News   Apr 19, 2024
45 and 61-Storey Towers Proposed near Oakville GO
 784     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
DRP Reviews Innovative Affordable Housing at Kennedy Station
 649     2 
News   Apr 19, 2024
Lifetime Helping Craft the Future of Toronto's Neighbourhoods
 1K     3 

Who would you like to see win the 2016 US election?

Status
Not open for further replies.
picard102 said:
I don't think Americans are more afraid of change as a whole. They just can not agree on what change is necessary since the declaration of independence.
Click to expand...

That's true -- there's just more polarization stateside so maybe its an issue of if Americans can agree on an revolutionary idea, they'd implement it much more rapidly but it's just a matter of getting folks to agree and be on the same page in the first place (though many scholars still think that the American revolution to begin with didn't actually receive the full support of a numerical majority of the populace).

Canadians are less polarized politically than Americans and the parliamentary system also makes a difference probably. We accomplished things like single-payer health care and the implementation of the metric system that the US at some point wanted or proposed to do but either stalled or didn't follow through but perhaps the larger scale of country also makes a difference in terms of pragmatism.

Though I do think also even though the narrative is slow, incremental vs. radical, risk-taking change with regard to the two countries, one could argue that some changes/reforms that our nation underwent (the changes led by Tommy Douglas, the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, and Trudeau (the current PM's father)) are arguably the sort that are indeed rapid and revolutionary, not slow and incremental.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Au said:
The Panama Papers may turn out to be a second wind for Bernie, as the Papers mention a list of people who put money in Panama to evade paying taxes.
Click to expand...

So far though it seems like the Panama Papers haven't gotten as much press or influence as I'd thought on the political discussion stateside. Maybe it'll start to become more notable or be brought up during the Democratic debate.

I know so far it's mostly non-Americans whose political fortunes were brought down by the leak, but perhaps just the awareness and salience of the issue of tax evasion and money laundering will start to be felt soon?
 
wild goose chase said:
People talk about how difficult it is to accomplish major political change in the US, and only slow, incremental change, not "revolutionary" change is possible because of the constraints of the political system.

Yet the US is supposed to be well, the big, bold risk-taking, and revolutionary country and we Canadians are supposedly the careful, cautious, compromising and risk-averse ones who prefer gradual, incremental change as the story we tell ourselves about our respective national characters go.

So which one is it, then? Are Canadians or Americans more afraid of change and cautious about revolutionary/radical reforms?
Click to expand...

There's an important difference between whether a country's national psyche can be characterized as more or less cautious or radical and whether its system of government and legislation-making processes match those ambitions. With a divided government and a country that is as ideologically divided as the US currently is, it's astonishing that Obama has been able to enact the scale of change that he has.

The difference, now, between Canada and the US is especially stark; with a sizeable Liberal majority, Prime Minister Trudeau and his caucus can pursue more or less whatever policies they choose, whereas President Obama and Democratic Senators and members of Congress can essentially pass not a single bill. The only thing that'll wind up allowing any president (of either party) the ability to enact more significant change than we've seen to-date is if the same party enjoys a majority in both houses and occupies the presidency. The scale of ambition of daringness of the people writ large is mostly irrelevant in terms of policy change.
 
picard102 said:
Exactly, so how will Bernie be any different?
Click to expand...

Well, he won't be any different. Not if the house and senate remain under the control of Republicans. Which doesn't mean I will support that lying witch Hillary Clinton, who won't accomplish much either because of said republicans (aside from starting a few more wars and capitulating to Wall St).
 
salsa said:
Well, he won't be any different. Not if the house and senate remain under the control of Republicans. Which doesn't mean I will support that lying witch Hillary Clinton, who won't accomplish much either because of said republicans (aside from starting a few more wars and capitulating to Wall St).
Click to expand...

Also important to note is that, in all likelihood, Bernie Sanders will wind up nowhere near the Democratic nominee, let alone the White House. Unless he somehow pulls of an historic upset in the New York primary, which would run counter to the current polling data in the extreme, the delegate math is such that he has nearly no possible path to winning the nomination. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and she'll be running against either Trump or Cruz.

What is possible, though, is that if Hillary wins, she could in short order find herself with either or both of a Democrat-controlled Senate or House—there are potential paths to victory for the Dems in each house over the next two midterm elections, starting with the one that coincides with the November presidential election.

What's more, the next president will almost assuredly be selecting one, and very possibly more than one, Supreme Court justice, tipping the ideological scales of that court for what's likely to be a long period. As one of the three branches of US government, that's a massive change.
 
salsa said:
Well, he won't be any different. Not if the house and senate remain under the control of Republicans. Which doesn't mean I will support that lying witch Hillary Clinton, who won't accomplish much either because of said republicans (aside from starting a few more wars and capitulating to Wall St).
Click to expand...

Witch? What century are you living in?
 
ADRM said:
Also important to note is that, in all likelihood, Bernie Sanders will wind up nowhere near the Democratic nominee, let alone the White House. Unless he somehow pulls of an historic upset in the New York primary, which would run counter to the current polling data in the extreme, the delegate math is such that he has nearly no possible path to winning the nomination. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and she'll be running against either Trump or Cruz.
Click to expand...

Even with Bernie winning the New York primary, Hillary still has a sizable lead with the majority of superdelegates. The goal of winning the New York primary is to convince the superdelegates, who can switch their vote at anytime from now to the convention, to select Bernie Sanders. If they don't, then Hillary nomination is guaranteed.

As it stands now, without the superdelegates, Hillary has 1,289 pledged delegates and Bernie has 1,038. But if you add those superdelegates into the count; Hillary has 1,758 total delegates and Bernie has only 1,069 with the total needed of 2,383 needed to get the nomination.

ADRM said:
What is possible, though, is that if Hillary wins, she could in short order find herself with either or both of a Democrat-controlled Senate or House—there are potential paths to victory for the Dems in each house over the next two midterm elections, starting with the one that coincides with the November presidential election.
Click to expand...

Hillary's win is still no guarantee at this point, she really hasn't proven that she can get the Democratic base to come out to vote for her in November. We should get a clear picture by the fall if she has a chance or not.
 
Johnny Au said:
Looks like fivethirtyeight.com's primary forecast needs major revisions or that Nate Silver was unable to foresee Bernie's gains in Michigan.
Click to expand...

It's been stated before that most pollsters still depend on home phone polling, so that adds problems to forecasting voters intent. But even if she gets a large share of the delegates, or if Bernie does, she still has a very large superdelegate count that will keep her ahead in the game, its only if they start switching she's in real trouble.
 
CodeMonkey said:
Hillary's win is still no guarantee at this point, she really hasn't proven that she can get the Democratic base to come out to vote for her in November. We should get a clear picture by the fall if she has a chance or not.
Click to expand...

Even if her supporters do come out to vote, it won't be because of her fake populism. It will be because of Donald Trump.
 
Trump's unfavorable ratings are the worst ever for a front runner in any party. What you will also see is a down ballot effect if/when he is the nominee.
 
salsa said:
Even if her supporters do come out to vote, it won't be because of her fake populism. It will be because of Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Her major support is with superdelegates that give her the edge in the primaries, giving her larger lead, but they can't translate over to general election. She still needs the Bernie Sander supporters, and after bashing from the Hillary camp and vice versa from the Bernie camp, they might not come out in November to vote, some even said that they would vote Trump if Bernie didn't get the nomination out of spite of Hillary.

November is still far off, and the threat to vote Trump or Republican may never materialize, but what this election season has proven, that once was deemed impossible is now possible, so it would be naive to simply brush it off as nothing, the Republicans did this last summer with Trump, and the media have been predicting his demise since last November and he's still here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top