|
jarofpiss posted:Seriously, what is with this "yeah but the democrats don't beat the working class as hard as the republicans so that's got to count for something" I mean, first I love Bernie. I'm glad he's running. I don't think he stands a chance in the primary, but I hope he does well and shifts the tenor of the election to the left. I don't want him to win, because I think he would not stand a prayer of a chance in a general election and despite claims to the contrary, there is a substantial difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. Maybe if you're a college student or a middle class salary worker, you might not feel it regardless of who wins - but the poor and very poor are the ones who are most vulnerable to the sociopathic GOP policies that cut food stamps, disability payments, etc.
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Unless Bernie is going to keep running against Hillary after losing the primary, this is all irrelevant bullshit and you're just using this as an excuse to poo poo on people for not being jaded enough. Seriously. I thought the Serious Attitude was to vote for the more liberal person in the primary then support the Democrats no matter what in the general. It sounds like now leftists have to support the party favorite from the very beginning or be responsible for every death in the next Iraq war.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Maybe if you're a college student or a middle class salary worker, you might not feel it regardless of who wins - but the poor and very poor are the ones who are most vulnerable to the sociopathic GOP policies that cut food stamps, disability payments, etc. But enough about Bill Clinton
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:Seriously, what is with this "yeah but the democrats don't beat the working class as hard as the republicans so that's got to count for something" Wanting a higher minimum wage and more taxes for the rich counts as beating the working class now?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:But enough about Bill Clinton good thing Bill Clinton has come out against the stuff he did vis a vis welfare during his term.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I mean, first I love Bernie. I'm glad he's running. I don't think he stands a chance in the primary, but I hope he does well and shifts the tenor of the election to the left. I don't want him to win, because I think he would not stand a prayer of a chance in a general election and despite claims to the contrary, there is a substantial difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. Maybe if you're a college student or a middle class salary worker, you might not feel it regardless of who wins - but the poor and very poor are the ones who are most vulnerable to the sociopathic GOP policies that cut food stamps, disability payments, etc. You're right about that at least. I'm still mad from being ordered back to work by Obama when my union struck over healthcare, and I've consistently seen the democratic party kowtow to business over the interest of unions with the knowledge that those union donations were safe. Just because the democrats weren't calling for the out and out dismantling and enslavement of the former union workers, they knew that the unions had no real choice in their funding. While the centrism of the democratic party may be complete garbage, I guess I'll vote democrat whatever comes in the general just because I don't think that we should burn the poor for fuel.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Radish posted:Seriously. I thought the Serious Attitude was to vote for the more liberal person in the primary then support the Democrats no matter what in the general. It sounds like now leftists have to support the party favorite from the very beginning or be responsible for every death in the next Iraq war. It is, for some reason people are acting like he's in as a permanent spoiler.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Morrow posted:I can most definitely trust Clinton to spend eight years ripping the GOP a new blowhole. Never thought of it this way. Hopefully it's true. Not really sure how she's supposed to deal with congress though.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
When will this truth in the middle "both sides are equally bad" south park poo poo die.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:good thing Bill Clinton has come out against the stuff he did vis a vis welfare during his term. lol yeah a really good thing
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:But enough about Bill Clinton Welfare reform was a mistake, sure. And I think Clinton made huge mistakes when he drifted to the right following the GOP's midterm win. But you can't ignore the huge increases in spending to public education, the creation of CHIP, the attempt to create universal health care, EITC, etc. The difference between Clinton and GWB was night and day, and Clinton was a very centrist Democrat.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Radish posted:Seriously. I thought the Serious Attitude was to vote for the more liberal person in the primary then support the Democrats no matter what in the general. Literally everyone is doing this, gently caress. Everyone is just talking past each other or saying dumb things like "Hillary Clinton is almost as bad as the eventual republican candidate."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:good thing Bill Clinton has come out against the stuff he did vis a vis welfare during his term. Bill Clinton said a thing that meshes with popular opinion because what he did in the past that was popular then is unpopular now? 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
It's almost like politics evolves over time!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The idea that Hillary is "Republican lite" is absurd. You guys focus on like two or three issues and then generalize them to create a picture. She's always been farther to the left than Bill, and she has drifted to the left over the past decade. Is she a centrist? Sure. Is she "Republican lite?" I think that's stretching it, considering she was generally a reliable vote for the center-left in the Senate and an advocate for policies farther to the left in the Clinton administration. I feel I may be ignorant in a lot of HRC's policys. What leftist promises is she making that would possibly distinguish her presidency from say Obama who I feel if not constantly being attacked by Republicans would be republican-lite. The most stand-out choices from his presidency seem to be forcing a massive conservitive think tank inspired Healthcare plan and finding new creative ways to abuse the Patriot Act and attack people we don't like in other countries. (At least he got Osama!)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Literally everyone is doing this, gently caress. Everyone is just talking past each other or saying dumb things like "Hillary Clinton is almost as bad as the eventual republican candidate." Hillary Clinton is indeed the lesser evil. The difference with Bernie is that he's not an evil at all.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
"Psh, Hillary Clinton is just as bad as :Jeb Bush." - a totally earnest sixteen year old
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
CrowdControl posted:I feel I may be ignorant in a lot of HRC's policys. What leftist promises is she making that would possibly distinguish her presidency from say Obama who I feel if not constantly being attacked by Republicans would be republican-lite. The most stand-out choices from his presidency seem to be forcing a massive conservitive think tank inspired Healthcare plan and finding new creative ways to abuse the Patriot Act and attack people we don't like in other countries. (At least he got Osama!) Obamacare and drone strikes are both good things.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
It's important to vote for Bernie in the primary in order to show that progressives are a real and significant portion of the Democratic base, so that leftist policies can begin to be discussed and adopted, and it is equally important to vote for the Democratic nominee (Hillary) to show that Americans do not want Republican policy on a national level.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:It's important to vote for Bernie in the primary in order to show that progressives are a real and significant portion of the Democratic base, so that leftist policies can begin to be discussed and adopted, and it is equally important to vote for the Democratic nominee (Hillary) to show that Americans do not want Republican policy on a national level. See, I agree with this completely.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
The Democratic Party will not take the left seriously until it wins a primary or it faces a serious third party challenge from the left. The Democrats only picked up progressivism and the labor movement after challenges from the Populists and Socialists. Crying about spoilers and demanding leftists fall in line will simply maintain the party as is.
Sheng-Ji Yang fucked around with this message at 20:04 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:The Democratic Party will not take the left seriously until it wins a primary Which is why people should vote for Bernie quote:or it faces a serious third party challenge from the left. Which isn't happening any time remotely soon
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:The Democratic Party will not take the left seriously until it wins a primary or it faces a serious third party challenge from the left. The Democrats only picked up progressivism and the labor movement after challenges from the Populists and Socialists. Crying about spoilers and demanding leftists fall in line will simply maintain the party as is. I think primary challenges are great, unless it's in a competitive seat and the primary is some hopeless challenge that will only imperil the general and accomplish nothing of value. (A good example - the pointless Wisconsin primary before the recall that allowed Walker to exploit a loophole in the law that gave him unlimited fundraising while dividing Democrats 30 days from the general recall election) A general election left wing challenge in a competitive state will have the opposite effect - a lot of leftist votes will essentially be excluded from the electorate and the Democrats will be forced to compete for the center-right to win (and that will probably fail). I mean, the bottom line is that the left is a minority part of one of the two major parties. Most of the time, the left will not be satisfied with any Democrat running that can win a general election. So what's the point? If the left is going to throw their votes away, then why bother running for left-wing votes and abandon the majority of voters who might otherwise be inclined to back them?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Obamacare and drone strikes are both good things. I think some uses of drone strikes are good, some are very bad. And we have not been very discriminate with our targets. I would consider the double tap strategy a war crime. I also worry about the ramifications of having military operations in contries we are not at war with and do not want us there be an OK thing to do. Obamacare is a huge boon to insurance company workers and it's good that we recognize our healthcare system is failing. But it still will leave many in the lower income brackets out of care they need because the treatment decisions are in the hands of insuance. Also it merely hold us off from joining the rest of the modern world in single-payer healthcare. Don't get me wrong the Republican candidates so far look like absurd cartoons but I'd like anything that would make me excited to have Hillary as president besides that it would be nice to have a woman in office.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I think primary challenges are great, unless it's in a competitive seat and the primary is some hopeless challenge that will only imperil the general and accomplish nothing of value. (A good example - the pointless Wisconsin primary before the recall that allowed Walker to exploit a loophole in the law that gave him unlimited fundraising while dividing Democrats 30 days from the general recall election) A general election left wing challenge in a competitive state will have the opposite effect - a lot of leftist votes will essentially be excluded from the electorate and the Democrats will be forced to compete for the center-right to win (and that will probably fail). I mean, the bottom line is that the left is a minority part of one of the two major parties. Most of the time, the left will not be satisfied with any Democrat running that can win a general election. So what's the point? If the left is going to throw their votes away, then why bother running for left-wing votes and abandon the majority of voters who might otherwise be inclined to back them? The point is that it forces the Democratic Party to shift to the left in the future to address the challengers concerns, as has been shown repeatedly in American history. Without the Populists there would have been no progressivism, without the Socialists there would have been no Democratic embracement of labor, without Huey Long's Share The Wealth threat the New Deal would have been significantly neutered.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:The point is that it forces the Democratic Party to shift to the left in the future to address the challengers concerns, as has been shown repeatedly in American history. Without the Populists there would have been no progressivism, without the Socialists there would have been no Democratic embracement of labor, without Huey Long's Share The Wealth threat the New Deal would have been significantly neutered. And in 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President. In 1968, Wallace ran for President. Neither of their campaigns managed to bring segregation politics in the Democratic mainstream - if anything, they further marginalized their positions. The modern primary and electoral system have essentially made third party politics a drain. A good example would be the Montana 2012 Senate election, in which a Democratic-funded SuperPAC ran ads for the libertarian candidate accusing the GOPer of wanting to place cameras in forests and spy on hunters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaZN7ae0uro Even though the Libertarian won a substantial share of the vote in 2012, Steve Daines wasn't even slightly more libertarian than Rehberg. It doesn't make a drat difference. And really, modern parties have far more sophisticated methods to determine how to get to 51% of voters than looking at the last election and saying "golly gee if we win those 100k left wing voters we'll win the election." There is substantial amounts of message testing, polling, etc that shapes a candidate's messaging and positions.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:And in 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President. In 1968, Wallace ran for President. Neither of their campaigns managed to bring segregation politics in the Democratic mainstream - if anything, they further marginalized their positions. The modern primary and electoral system have essentially made third party politics a drain. A good example would be the Montana 2012 Senate election, in which a Democratic-funded SuperPAC ran ads for the libertarian candidate accusing the GOPer of wanting to place cameras in forests and spy on hunters. The Dixiecrats were co-opted by the Republicans with the Southern Strategy, not the Democrats. Regardless their concerns were adopted by a major party. I'd say the only large third party that didn't have their plank co-opted by a major party would be Ross Perot.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Can we change the thread title to Bernie Boosters
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Jeb Bush isn't even the real threat; Walker is.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Zelder posted:"Psh, Hillary Clinton is just as bad as :Jeb Bush." - a totally earnest sixteen year old I was sixteen in 2000, and I had other 16 year olds try and convince me GWB was as good, if not better, on the environment than Al loving Gore.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:The Dixiecrats were co-opted by the Republicans with the Southern Strategy, not the Democrats. Regardless their concerns were adopted by a major party. I'd say the only large third party that didn't have their plank co-opted by a major party would be Ross Perot. The Dixiecrats became Republicans because the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act, not because the Republicans promised to keep black people out of their schools. George Wallace ran in 1968, four years after Goldwater's original wins in the south against Lyndon Johnson. (Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act) Nixon ran on dogwhistle politics in the South, but lest we forget, he lost most of the south to Wallace in 1968 who ran on basically being even more racist. Which is a great lesson on the futility of trying to prevent third party challenges by running to the left.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I was sixteen in 2000, and I had other 16 year olds try and convince me GWB was as good, if not better, on the environment than Al loving Gore. Despite whatever internet reddit speak people say about Clinton getting more popular after being a creep the clinton administration and thus gore rubbed a lot of america the wrong way
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Jeb Bush isn't even the real threat; Walker is. Every time I see a picture of him I think, "there's no way this guy could get enough support to be a threat to anyone. He looks like a Jack O'Lantern that's been outside not long enough to be really gross, but is definitely a little mushy." Then I remember what happened in Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Despite whatever internet reddit speak people say about Clinton getting more popular after being a creep I get that, but Al Gore literally wrote the book on global warming.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Jeb Bush isn't even the real threat; Walker is. Given past primaries the real threat is the GOP candidate that doesn't shoot himself in the food repeatedly when he is the media flavor of the week.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:Given past primaries the real threat is the GOP candidate that doesn't shoot himself in the food repeatedly when he is the media flavor of the week. No, Walker is definitely pursuing the Sailer strategy to get the nom. Which means to block him the other candidates will need to follow suit. So when whoever* eventually wins, they will still follow it because that's where their statements will have positioned them. I don't really think there will be anything more damaging to this country in my lifetime than the political discourse shifting to one of the major political parties shifting to explicitly advance racial interests. It will be a lunge back 50 years. *its gonna be Bush.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:Then what's with the defeatism? If you would prefer to avoid evidence that Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party for President in 2016, I strongly recommend not reading this thread, or the news, or polls, or popular histories of primary elections.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Every time I see a picture of him I think, "there's no way this guy could get enough support to be a threat to anyone. He looks like a Jack O'Lantern that's been outside not long enough to be really gross, but is definitely a little mushy." Then I remember what happened in Wisconsin. Walker will be a good barometer on just how important corporate money and interests are in a presidential campaign, because he's really got nothing else going for him. He's a dumpy, uncharismatic, uneducated union-busting Reaganite who survived a poorly executed recall attempt but has driven his state into the ground and lost a ton of local support. Nevertheless he will have a nearly bottomless war chest, funded by a rabidly anti-labor puppet master who's got exactly what he's wanted from Walker so far in his tenure as governor. In fact, isn't the reason Walker and Jeb have not declared yet based on being able to wring out even more money from SuperPACs by waiting somehow?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:In fact, isn't the reason Walker and Jeb have not declared yet based on being able to wring out even more money from SuperPACs by waiting somehow? At least for Jeb, this is true. Until he officially declares he can continue to direct the Right to Rise PAC all he wants.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Nonsense posted:Jeb Bush isn't even the real threat; Walker is. To a yard full of rakes, sure.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:43
|
|