|
ratbert90 posted:Well, that was just one example. I know anecdotal evidence is not evidence, but I have seen several posts on his Facebook in the essence of "I am a life long Republican and I will vote for you." There's been a recent phenomenon of workers in places like Alabama wanting to unionize. The key factor though is that they don't want the support of the existing union structure - I believe in the article I read the UAW wanted the workers to join up with them and the workers would rather just can the whole thing. In the same respect, Sanders' appeal is precisely because he's not part of the "establishment", and that could easily change if he wins the primary (the same sort of tactic was done with Obama in 2007 iirc).
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
In some more Trump news, looks like NYC is "reviewing their contracts" with him. Whatever that means.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's been a recent phenomenon of workers in places like Alabama wanting to unionize. The key factor though is that they don't want the support of the existing union structure - I believe in the article I read the UAW wanted the workers to join up with them and the workers would rather just can the whole thing. The difference is that Bernie Sanders has had the same convictions and hatred for the rich since the 60's, and is the "poorest" of all the senators. Dude holds true to his convictions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How is opposing Citizens United exactly a position that means anything about supporting Sanders? I really doubt that Hillary would make any sort of attempt in that avenue. She's got more support from huge donors than almost anyone else, and it's definitely not part of her core platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:The difference is that Bernie Sanders has had the same convictions and hatred for the rich since the 60's, and is the "poorest" of all the senators. Dude holds true to his convictions. The poorest senator in 2007 was Biden, didn't mean much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Doesn't really matter since he's running for the Democratic nomination, not as an independent. He might be outside the establishment in a lot of ways but if someone's part of the partisan My Team vs. Your Team mindset then he's part of the Democratic party. It's a little interesting to see Sanders gradually turn into an actual challenger, though - at least enough of a challenge that Hillary will probably have to actually campaign. I've no doubt Sanders is getting a bit of a free ride at the moment since there's a lot of media interest in ginning up a horse race on the Democratic side, so his gains might be fragile if campaigning begins in earnest or after the first debate. When's the first Democratic debate expected, anyway? August, like the Republicans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The poorest senator in 2007 was Biden, didn't mean much. Sure, however I have a hard time thinking Bernie will ever be considered part of the establishment, unless he personally changed the establishment. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Sure, however I have a hard time thinking Bernie will ever be considered part of the establishment, unless he personally changed the establishment. By getting the nomination he'll be considered part of the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Sure, however I have a hard time thinking Bernie will ever be considered part of the establishment, unless he personally changed the establishment.  this is why he actually can't win the nomination, period and full stope: I like the guy and he has my vote if he's still in the primaries come California (which I doubt), but he is actually structurally not going to win the nomination period
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I really doubt that Hillary would make any sort of attempt in that avenue. She's got more support from huge donors than almost anyone else, and it's definitely not part of her core platform. I doubt she'd make an attempt for the same reasons I doubt Sanders would, it wouldn't pass. Why would either of them waste their time fighting a battle they know they can't win? If ERA can't pass, why on earth would an anti-Citizens United Constitutional Amendment pass? Dolash posted:It's a little interesting to see Sanders gradually turn into an actual challenger, though - at least enough of a challenge that Hillary will probably have to actually campaign. I've no doubt Sanders is getting a bit of a free ride at the moment since there's a lot of media interest in ginning up a horse race on the Democratic side, so his gains might be fragile if campaigning begins in earnest or after the first debate. When's the first Democratic debate expected, anyway? August, like the Republicans? I think its great Sanders is running, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton campaign was relieved he was turning into a real rival. Their worst fear has got to be wasting away in the primary with no one to their left to contrast against for the general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I really doubt that Hillary would make any sort of attempt in that avenue. She's got more support from huge donors than almost anyone else, and it's definitely not part of her core platform. Hillary has stated that she would only appoint Supreme Court justices who oppose Citizens United.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:By getting the nomination he'll be considered part of the establishment. Eh, I think we may have different definitions of what "the establishment" is. My definition is one who kowtows to large corporations/has a lot of money donate to them by large corporations/super pacs. Bernie, even if he got the nomination; based off of his history would never do such a thing. UberJew posted:
His polling data is at least steadily going up, his largest problem is name recognition imo. People poll in favor of most of his policies when asked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Eh, I think we may have different definitions of what "the establishment" is. My definition is one who kowtows to large corporations/has a lot of money donate to them by large corporations/super pacs. Republicans have my definition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's been a recent phenomenon of workers in places like Alabama wanting to unionize. The key factor though is that they don't want the support of the existing union structure - I believe in the article I read the UAW wanted the workers to join up with them and the workers would rather just can the whole thing. Sanders scores 100s on NARAL, AFL-CIO, etc. scorecards so I do find it easy to believe that he's genuine in his stances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:Sanders scores 100s on NARAL, AFL-CIO, etc. scorecards so I do find it easy to believe that he's genuine in his stances. So did Clinton, wow! NARAL & AFL-CIO are also kinda the democratic establishment....
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:Sanders scores 100s on NARAL, AFL-CIO, etc. scorecards so I do find it easy to believe that he's genuine in his stances. I never said he wasn't genuine. What I said is that his appeal is not being part of the establishment (and ironically the AFL-CIO is exactly the sort of establishment I was talking about in my union anecdote).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I never said he wasn't genuine. What I said is that his appeal is not being part of the establishment (and ironically the AFL-CIO is exactly the sort of establishment I was talking about in my union anecdote). What exactly is your definition of "the establishment" other than being a nominee for something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I really doubt that Hillary would make any sort of attempt in that avenue. She's got more support from huge donors than almost anyone else, and it's definitely not part of her core platform. Citizens United was an organization dedicated to smearing Hillary, so she had a personal strange in the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:What exactly is your definition of "the establishment" other than being a nominee for something? Having the support of established powers. Being part of the UAW is one example. Having the nomination of the Democratic Party is another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:What exactly is your definition of "the establishment" other than being a nominee for something? Probably having the 100% backing of the Democratic Party's political machine and its private sector allies, like he would get as the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I never said he wasn't genuine. What I said is that his appeal is not being part of the establishment (and ironically the AFL-CIO is exactly the sort of establishment I was talking about in my union anecdote). I guess more the point I'm trying to make indirectly is that he doesn't really have much reason to appeal to establishment folks, nor does there seem to be any reason to believe he would, should he get the nomination. He's only rising in the polls on the back of the platform he's always been a part of, and tapping into the youth vote's general indifference and jadedness to the political process seems like a winning strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Man, I was really hoping Obama would false flag his way into president for life Don't you see? Obama was Bernie's puppet all along. Soften up the left for real socialism, scare the right with a black guy enough to accept any other old white guy over Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Having the support of established powers. Being part of the UAW is one example. Having the nomination of the Democratic Party is another. Fair enough I guess. I know Bern is a long shot, but the recent uptick in polls makes me happy. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Looking at PredictIt, I thought this was interesting:PredictIt FAQ posted:How are you different from Intrade? Do people think a no-action letter is sufficient? (I don't think there's a separate thread for this stuff, so I'm asking here.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:I guess more the point I'm trying to make indirectly is that he doesn't really have much reason to appeal to establishment folks, nor does there seem to be any reason to believe he would, should he get the nomination. He's only rising in the polls on the back of the platform he's always been a part of, and tapping into the youth vote's general indifference and jadedness to the political process seems like a winning strategy. Is this a post about Obama you're c/ping from 8 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Don't you see? Obama was Bernie's puppet all along. Soften up the left for real socialism, scare the right with a black guy enough to accept any other old white guy over Hillary. It's the long con! More than anything I would like to see the GOP implode trying to accuse him of being a filthy socialist when all his positions poll very favorably. Maybe then we can stop seeing socialism as a bad word. Tatum Girlparts posted:Is this a post about Obama you're c/ping from 8 years ago? Obama was a junior Senator and really didn't have much of a voting record to analyze for (in)consistency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
If the DNC rolls out the red carpet for you at the party convention and gives you the prime speaking slot (because you are their candidate) it's very hard to turn to dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and say "Don't worry, I am an outsider who will take on Some Kind Of Establishment That You Don't Like." There are probably one or two Republican candidates in their ridiculously packed primary who'd actually go after some business interests or decisions like Citizens United, but you don't see Democrats leaping to their defense because they're ensconced in the barbaric Republican political machine and whatever few issues they have good opinions on the rest will be run according to party orthodoxy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:I guess more the point I'm trying to make indirectly is that he doesn't really have much reason to appeal to establishment folks, nor does there seem to be any reason to believe he would, should he get the nomination. He's only rising in the polls on the back of the platform he's always been a part of, and tapping into the youth vote's general indifference and jadedness to the political process seems like a winning strategy. Are you arguing that because the Democratic establishment gave him 100 scores that he won't need to work to appeal to them because he already does? Or are you trying to argue that the AFL-CIO and NARAL aren't part of the Democratic establishment? You're right that a "fight the man"/"hope and change" style campaign can be very effective at swaying youth voters, but their remains questions about if other machines can replicate OFA's turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:I guess more the point I'm trying to make indirectly is that he doesn't really have much reason to appeal to establishment folks, nor does there seem to be any reason to believe he would, should he get the nomination. He's only rising in the polls on the back of the platform he's always been a part of, and tapping into the youth vote's general indifference and jadedness to the political process seems like a winning strategy. I didn't say he will appeal to the establishment, I said he'll appear to be establishment, especially to people who dislike the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Probably having the 100% backing of the Democratic Party's political machine and its private sector allies, like he would get as the nominee. Somehow I don't think that Goldman Sachs will be throwing its support behind Sanders like it has for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Looking at PredictIt, I thought this was interesting:
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Somehow I don't think that Goldman Sachs will be throwing its support behind Sanders like it has for Hillary. Do we even have FEC numbers for 2016 candidates yet? Or are we just assuming everything will be the same as 2008?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Hard to say from down here but sounds like one of those things that is "sufficient, subject to re-evaluation if you get huge or if there is a scandal" Pretty much this. A NAL is a good indication that you're not going to get into trouble, subject to change if things explode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do we even have FEC numbers for 2016 candidates yet? Or are we just assuming everything will be the same as 2008? Yes, Bernie raised 15,000,000$ http://mic.com/articles/117870/one-chart-shows-the-biggest-difference-between-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:Last one, because I'm sure we all get the point by now: Nah, you can keep doing them all day. Sir Tonk posted:Pappyland posted: Now that's some fineass jiggery pokery!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Yes, Bernie raised 15,000,000$ I'm pretty sure you're wrong and the FEC numbers aren't out yet. That article actually is only quoting the Sanders campaign, not the FEC. I'm sure the campaign is correct, but I'm interested in the details. All of the comparison in that article is using lifetime metrics, which, while useful for some stuff, isn't as good an indicator of who's throwing their weight behind whom in this cycle. Gimme dat stats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
holyshit with that declaration we officially have 19 candidates and counting! The duggars were the light embrace me almighty god!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I never said he wasn't genuine. What I said is that his appeal is not being part of the establishment (and ironically the AFL-CIO is exactly the sort of establishment I was talking about in my union anecdote). Yes the AFL-CIO certainly does have a lot of sway in today's Democratic Party as seen by all their huge victories together! Establishment is party committees, not blocs of voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I didn't say he will appeal to the establishment, I said he'll appear to be establishment, especially to people who dislike the Democrats. Tangent: Where did you get that gangtag? Is there a larger version of it? I want to use it for my screenprinting class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
