|
Anidav posted:Maybe Bernie will be VP If only Ron Paul was still around, then they could team up and write more financial legislation and Sanders could run around the country pushing it 
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Useless Shotgun posted:I love Bernie and I plan on supporting him the primaries but anybody who thinks that America would elect an old Jewish socialist as the democratic candidate, much less President, is out of their mind. If we don't get a Jew now it'll never happen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:If only Ron Paul was still around, then they could team up and write more financial legislation and Sanders could run around the country pushing it shut the gently caress up about ron paul
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:If only Ron Paul was still around, then they could team up and write more financial legislation and Sanders could run around the country pushing it Is...is this ironic or not? I can't tell.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:If only Ron Paul was still around, then they could team up and write more financial legislation and Sanders could run around the country pushing it They are pretty much entirely opposed on financial legislation dude.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They are pretty much entirely opposed on financial legislation dude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:If we don't get a Jew now it'll never happen. No, there is another. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Maple tastes great, man. Do you think Bernie's Fancy or Grade A?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
A single point of agreement on a fringe issue does not account for the fact that one is a literal Libertarian and one is a literal Socialist who have unreconcilable beliefs on financial regulation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A single point of agreement on a fringe issue does not account for the fact that one is a literal Libertarian and one is a literal Socialist who have unreconcilable beliefs on financial regulation. Probably because Paul was better. e: Can anyone find the video of Sanders actually announcing? I can only find things before or after. Even Liveleak doesn't have the full thing. Enigma89 fucked around with this message at 06:41 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Who actually are the top candidates for Hillary's running mate?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
PotatoManJack posted:Who actually are the top candidates for Hillary's running mate? 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Probably someone like Brian Schweitzer. Kind of wish Jerry Brown would run.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Useless Shotgun circa 2007 posted:I love Obama and I plan on supporting him the primaries but anybody who thinks that America would elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama as the democratic candidate, much less President, is out of their mind.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
It was different he wasn't a a out and out socialist.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:It was different he wasn't a a out and out socialist. Dunno if this has ever been polled, but I'd bet the majority of Americans would describe Obama as a socialist.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Dunno if this has ever been polled, but I'd bet the majority of Americans would describe Obama as a socialist. It's going to be really funny when Bernie patiently explains what a socialist actually supports and the majority of Americans go "uhh actually that sounds pretty decent"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
If you want an actual quote from the forums, here's one from November 3, 2004: Dr Mengele posted:
Despite the witty comparison, America is still not ready for a Democratic Socialist president.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Chamale posted:If you want an actual quote from the forums, here's one from November 3, 2004: It is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Wait, people actually think Hillary can win in the general? Lmfao, surely the people in this thread are politically educated enough to know how unlikely it is for the same party to win presidency twice. The only two times that has happened in a recent century was Truman and Bush, both of whom were following superstars who are still widely considered the best American presidents ever. Obama has his fans on the left, but he's nowhere near the level of FDR or Reagan, and never will be. I'm going to try my damnedest to get Bernie elected because my conscience demands it, and, as much as D&D will probably make fun of me, I honestly think a dynamic and energetic candidate stands a better chance of overcoming the general than a generic moderate who will make the election all about personality politics, and then lose because the average American's life didn't improve that much under eight years of Obama, so why not give Republicans a shot?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Wait, people actually think Hillary can win in the general? Lmfao, surely the people in this thread are politically educated enough to know how unlikely it is for the same party to win presidency twice. The only two times that has happened in a recent century was Truman and Bush, both of whom were following superstars who are still widely considered the best American presidents ever. Obama has his fans on the left, but he's nowhere near the level of FDR or Reagan, and never will be. Back in 2004, people were saying that Obama and Hillary each had no chance at all in 2008 and the Democrats needed Bayh (haha) or Edwards (ahahahahahahahaha) to win the general. The average American doesn't pay enough attention to politics to elect someone like Sanders, they're going to vote for whoever seems less likely to do something stupid. Having lots of big ideas is a good way to scare voters.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Back in 2004, people were saying that Obama and Hillary each had no chance at all in 2008 and the Democrats needed Bayh (haha) or Edwards (ahahahahahahahaha) to win the general. The average American doesn't pay enough attention to politics to elect someone like Sanders, they're going to vote for whoever seems less likely to do something stupid. Having lots of big ideas is a good way to scare voters. And you want to know something that's pretty cool about Obama in 2008? He was succeeding an eight-year president who was unpopular to all but the most devoted sections of his party. Man, that sounds really familiar for some reason...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Because America is more polarized now than ever, the Republicans have been nothing but giant whiney babies for the whole country to see, because the blame for poo poo not getting better can be pretty clearly laid at the feet of the actually obstructionist party, because Obamacare actually saves a lot of people a lot of money, because Hillary Clinton has better name recognition than ANYONE, and because frankly she's a very smart woman and will draw out the truly insane levels of misogyny and drive off a lot of GOP women who don't otherwise pay attention to politics very much. Hillary is a fine choice and I'd be happy to vote for her.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:And you want to know something that's pretty cool about Obama in 2008? He was succeeding an eight-year president who was unpopular to all but the most devoted sections of his party. Obama's approval rating is 11 percentage points higher than Dubya's approval rating eight years ago, and that was before the economic collapse cratered Bush's approval rating to 25%.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Because America is more polarized now than ever, the Republicans have been nothing but giant whiney babies for the whole country to see, because the blame for poo poo not getting better can be pretty clearly laid at the feet of the actually obstructionist party, because Obamacare actually saves a lot of people a lot of money, because Hillary Clinton has better name recognition than ANYONE, and because frankly she's a very smart woman and will draw out the truly insane levels of misogyny and drive off a lot of GOP women who don't otherwise pay attention to politics very much. The Republicans look like whiny babies to us enlightened liberals but to the majority of Americans both parties are whiny babies, both parties have incredibly low approval ratings so I wouldn't say blame is "clearly" going to the GOP for a second, Obamacare is also still very unpopular and will probably remain that way until after the election ends, Hillary's name recognition means she has a lot of poo poo sticking to her as well, and outrageous statements about minorities have never slowed down the GOP before. She's going to play a lukewarm game of personality politics that won't move the average disaffected American voter, and they'll go for the opposition party so at least something changes, as they've done throughout American history. quote:Obama's approval rating is 11 percentage points higher than Dubya's approval rating eight years ago, and that was before the economic collapse cratered Bush's approval rating to 25%. Look, I love Obama too, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking he'll have the FDR/Reagan effect on Hillary's campaign. It just isn't there.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
^^^^Obama's still a great campaigner, and much of his campaign methods and machinery will be available to the Democratic party this time through. His endorsement and support will also help ensure many parts of the coalition that supported him among the base will transfer those loyalties to Hillary in the election. I'll be interested to see if there's any lasting effect on minority engagement and turnout thanks to Obama in elections after his term has ended, and it'll also be interesting to see if Hillary running will affect turnout among women voters.Weltlich posted:I think it's dangerous to try to draw comparisons between Obama '08 and Hillary '16 in terms of voter turn-out. Obama had charisma and real momentum going into the general election. People wanted that HOPE and CHANGE. People were a boatload less excited about Hope and Change in 2012, and the shine of "first black President" had more or less come off, yet he still won reelection on "better than a Republican" mostly. And don't underestimate Hillary's charisma (and loaned charisma from Bill, and Obama's own support in the general). It might not work for you, but the Clintons have turned people out before. Besides, if you didn't notice, I said Hillary turned people out in 2008, against Obama. People weren't just voting for her in the primary because they thought in a mercenary way that she'd have a better chance of getting the Republicans out of the White House. Also quick aside to the thread at large but anyone who's looking at Bernie Sanders and thinks "if Obama can throw an upset in 2008, anyone can!" knows nothing about how '08 went down and is clinging too close to fantasy over reality. Dolash fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Well if I am for less wars then I would be for less war profiteering (net)? You can't say that there already isn't war profiteering when the US military is being used. Yeah dude I'm sure there'd be less war profiteering if we made having wars a literal for-profit business paid for strictly by loot. loving Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:And you want to know something that's pretty cool about Obama in 2008? He was succeeding an eight-year president who was unpopular to all but the most devoted sections of his party. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 09:27
|
|
Weltlich posted:I'm pretty sure that Hillary is a losing proposition no matter what republican is running. I only know a handful of Democrats that are genuinely enthusiastic about having to vote for her, while every Republican I know can't wait to get to the polls to vote against her. Outside of a few Northeastern cities, she's a loser. She's Martha Coakley on a national stage. Ugh, the same thing has been on my mind for a while now. The parallels are awful, the only way it could be worse is if Mitt Romney were the nominee again in 2016.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
That's also a ludicrous position, unsupported by evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
is bernie sanders the new meme politician
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
eightpole posted:is bernie sanders the new meme politician I hope so. It would be nice to have a meme that isn't poo poo for once.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
Oh no! Bernie way is too reasonable for the average American! *gets extremely concerned about the inevitable Hillary vs. Repub corporate dick-waving*
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
Nation accidentally votes for its first Socialist President. Millions today were shocked to find out after having cast their votes for him that (D)Bernie Sanders is for real, an actual Socialist. "I thought now that he belongs to the Democratic party that would mean he supports foreign wars, capitalist exploitation, and charter schools. I couldn't have been more wrong!" - S. Jameson, Des Moine "I mean, you always hear from the right about how the Democratic nominee is a socialist this, or a leftist that, but it was always hogwash. It turns out that this time it's true." - P. Sheffield, Seattle "A loving socialist? Really? I just wanted someone other than that bitch Hillary." - K. Johnson, Washington DC "Wow!" - W. Blitzer, Atlanta Bill O'Reilly also chimed in on the matter: "I told you so, you goatfucking rimjob dispensers." quickly adding "At least this one is white." We contacted the Sanders campaign for comment on this troubling situation and were given this quote from President-elect Sanders himself: "I have a four year plan and I'm taxing apple pie. Eat poo poo, America."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
This is a decent, short article by John Dickerson at Slate that talks about how the Sanders campaign will strengthen Clinton's position - I tend to agree. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nt_senator.html 1. Sanders will serve as a liberal foil, and it becomes more difficult for Republicans to point at Clinton and call her a socialist. Regardless of where you view Clinton on the ideological spectrum, she is now readily mapped to the right of Sanders, and voters are drawn towards more moderate candidates for a general election. My personal hope is that when Clinton is inevitably called a 'socialist' by the Republicans, it will ring a little more hollow with Bernie in the race. When Clinton was the sole candidate in the race she could be defined as anything you wanted her to be, something that Republicans will not need any encouragement to do anyway. 2. Bernie Sanders is not going to attack Clinton in any sort of effective, damaging way. From the NYTimes article announcing his candidacy, the authors note "Mr. Sanders, 73, has said that he will not run a negative campaign and that he has never run an attack ad in his life." Sanders is not going to do the kind of political take-down necessary to win the primary (duh) and the two candidates will have a debate of ideas, which is good. I don't think you're going to see major disagreements between Sanders and Clinton being aired out, but I recognize that it is still early. 3. Clinton is going to co-opt all of Bernie's juicy liberal positions. His rhetoric is already showing up in Clinton's campaign, such as calling herself the 'People's Champion' which Bernie used before Clinton. Also, comments about hedge fund managers having a lower tax rate than truckers and nurses was a line that Clinton lifted directly from Sanders (although its a common rhetorical device). Also, all of the posters writing variations of "everyone I know hates/dislikes/lukewarm about Hillary, she can't win!" are so intellectually lazy and just poo poo-posting. Clearly, you couldn't do any research into whether your personal experience has any connection to the wider world. Joementum keeps posting that Familiarity and Favorability from Gallup but I guess it hasn't saturated this thread very well.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
All I'm saying is that if you restrict the sample size to people from Vermont who vote Democratic then Hillary's numbers don't look so good. You've gotta unskew those polls!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Wait, people actually think Hillary can win in the general? Lmfao, surely the people in this thread are politically educated enough to know how unlikely it is for the same party to win presidency twice. The only two times that has happened in a recent century was Truman and Bush, both of whom were following superstars who are still widely considered the best American presidents ever. Obama has his fans on the left, but he's nowhere near the level of FDR or Reagan, and never will be. The people in this thread are politically educated enough to know that presidential elections don't happen frequently enough to make predictions based on past patterns
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:It's more "maybe we shouldn't forget that a large portion of america is poor, white, and easily manipulated by right wing politics and we could do well by ceasing to ignore them in favor of coastal liberals with trust funds and tricking ethnic minorities into trusting democrats" Instead, we'll embrace white supremacy . (There's already a character in the race that's doing that)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:All I'm saying is that if you restrict the sample size to people from Vermont who vote Democratic then Hillary's numbers don't look so good. You've gotta unskew those polls! Oh my God unskewed polls I remember that site, good times.  How did it work again? They would take actual poll results and just make poo poo up? Was there any kind of system to it?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Oh my God unskewed polls I remember that site, good times. Even better was the goon whose name I can't recall, but was a reference to Corvettes. He was super pissy, because he was also unskewing the polls, but not going as far. As a result, his lovely website wasn't getting nearly the traffic of the even more insane unskewing sites.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:51
|
|
