|
The Shortest Path posted:Every single person in this thread has the power to register Democrat and vote in the primary. His polling numbers are similar to if not better than what Obama had in a similar timeframe for the 2008 election. Don't be lazy and give the cop-out "my vote doesn't matter" excuse, because the more people that do that the more we lose. The below are the five most recent nationwide polls for the 2016 Democratic primary and the five most recent for 2008 Democratic primary as of eight years ago today according to Wikipedia. Reuters/Ipsos, Jun 6–10, 2015, Bernie Sanders 16% Fox News, May 31 – June 2, 2015, Bernie Sander 11% CNN/ORC, May 29–31, 2015, Bernie Sanders 10% ABC/Washington Post, May 28–31, 2015, Bernie Sanders 10% Quinnipac University, May 19–26, 2015, Bernie Sander 15% Newsweek Poll, June 20–21, 2007, Barack Obama 27% Rasmussen Reports Poll, June 18–21, 2007, Barack Obama 25% Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll, June 15–17, 2007, Barack Obama 20% USA Today/Gallup Poll, June 11–14, 2007, Barack Obama 21% Rasmussen Reports Poll, June 11–14, 2007, Barack Obama 27%
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
After years of screaming about government getting between a patient and her doctor, the GOP can finally nominate a candidate with firsthand experience in the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
edit: double post
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
All of Jeb!'s supporters are braindead. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Every single person in this thread has the power to register Democrat and vote in the primary. His polling numbers are similar to if not better than what Obama had in a similar timeframe for the 2008 election. Don't be lazy and give the cop-out "my vote doesn't matter" excuse, because the more people that do that the more we lose. This is absolute nonsense. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html http://www.gallup.com/poll/27985/where-election-stands-june-2007.aspx e:f;b
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:Jeb's bullshit on the campaign trail hasn't really been worth getting too riled up about, but this is making my blood boil. Guys, guys--we need to be careful about getting religion too involved in politics, remember?  Except when I want it to be of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:All of Jeb!'s supporters are braindead. Got it. I can't really call anyone willing to give him money for deploying the full leverage of the state against a families' medical decisions while he rages against the ACA and overbearing feds a real serious scholar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
lolquote:The diplomatic overture was dispatched to Hu Yaobang, chairman of the Chinese Communist party, on 29 October 1981. A near-identical letter was sent to the Kremlin, for the attention of Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-profile-democrat-presidential-candidate
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:lol My dude is legit as gently caress. As a side bar, there's a huge coalition of mayors that were (and still are) in solidarity with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They're all for nuclear disarmament because it's not states that get blown to hell and back, it's cities. It's cool stuff and my wife got to talk to the mayor of Nagasaki about it in 2011 (all over scotch and karaoke; I'm not even making GBS threads you). In terms of the primaries, if Bernie (somehow magically which is impossible because he's amazing) loses the primary, I'm not sure how I can vote for Hillary. I just don't stand behind her politics at all. Is there any hope of a Hillary presidency doing any good based on what we know today? We all had high hopes for Obama, but I feel like it's just going to be 4/8 more years of the same poo poo. And yes, I do realize I just implied that the race is only between our lord and savior Senator Sanders and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The below are the five most recent nationwide polls for the 2016 Democratic primary and the five most recent for 2008 Democratic primary as of eight years ago today according to Wikipedia. I'm not sure this is very important. Polls this early are mostly about name recognition, and Illinois has 20 times the population of Vermont (12.8M to 626k). The Chicago metro area alone, where Obama lived, worked, and ran for office for a fair few years, is 9.5M people. So despite Sanders' much longer tenure in the Senate, I don't find it surprising that Obama was polling better in 2007. In any case, if you like Sanders more than Clinton, do something about it. Donate, talk to people, do what you can to build awareness. Go vote for him. If you think you can't, don't assume - make sure. Call your local board of elections or whoever and ask.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:I'm not sure this is very important. Polls this early are mostly about name recognition, and Illinois has 20 times the population of Vermont (12.8M to 626k). I'm not suggesting that polls are how we should judge the race right now, but I was responding to someone who specifically made a statement about polling and I thought it worth correcting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
But Obama had an unfair advantage since he was black and his name was a combination of the United States' most notorious enemies of the past two decades 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:Is there any hope of a Hillary presidency doing any good based on what we know today? i know this is basically #voteleastworst but as of 2020, the ages of the current SCOTUS justices: Ginsburg: 86 Scalia: 83 Kennedy: 83 Breyer: 81 Thomas: 71 Alito: 69 Roberts: 65 Sotomayor: 65 Kagan: 59 I'd vote Hillary just to keep Alito II off the bench.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
I think Krugman might be a goon. Voodoo, Jeb! Style quote:On Monday Jeb Bush — or I guess that’s Jeb!, since he seems to have decided to replace his family name with a punctuation mark — finally made his campaign for the White House official, and gave us a first view of his policy goals. First, he says that if elected he would double America’s rate of economic growth to 4 percent. Second, he would make it possible for every American to lose as much weight as he or she wants, without any need for dieting or exercise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:i know this is basically #voteleastworst but as of 2020, the ages of the current SCOTUS justices: Holy poo poo. I had no idea our SCOTUS' age gap was that loving huge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:In terms of the primaries, if Bernie (somehow magically which is impossible because he's amazing) loses the primary, I'm not sure how I can vote for Hillary. I just don't stand behind her politics at all. Is there any hope of a Hillary presidency doing any good based on what we know today? We all had high hopes for Obama, but I feel like it's just going to be 4/8 more years of the same poo poo. What do you think Bernie will successfully accomplish in the Presidency that Hillary wouldn't? Which isn't to say they're the same thing, rather the things you can do are limited when Congress can't even vote for things they like if you happen to say you aren't against those things. Judicial nominations seem like a wash between Hillary and Bernie, so what executive actions do you think he will implement that she will not. Also, if you don't vote Hillary, do you just stay home, or do you vote for someone who has no chance of winning? Johnny Cache Hit posted:i know this is basically #voteleastworst but as of 2020, the ages of the current SCOTUS justices: I honestly didn't realize just how much the court is likely to change in the next administration. Wow. Even with Scalia holding on out of spite, 91 is pretty old [assuming 2 terms for the next President]. Gyges fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not suggesting that polls are how we should judge the race right now, but I was responding to someone who specifically made a statement about polling and I thought it worth correcting. I know, I wasn't rebutting you. Just offering my opinion on the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:In terms of the primaries, if Bernie (somehow magically which is impossible because he's amazing) loses the primary, I'm not sure how I can vote for Hillary. I just don't stand behind her politics at all. Because her opponent is likely going to disassemble a huge chunk of the New Deal's remnants, put 1-3 ultra-conservatives on the Supreme Court and have us invade Iran. And that's a good outcome scenario. Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:Is there any hope of a Hillary presidency doing any good based on what we know today? We all had high hopes for Obama, but I feel like it's just going to be 4/8 more years of the same poo poo. She's been putting up pretty decent rhetoric so far, which is notable. She's in enough of a powerful position (both in the primary and the general) that she doesn't really get much benefit from pandering - but she's been talking a good game anyway. Worst case she's probably going to continue the current administration's general poicies. She's likely to at least make things no worse. (On the plus side, no worrying about disappointment! You've got such low hopes she can't help but do better than them.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:My dude is legit as gently caress. I went to Nagasaki earlier this year and yeah, seeing the commitments of that global coalition of mayors against atomic weapons was cool. Burlington joined Mayors for Peace in 1986, during Sanders' term as mayor gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:i know this is basically #voteleastworst but as of 2020, the ages of the current SCOTUS justices: I didn't realize kagan and sotomayor were that old
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:In terms of the primaries, if Bernie (somehow magically which is impossible because he's amazing) loses the primary, I'm not sure how I can vote for Hillary. Believe me, I'm not excited about voting for Hillary either but it's still much better than the alternative. If I couldn't vote for anyone that I had a number of disagreements with on big issues I'd basically never be able to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I like Bernie Sanders, but I'm decidedly unsold on the idea of actually expanding social security. I realize that social security is actually solvent for quite a long time, but the well-reason actuarial analyses I've seen suggest cost-cutting or additional funding is needed over the long term. I don't doubt that there are plenty of seniors suffering from insufficient money and care, but given the huge number of other priorities the Democrats need to tackle when they next gain control of congress, expanding social security seems like it'd be pretty far down the list. It strikes me that Sanders is more trying to get attention by doing this than actually propose something that's a genuinely wise priority. We absolutely need to raise taxes on the rich, both to further close the deficit and to provide funding for other necessary initiatives. But to use a politically difficult tax increase on the rich to pay for more social security seems like an inefficient use of the tax increase. Better to use it for more pressing priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Why in God's name would the Democrats want to take a senator with seniority and experience out of the Senate and into the executive branch? Granted that Vermont would probably elect another Democrat, probably with sufficient surety that the Republicans wouldn't try to win a coup there (maybe).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Gyges posted:What do you think Bernie will successfully accomplish in the Presidency that Hillary wouldn't? Which isn't to say they're the same thing, rather the things you can do are limited when Congress can't even vote for things they like if you happen to say you aren't against those things. Judicial nominations seem like a wash between Hillary and Bernie, so what executive actions do you think he will implement that she will not. I get where you're coming from, but I just don't see Hillary pulling every bit of her power to fundamentally change the way our politics works, unlike Sanders. Hillary doesn't seem too keen on pushing the senate (or governors) to call for a national amendment to reform campaign finance and she sure as hell doesn't seem to mind the large paychecks from corporations. I realize that she can't directly accomplish these things, but she can definitely throw some influence if she wanted to, but by doing this, she'd be shooting herself in her own foot since she's the benefactor of a large amount of these broken finance laws. I also don't see her appointing a strong cabinet to enforce some of the existing laws that are constantly violated: EPA, FEC, FCC, Attorney General, Sec. of Treasury who oversees FSOC, the list goes on. Lastly, she's firmly a capitalist and I'm not with that poo poo, but that's personal and not at all something I'm going to get the entire country to agree with me on. Edit: Tempest_56 posted:Because her opponent is likely going to disassemble a huge chunk of the New Deal's remnants, put 1-3 ultra-conservatives on the Supreme Court and have us invade Iran. And that's a good outcome scenario. I agree with you sooooo much, but I just can't justify voting another #leastevilcandidate. I don't disagree that she would be net positive if elected. If she wins the primary, I'm likely to vote for her (because I'm too chickenshit to vote a 3rd party) even if I want more. Also, the thought of invading Iran is the scariest poo poo. Spaghett fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Remember the story from a few years ago about FreedomWorks spending a bunch of money to produce a video where someone in a panda suit has simulated sex with Hillary Clinton? Well, BuzzFeed got the video.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:What do you think Bernie will successfully accomplish in the Presidency that Hillary wouldn't? Which isn't to say they're the same thing, rather the things you can do are limited when Congress can't even vote for things they like if you happen to say you aren't against those things. Judicial nominations seem like a wash between Hillary and Bernie, so what executive actions do you think he will implement that she will not. Administrative appointments. Clinton is as likely as Obama to appoint a bunch of ex-industry figures to the heads of various executive departments (SEC, FTC, FCC, etc). We see the difference that this makes - even the appointees that Obama put into place have done far, far more to crack down on industry than these agencies had done under the Bush administration. Sanders is (presumably) more likely to appoint people who are going to seriously regulate industry without being as worried about who is going to offer them a cushy job after their term. This also plays into the culture of the agency as a whole. This is one of the most significant impacts the chief executive has, and is too often overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Remember the story from a few years ago about FreedomWorks spending a bunch of money to produce a video where someone in a panda suit has simulated sex with Hillary Clinton? I'm not sure I can believe that someone was paid to create that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Sanders is (presumably) more likely to appoint people who are going to seriously regulate industry without being as worried about who is going to offer them a cushy job after their term. Also remember that the guy who instituted net neutrality that you all jizzed over is an ex-industry figure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:She's likely to at least make things no worse. Not good enough. We need to be making active progress on (for example) climate change, wealth inequality, and election reform immediately and urgently. These are fights that we lose critical ground on every day that passes in which we "make things no worse." There are some issues that trend gradually in the progressive direction if we just hold the line - although we should never be satisfied with that, come on! - but others don't work that way. Nintendo Kid posted:He is not. Do you have a reason to believe this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:I agree with you sooooo much, but I just can't justify voting another #leastevilcandidate. yo fyi, voting Full Communism Now in the primaries and (D) in the general is the definition of #leastevilcandidate you're only saying "gently caress the least evil candidate!!!" if you vote Bernie in the primary then say "gently caress it" and you don't hold your nose and eat your veggies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He is not. Why not? Johnny Cache Hit posted:yo fyi, voting Full Communism Now in the primaries and (D) in the general is the definition of #leastevilcandidate So I should vote Socialist party when it comes November 2016? On second thought, I should probably not get into this argument. The whole "vote your heart" vs. "vote what's 'smart'" argument goes nowhere. Spaghett fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He is not. Well then, I guess that's settled since you're the authority on these matters. What reason is there to believe that Sander's executive appointees would not be, on the whole, further to the left than Clinton's?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:
The fact that if he were actually to become the democratic candidate he would need to pull favors for people to ensure he can then actually get elected, genius. AreWeDrunkYet posted:What reason is there to believe that Sander's executive appointees would not be, on the whole, further to the left than Clinton's? Where do you think qualified appointees come from? And by what standard do you think Hilary's appointments won't be sufficiently left?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
That's like the fifth Fishmech "No You're Wrong" post in a row.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
I don't understand how strategic voting isn't understood. If you had to choose between voting for three candidates, one who'll give you $5,000, one who'll give you $500 and will occasionally spray you with mace, and one who's going to burn down your hometown, kill your dog, and rape someone you love, and you can't vote for the first guy, you don't stay home because candidate #2 isn't going to give you exactly what you want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:That's like the fifth Fishmech "No You're Wrong" post in a row. You could all try not being wrong for once, instead of jerking off on how you believe Bernie is a literal wizard who can conjure up purity test passing friends from sheer will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:I don't understand how strategic voting isn't understood. If you had to choose between voting for three candidates, one who'll give you $5,000, one who'll give you $500 and will occasionally spray you with mace, and one who's going to burn down your hometown, kill your dog, and rape someone you love, and you can't vote for the first guy, you don't stay home because candidate #2 isn't going to give you exactly what you want. I don't think anyone's staying home, dude. People are going to be showing out no matter how the primary goes. Nintendo Kid posted:You could all try not being wrong for once, instead of jerking off on how you believe Bernie is a literal wizard who can conjure up purity test passing friends from sheer will. Hahahaha holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Gyges posted:What do you think Bernie will successfully accomplish in the Presidency that Hillary wouldn't? Which isn't to say they're the same thing, rather the things you can do are limited when Congress can't even vote for things they like if you happen to say you aren't against those things. Judicial nominations seem like a wash between Hillary and Bernie, so what executive actions do you think he will implement that she will not. Voting for a sure loser is always better than not voting. If a third party starts to gain traction, then it's possible that one of the other parties will adopt at least some of the values and policies being pushed by the third party in order to try and pick up some of the voters for that party (which is at least some positive change, probably (for values of 'positive' equal to 'reflective of the electorate's wishes')). It also spites the assholes who actively work to depress voter turnout, and that is always a worthwhile activity. That said, my impression is that Sanders would be less likely to get involved in overseas military adventures than Clinton would. Am I incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:That said, my impression is that Sanders would be less likely to get involved in overseas military adventures than Clinton would. Am I incorrect? Unless America is straight out 9/11 style attacked again there is a 0% chance President H. Clinton starts a war. At worst she will probably continue Obama's drone policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Unless America is straight out 9/11 style attacked again there is a 0% chance President H. Clinton starts a war. At worst she will probably continue Obama's drone policy. Would Sanders probably continue overseas bombing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:43
|
|