|
ElrondHubbard posted:Since when have general elections been about actual policies and not optics? Vienna Circlejerk posted:
The person I was responding to said that he wasn't a viable candidate because his policies are too far left, so I was just responding to that. If you think there's something unrelated to his policies that would make him lose so badly feel free to point it out. Granted, Bernie is not going to be the nominee so this is just hypothetical, I just don't agree that he would necessarily be crushed in the general. ElrondHubbard posted:Like Ron Paul, Bernie has attracted the fanatical and often obnoxious loyalty of many first time voters / internet schmucks who have proceeded to annoy the hell out of everyone with their bizarre overconfidence, contemptuous / venomous attitude toward other candidates + their supporters, and general lack of understanding of how politics work in the US. There is of course a plethora of non-obnoxious, reasonable, and informed individuals who support Bernie, but they end up as collateral damage when the backlash hits against the former group, in this case being likened to Ron Paul fanatics. I think that anyone who seriously thinks he's going to be the nominee is a fool but I can't blame them for being excited. Benie is the only candidate on either side who is even remotely worthy of excitement, and this is coming from someone who is not a socialist or a leftist at all. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 15, 2015 |
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:07
|
|
It's like you've never seen a U.S. Presidential election before. We have such sights to show you.
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:Since when have general elections been about actual policies and not optics? People hate Obamacare with a passion, but like every single aspect of it individually. This seems like an odd example given that Obama was elected president twice.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The person I was responding to said that he wasn't a viable candidate because his policies are too far left, so I was just responding to that. If you think there's something unrelated to his policies that would make him lose so badly feel free to point it out. Granted, Bernie is not going to be the nominee so this is just hypothetical, I just don't agree that he would necessarily be crushed in the general. He calls himself a socialist. That's literally all that is required to sink him. It doesn't matter how good or bad his politics are, or anything else. That alone will sink him.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:What actual policy positions does Bernie have that would be so offputting as to make him lose in the general? Most of the stuff he talks about is generic economic populist stuff that polls pretty well among the electorate, the only real liability is the "socialist" label he uses. Do you know who else used the label "socialist"?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It goes back further than that - Howard Dean 2004 was the blueprint for smug internet first-timers thinking they were overthrowing the system. Electing Sanders isn't destroying the system, what the hell are people even thinking? Also Dean's collapse at least put him the position to help Obama win it big in '08.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
2 more
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:2 more Has anyone said this and then said they weren't running? Because it seems like such a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This seems like an odd example given that Obama was elected president twice. Obama's optics were pretty spectacular in 2008. They were severely tarnished by his first 4 years in office (including Obamacare) and he won be a smaller margin against Mitt "47% of people are parasites" Romney. Nonsense posted:Electing Sanders isn't destroying the system, what the hell are people even thinking? Also Dean's collapse at least put him the position to help Obama win it big in '08. People have a habit of assuming the president has godlike power within our political system and when the economy is doing worse or certain legislation isn't being passed, it is a deliberate act of betrayal and malevolence on their behalf. They also have a very loose understanding of what "the system" is.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Electing Sanders isn't destroying the system, what the hell are people even thinking? Also Dean's collapse at least put him the position to help Obama win it big in '08. I thought Dean was the one who started the 50 state initiative that the party ignored?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
site posted:I thought Dean was the one who started the 50 state initiative that the party ignored? They did when he ran on his own in 2004, but by 2008 he was DNC chair and thus able to push it on the party from the top down.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:They did when he ran on his own in 2004, but by 2008 he was DNC chair and thus able to push it on the party from the top down. Ah. Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I think that anyone who seriously thinks he's going to be the nominee is a fool but I can't blame them for being excited. Benie is the only candidate on either side who is even remotely worthy of excitement, and this is coming from someone who is not a socialist or a leftist at all. Excitement is fine. Belligerent hostility toward other candidates and throwing tantrums anytime someone suggests he won't win the primary / general is another story. Go back a couple dozen pages for examples.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Has anyone said this and then said they weren't running? Because it seems like such a waste of everyone's time. John Bolton just did
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:John Bolton just did He said it was time for him to stand aside and let the next generation lead the nation. Presumably he meant his natural born son, Ramsay
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
site posted:I thought Dean was the one who started the 50 state initiative that the party ignored? The 50 state initiative wasn't ignored, nor was it a failure. I think a lot of people confused it with "making the Democratic party competitive in every state" which is obviously never going to happen. But it did modernize and professionalize dozens of state parties that were largely useless organs that existed to give out titles to big donors. Many of them still aren't great, but a heck of a lot better than they were in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
I'm actually not that excited for Bernie, and I'll tell you why. Posting from the heart and all that. First of all is the disclaimer that I think he has every right to run in the primary and I believe he seems to know that the best use he can make of his time, is to push the conversation leftwards, rather than try to split off a critical chunk of the Democratic bloc in order to make a statement which will probably end up a redo of 2000. I am in agreement with most of Sanders' policies that I know of. However, the presidency is not about just choosing the ideal candidate in a vacuum. I look at Bernie and, yes, I see shadows of Ralph Nader. In my first presidential election I voted for Nader myself, but I lived in NJ, and I believe Gore won the state. You may tell me I'm dumb, that Gore lost the election, that it wasn't Nader's fault, and so on and so forth, but the resulting wreckage has blighted my younger years and has probably permanently impacted the rest of my life, to say nothing of the thousands of injured and dead Americans and the unknowable-as-yet numbers of injured and dead in other nations. I don't think there is a reality where Sanders becomes president with an electoral majority. (And if he did, there is the fact that he is an independent despite running as a Democrat, which could well interfere with legislative coalitions.) Therefore, Sanders is likely to encounter a hostile legislature and will primarily veto whatever froth comes out of their mouths. I am sure they will attempt to impeach him, probably before he comes to office. Now, much of this is true for Hillary too. However, I think that Hillary could probably make more effective use of the executive branch's mechanisms, much as Obama has. She might have less ambitious goals, yes, but eighty percent of a modest loaf may outweigh ten percent of a large one. I also think that in the event of a slim Democratic majority, Hillary would probably be able to work more effectively with them, which I think is one of the genuine places where Obama erred (as opposed to not being a liberal savior like many envisioned). You may well bring up foreign policy. I can't really say here except that I don't think Hillary is going to invade Iran, while I think any Republican who wins would. Everything else past that, while perhaps morally and legally very important (certainly to possible victims of our aggression) will be small potatoes compared to invading Iran. As far as personal details go, I think various accusations of Hillary being "ambitious" are dumb. Anyone who has the guts to run for public office is ambitious, and ambition isn't necessarily hostile - though it can become destructive. I don't think Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Elizabeth Warren, or any other outsider person is Cincinnatus reborn, though I do think they are cunning enough to present themselves as such. You may in turn say I lack vision or courage here, and you're probably right, but this did not come out of nowhere. The potential downside is huge, and I think that Hillary is 'a lesser upside' not 'a smaller downside.' I do hope Sanders builds up interest and pushes Hillary leftwards, and I do not wish him or his supporters poorly.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I'm actually not that excited for Bernie, and I'll tell you why. Posting from the heart and all that. I think you are way too haunted by Nader's impact, real or imagined, in 2000. Sanders has already ruled out an independent run and has said he isn't going to campaign negatively. And yes, you can claim that it's one thing to say something and another to do it, I'd argue that looking at Bernie's campaign and legislative history since he got to Congress in the early 90s shows the man can usually be relied upon to actually do what he says he will and not be an ego-driven weasel like Nader (who I also don't think much of, in case that wasn't obvious). When Bernie loses the primary, which I'd prefer didn't happen but being realistic must admit is much more likely than not, he'll step aside and in all likelihood endorse Hillary barring some horrific revelation (ie: she's planning on invading Iran or has said anything positive about New Hampshire's maple syrup). This isn't going to fracture the Democratic base or even hive off/alienate a significant number of them.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Sanders hired Jeff Weaver, an aide, and Phil Fiermonte, a guy who has worked in his district office for a decade, as his campaign manager and field director respectively. Color me unimpressed with hiring staffers for positions they've never even gotten close to being qualified for. It says a lot about what Sanders thinks he will achieve in the primary.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I think you are way too haunted by Nader's impact, real or imagined, in 2000. Sanders has already ruled out an independent run and has said he isn't going to campaign negatively. And yes, you can claim that it's one thing to say something and another to do it, I'd argue that looking at Bernie's campaign and legislative history since he got to Congress in the early 90s shows the man can usually be relied upon to actually do what he says he will and not be an ego-driven weasel like Nader (who I also don't think much of, in case that wasn't obvious).
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I think you are way too haunted by Nader's impact, real or imagined, in 2000. Coming from a similar place as him, I suspect it has more to do with being really, really weary of people saying there's almost no difference between Hillary Clinton and any of the republicans, because that was a frequent refrain about Gore v. Bush, than with actually thinking Bernie is going to be a 2000 esque Ralph Nader spoiler.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't think there is a reality where Sanders becomes president with an electoral majority. (And if he did, there is the fact that he is an independent despite running as a Democrat, which could well interfere with legislative coalitions.) Therefore, Sanders is likely to encounter a hostile legislature and will primarily veto whatever froth comes out of their mouths. I am sure they will attempt to impeach him, probably before he comes to office. Wait what? Is that even possible? An unlikely candidate gets elected and congress can just go 'lol nope try again plebes'? I'm inclined to call BS on that one
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:Excitement is fine. Belligerent hostility toward other candidates and throwing tantrums anytime someone suggests he won't win the primary / general is another story. Go back a couple dozen pages for examples. I don't think anyone actually did this, including me. The extent of anyone's posting about Bernie has been excitement and "hey, maybe don't be an rear end in a top hat who does nothing but post 'LOL n00b hes never winning pwnt' style rebuttals to said excitement."
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ Cool article I just stumbled onto. Totally irrelevant to the political discourse in this thread, but interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Sanders hired Jeff Weaver, an aide, and Phil Fiermonte, a guy who has worked in his district office for a decade, as his campaign manager and field director respectively. Color me unimpressed with hiring staffers for positions they've never even gotten close to being qualified for. It says a lot about what Sanders thinks he will achieve in the primary. Where did you see this? Last I heard it was this guy who ran Gore and Kerry's campaigns.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
sentientcarbon posted:Wait what? Is that even possible? An unlikely candidate gets elected and congress can just go 'lol nope try again plebes'? I'm inclined to call BS on that one Like this is one of Hillary's subtle advantages, and I think we see it operating now. Some new drat thing comes out - for Hillary it's like "yeah sure uh huh she deleted her emails  maybe they were full of her secret plans for Benghazi and Whitewater too"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I am quite sure that the House could pre-emptively try to censure hypothetical President-elect Sanders and might very well do so. I am quite sure they would do so to Hillary but for Hillary there is a certain degree of... I'm not sure how to put it, since it's not "Teflon" so much as "Accreted Layer Of Two+ Entire Decades Of Constant Shitslinging." Yes, the House would immediately impeach a hypothetical President Sanders, just like all the times they've impeached Obama.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I am quite sure that the House could pre-emptively try to censure hypothetical President-elect Sanders and might very well do so. I am quite sure they would do so to Hillary but for Hillary there is a certain degree of... I'm not sure how to put it, since it's not "Teflon" so much as "Accreted Layer Of Two+ Entire Decades Of Constant Shitslinging." And Obama's going to get assassinated if he makes it in, definitely.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:And Obama's going to get assassinated if he makes it in, definitely. Well, he would have, but Lowtax closed LF instead.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:And Obama's going to get assassinated if he makes it in, definitely. Speaking of which, did any politicians call him the n-word? Like, in public? I have monopoly money running on this and I can't think of any examples. I mean I really wanted someone from congress to do it but time's running out.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Speaking of which, did any politicians call him the n-word? Like, in public? I have monopoly money running on this and I can't think of any examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2HpSUU53-A
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
So close yet so far 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Has anyone said this and then said they weren't running? Because it seems like such a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Because both candidates have things they don't want to discuss in a debate (or anywhere for that matter) and neither want to risk it. Plus moderators don't want to risk it because if they allow it then the loser's party might blacklist that moderator or their network when it comes to future interviews and the winner might do the same. The only winners in these cases are the people not on stage, which is why the people in the debates tend to agree to leave certain topics unsaid. Do you have any kind of proof for this idea? Because otherwise I don't see how there has ever been a debate where someone was humiliated when they didn't do it to themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:I don't think anyone actually did this, including me. The extent of anyone's posting about Bernie has been excitement and "hey, maybe don't be an rear end in a top hat who does nothing but post 'LOL n00b hes never winning pwnt' style rebuttals to said excitement." For one thing, I was originally referring to certain Bernie fans like this guy: jarofpiss posted:I'm unironically ronpauling for Bernie because it's going to take that to get him to win the nomination. I'm not concerned about my reputation as an electoral prognosticator and I don't understand this "well I'm going to vote for him in the primary like everyone around me because we all agree he's the better candidate but by god he will LOSE this thing" attitude. ...until I looked at your post history. Under the vegetable posted:Honestly if Bernie doesn't win the primaries I'm going full accelerationist and voting a straight R in the general. Under the vegetable posted:No one thinks Hillary will be worse than the Republican candidates. She will, if she gets in, however, be almost as bad. Under the vegetable posted:Hillary Clinton is a reptoid space criminal. This is not coded antisemitism, because Bernie Sanders is a confirmed one hundred percent human being, and is also Jewish. Under the vegetable posted:Spoilers, if it's Hillary vs a Republican, you're voting for both banks AND wars no matter what you do.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
messagemode1 posted:Mitt Romney is going to fight Evander Holyfield?! I still have good odds on Romney trying to Stand His Ground. A black man was trying to do him bodily harm, after all. Glenn Zimmerman posted:Speaking of which, did any politicians call him the n-word? Like, in public? I have monopoly money running on this and I can't think of any examples. Joe Walsh?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
sentientcarbon posted:Wait what? Is that even possible? An unlikely candidate gets elected and congress can just go 'lol nope try again plebes'? I'm inclined to call BS on that one Well, there was the time a socialist candidate who won was packed off to jail before he could take his seat in the House...but that was in the 1920's.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:For one thing, I was originally referring to certain Bernie fans like this guy: Wow, a joke, a true statement, another joke, and another true statement. So damning. The first thing I almost immediately said was a joke but then people started posting freakouts about "accelerationists in the thread!" as if there were more than one, and as if that one was more than a joke.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure how, after eight years of a center-right Obama presidency, people seem to think it's a shocking, biased, or illogical statement that Hillary will in practice be a similarly center-right politician. When the actual right wing in this country are literally lunatics and fascists I understand it skews the spectrum a little bit but there's nothing unreasonable about saying that Hillary is, in the global sense, a right wing politician. People are aware that, despite what Fox News would like you to believe, there are more defining characteristics to conservatism than hating the guts of everyone who isn't a cis het white Christian or Jewish man, right? Under the vegetable fucked around with this message at 00:20 on May 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Wait, are you actually saying this will be the Republican response? Where did I say this would be the Republican response??
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Where did you see this? Last I heard it was this guy who ran Gore and Kerry's campaigns. Source: http://www.wcax.com/story/29075550/sanders-names-2-long-time-aides-to-presidential-campaig Tad is the consultant. ("Senior Advisor") He helps develop the campaign strategy. I'm not a particularly large fan of him, either, but he is definitely both experienced and qualified. Can't say the same for Bernie's actual picks.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 00:37
|
|