unimportant as the first PRESIDENTIAL debate in most cycles.

Democrats were given quite a scare in 2012 when President Obama walked into the first debate against Mitt Romney unprepared (which, for a serving President, is understandable, but there are no passes given in debates UNLESS it's the first one.) and Romney tore him apart in a very similar way Clinton beat up Trump. The President was testy and spent extensive periods of time defending his first term.

Of course, that same Obama would win the later two debates decisively and win his re-election bid. Most of the time, polls don't shake much after the initial contest or the battle of First Mates afterward.

---

While I think the "fear" vote for a candidate because "the other candidate is bad" is a shame, I can understand why people ascribe to it. It doesn't help that the Republican and Democratic brass incite that fear to their supporters so that their friends are essentially "bullied" to fall in line, but with a candidate like Trump (and Clinton) I can't say it's not groundless fearmongering.

That's just it though. It's still fearmongering.

[Swimming95]

I will ignore some of the other misinformation for a moment to point out one thing: Unless one is talking about getting more votes as rigging, it is not a "fact" that the DNC rigged the primaries against sanders. It won't stop people from thinking there is though which is sad. It seems as though some people care more about feelings than facts.

[Chase]

Oh, my goodness, let me backtrack for a second.

"rigging" is perhaps a strong word - but the fact that's floated to media outlets like Fox (which is unsurprising) and CNN (which absolutely -is-), is much more "sad" than this sticking to sites like Breitbart.

Let's start with traditional Liberal news by taking this article by the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hillary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05

Just looking at the title, this HuffPo writer is alleging "favoritism" in the Democratic Party was given to Clinton over Sanders. READING the article actually reveals that the ABC News - a network that is usually somewhat center-left - makes a similar charge on the DNC regarding "favoring" Clinton, along with wording such as "attempting to aid" or "putting their thumb on the scale" or even "plotting against" Senator Sanders.

Earlier in the article, the Pro-Clinton Washington Post is cited, using language like "using Senator Sanders' faith against him."

The Observer, the oldest Sunday newspaper in Britain and traditional center-left paper, actually USED the word "rigging." - and it's also cited in the HuffPo article.

ABC, HuffPo, WaPo, the Observer (Guardian)....none of those news outlets are conservative think-tanks. All of them seem to allege AT LEAST that the 20,000 WikiLeaked e-mails between the DNC and the Clinton campaign indicated that the DNC ran an unbalanced primary in which it tried to offer advice behind Sanders' back to Hillary and threatened to use smear tactics against his religion.

At worst, Sanders never had a chance - proving his point about corruption in politics - and yet again, Hillary would be caught in the lime-light.

You really want to call that false?

[Swimming95]

Yes because there is no proof of any of it happening externally.individuals Internally preferring is not the same as changing the result of tipping the scale of any of the primaries. If you actually read the emails, there is nothing there. Also lol at the haha goodman article.

The reasons that sanders had no chance had nothing to do with how the DNC treated him.

[Chase]

Let me ask you this then: You think it is absolutely okay for your party's national committee to religion-shame you behind your back, give advice to your opposing campaign, and potentially treat you with the a different respect as your opponent? That seems fair to you?

If it is, that's fine, but that doesn't help Hillary's optics - yet again. It's not a fairy tale that Clinton was at least considered favorable by her own party and it's establishment to the point where the power brokers talked in a manner that they wanted to box out Sanders.

I've never made the claim that Hillary won her nomination unfairly (although the jury is still out on Superdelegates, but that has nothing to do with her.) - but to say this isn't shady or problematic for her in the least is just something we're going to have to disagree on.

Either which way, Sanders supporters have a right to feel they way they do.

[Swimming95]

Everyone has a right to feel how they feel. Just questioning how much of it is based in reality vs their not quite accturate interpretation of reality.

[Chase]

Just under an hour till - here's the big scoop going into Virginia.

Trump certainly didn't make Mike Pence's job any easier tonight with this really boneheaded feud with Alicia Machaco and NYT report on his taxes causing him to play even more defense and not make any ground.

On top of that, Trump is floating unsubstantiated rumors that Hillary was/is unfaithful to Bill.

We'll see how that goes.

[Chase]

Obligatory post debate splatter.

This vice-presidential debate was won by the challenging campaign's second name on the ticket. Governor Mike Pence. It wasn't won in a landslide, and it wasn't a debate that would be monumental with regards to polling or even viewership, so there's a sigh of relief to be had by Clinton supporters. It also should be noted that both candidates made solid points.

Kaine: Governor Pence (and by proxy other Republicans) are not defending their candidate thoroughly and therefore there seems to be a gap of interests or acceptance remaining.

Pence: There are things called "issues" that need to be focused on as opposed to quotes and actions. Things are not as they could be, and Trump and I are running the change campaign America yearns for that would be different from voting for the same we've had and expecting a different result.

You tell me what the winning message out of those two is.

---

The next thing that needs to be addressed is truth. This is where the Clinton camp can hang their hat on in some places, because their man was a very apt prosecutor of Trump and flexed his attorney muscles ...throughout the entirety of the debate. However, you can only say the same thing multiple times before it starts to fall on deaf ears. We get it Clinton camp, Senator Kaine. You want Trump to release his tax returns. I do too, frankly, but you're not getting any sympathy from me for saying so 700 times while your opponent looks like the better statesman.

You running a mock trial for a bar examination or are you trying to become Vice-President?

---

Finally, Pence won the body language and etiquette battle by a landslide. He was cool. Composed. He interrupted Kaine 20 times less than Kaine interrupted him. He delivered policy where Trump didn't. He was respectful and endearing where Trump wasn't - and instead of opening his mouth and trying to undercut his opponent by talking over him, he showed his disagreement with his opponents points with a modest shake of the head.

Kaine, in turn, looked very irritable, and increasingly so when Gov. Pence repeated didn't take the bait on defending Trump where he absolutely shouldn't have (something Trump can lean on for knowledge he clearly doesn't have). He was also a broken record and failed to generate an aire of positive feelings.

---

Good hits:

Kaine: You're not defending Trump much at all. Let's stop painting Mexicans and Muslims with a broad brush. Let's trust women to make their own decisions with their bodies. Tax Returns...the first time. Not supporting troops by dodging taxes.

Pence: Hillary Clinton's campaign is driven by insults. Let's stop painting POLICE with a broad brush. E-mails. Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton: Obamacare "crazy". E-mails.

---

Grades:

Pence: B

the big "how"- B - Pence probably divulged more policy than Trump ever will.

counter - A - See the good hits section. Pence used attacks on Hillary primarily as counterpunches instead of charges like Kaine did. That's the way to be.

hope - B - "change candidate"

Kaine: C

fire away - A - This was literally Kaine's whole strategy. Clinton should be a little disappointed here. He did his job here though.

salesmanship - B - He did Clinton justice here. He's sold her better than she's sold herself.

negative opinion post-debate - D - I came away from that debate thinking Mike Pence should be at the top of his ticket. Not supporting it. That should be an F.... Goes to show how bad Trump really is.

---

Missed opportunities

Pence: Obummercare.

Kaine: Pence's record on LGBTQ communities. (He went for abortion rights instead, which wasn't nearly as resounding.)