|
don Jaime posted:That's what worries me no end. The parallels to Nader's gently caress the Democrats campaigns are worrying, particularly since so many Sanderistas openly say they won't vote for Clinton if they can't have Bernie. At least the candidate himself lacks the venom of Nader. I'm hoping he bows out gracefully when the time comes. How many of those "Sanderistas" would have voted at all if Bernie had contented himself with his Senate seat? De Nomolos posted:Eventually you have to sell out and at least try to move one party towards you, or you're wasting time And how do you go about getting a party to move towards you?
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Reminder that Nixon and Eisenhower are as "related" as Hillary and Bill are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Yeah, it's good that he's there, if only to try and drag Hilary leftwards a little and show that supporting things that fall to the left of 70's republicans isn't a complete death sentence. Yea and it's a super important time to be doing it (gee it's as if Sanders knows the political system well or something), non-incumbent Democrat controlled presidential election, the right's primary is being crowded and insane, they're still not 100% sure if they're gonna keep appealing to the angry stupid reactionary bloc or not so they keep trying to have their cake and eat it too. This is the perfect time to show the party leadership 'hey while these guys are doing all they can to make themselves unappealing we can support the total opposite of that and people will probably be on our side'. I've given Bernie poo poo in this thread but I'm gonna vote for the dude in the primary if at all possible, he's pretty well establishing himself as a force to move the standards and he's been doing everything short of just kinda whispering 'guys I'm not gonna win this, it's ok, we're cool, this is just kinda a long game thing' to make it clear that that's what the plan is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
When was the last time an "insurgent" won a nomination. (And if you say Barack I will hit you. Very Hard.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
A husband andwife both being president isn't a goddamn political dynasty. A guy from a long-connected family who goes on to be president then one of his two governor sons goes on to be president and then the other one runs? That's a political dynasty. The Kennedy family is/was one and the Bush family sure as gently caress is one. Bill and Hilary is not unless you believe the dumb Limbaugh conspiracies of Bill actually being a Rockefeller's bastard.Skwirl posted:Jesus, I'm pretty sure a 269-269 tie throwing it to Congress would result in massive, massive riots. I'd honestly just rather have a Republican win outright than see what that would do to our country. Americans sat there and did nothing when Bush v. Gore happened and they wouldn't do anything if the GOP gives the presidency to their guy in a 269-269 tie even if the Dem candidate has millions more total votes. Also didn't Obama's wins in Florida and to a lesser extent Virgina also have to do with a pretty large GOTV movement? Maybe they won't be (as) necessary for the Dems in 2016 but Rubio on the GOP ticket might help with Florida and if the moron gov in Virgina is still planning to sign on to poo poo like Crosscheck he could gently caress the Dems when a shitload of low income/minority voters go to vote and find out they got purged because oh hey someone else in the country has the same name as them must be them registered in multiple locations. Though if the Dems win their 'solid' states and just Florida it's over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:When was the last time an "insurgent" won a nomination. (And if you say Barack I will hit you. Very Hard.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I'm not too worried about jilted Sanders voters sitting out the general election. I'm sure there'll be a couple (America's a big place) and maybe even one or two vocal purveyors of sour grapes here on the forum, but 2008 was a drag-down-knock-out primary between Hillary and Obama with plenty of hard feelings and the fraction of die-hard Hillary supporters who stayed home or supported McCain were irrelevant. I hardly think Sanders' supporters will be more meaningfully spited, especially since a lot of his support is very recent and probably pretty shaky. I guess it'll depend on how the primary actually goes once it gets going, but Hillary's probably learned a lesson or two from 2008 and one of them would be not to get nasty unless she absolutely has to. So long as Sanders has committed to no attacks and negative campaigning she should do the same and give us an amicable campaign of ideas, more likely than not Sanders will hit a ceiling with left-wing Democrats and so long as O'Malley and Webb don't sap enough of Hillary's moderate support that's probably where the campaign will stay. It's also worth remembering that Hillary has some actual appeal, even to progressive voters. The Clinton years might've had a lot of third-way neoliberalism but they were a relative oasis of sanity compared to the Bush years to come, so there's positive memories there and a high likelihood that Clinton's updated her platform to the post-Obama generation. Being the first woman to become President is also a pretty big draw for a lot of people, particularly progressive voters drawn to the importance of barriers broken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Sanders seems like Ron Paul, except about a decade later and from Opposite World: a pipe-dream candidate whose embrace of policies outside of the American political center excites a vocal minority of generally younger voters. I hope that, like Paul, he can spur lasting interest in policy issues among young and previously-disillusioned groups; and that he can help pull his party rhetoric off-centrism. I hope that unlike Paul, he doesn't inspire an obnoxious personality cult that lasts far beyond the man's political expiration date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
I am excited for Hilary only because the only thing republicans hate more than A Black Guy President is A Clinton. Other than that... well I hope the general populace is more excited about it than I am is all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Jimmy Carter? I mean I guess. He wouldn't have ever been able to win a nomination prior or sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Sanders has no chance of being president as is way too shrewd of an operator to ignore that. Hilary is the de facto nominee, she has no real opposition, but the Democratic Party would really like her to see some opposition. The calls for a Warren run must of made it clear that there was an appetite for a New England liberal with a proven record of fighting economic inequality and the large percentage of people who want Hilary to have competition made it clear that there's room for a candidate like him. Bernie will never get a better soapbox than he will if he's backed by a plurality of democrats, even if those democrats are willing to vote for Hilary in the general if they have to. It is also in his best interest - and the best interest of his supporters - to make it clear that the crowds he is pulling are a potential asset to a Hilary run. What Bernie is doing is collecting a bunch of democratic voters through positions he beleives in and illustrating that those positions are viable through his (remarkable) support. Keeping the campaign clean and mature is the best way to do it. The most important thing to get this plan to work is to support the hell out of Bernie in the primary, but also don't plan to take your ball and go home if Bernie doesn't win, odds are that would be a disservice to what he is trying to accomplish. He is doing exceptionally well and I think people will take notice, I just don't think his strategy actually involves being president. Bifner McDoogle fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I am excited for Hilary only because the only thing republicans hate more than A Black Guy President is A Clinton. I can say that no, the hatred is not worse. This was peak hatred.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I can say that no, the hatred is not worse. This was peak hatred. The misogyny of conservatives is far greater than their racism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I am excited for Hilary only because the only thing republicans hate more than A Black Guy President is A Clinton. Do you think it would be possible to convince George Clinton to run?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Yeah, Clinton scares them a billion times more than Obama. Reminder that way back in 2010 when Sestak was running against Arlen Spector, it came out that someone from the WH reached out to try and pressure him out of the race. The Republican Media Machine whipped into high gear. "WE NEED HEARINGS", Daryl Issa thundered. Then it came out that Bill was the one who did it for Barack, and Republicans, scared witless about the idea of calling Bill Clinton up for a show trial, dropped it quicker than Marco Rubio and his Immigration Proposal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Do you think it would be possible to convince George Clinton to run? Country's not ready for an entire parliament of funk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:It really isn't, technically speaking. There's this newfangled concept called "analogy" you may have heard of. It's not the best reason to oppose Hillary or Bush, and a better description would include the words "oligarchy" and perhaps an iteration on "aristocracy" but it's not like the argument is fundamentally invalid even if it isn't particularly good. Also, LOL at the partisans fretting over whether Bernie intends to build the party infrastructure, and trolling about how there is an over-focus on the presidency. That hyperfocus comes from the party itself, precisely because it benefits those already in power. Anybody who thinks the actual Democratic Party (that is, the central/executive committees) is really trying to fill out the bench needs to attend a few monthly meetings of their county DCC/DEC. Between the idiot "issue advocacy" morons who don't understand what the committee's mission is and the sycophantic wannabe's looking to graft themselves to the existing power structure it is a wonder the party functions even as "well" as it does. So these complaints re: Bernie apply even moreso to the establishment candidates, since they are culpable in the gutting of the downticket bench. Feather fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Feather posted:There's this newfangled concept called "analogy" you may have heard of. It's not the best reason to oppose Hillary or Bush, and a better description would include the words "oligarchy" and perhaps an iteration on "aristocracy" but it's not like the argument is fundamentally invalid even if it isn't particularly good. Like saying Bernie Sanders voted to continue the Iraq War?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
I like that people are sperging out about the Actually, definition of dynasty when the problem with royal lineages was never fully that they were related by blood (which is only a natural consequence of the following:), but that it was a concentration of power specifically within a small group that is typically a family. Guess what Bill and Hillary are! If she was running as Hillary Rodham you'd see a lot more low info voters being okay with it but there would still be some justifiable uneasiness about a former President's wife running for his old office. The whole idea of rotating out presidents and having term limits is specifically to get new blood and new ideas into there. JT Jag posted:I follow the Political Cartoons thread. You're wrong. Women consist half of the population, black people are like 13% and typically segregrated from conservative social circles. The misogyny and outrage will be there but they won't be able to be remotely as overt about it as they were with Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Women consist half of the population, black people are like 13% and typically segregrated from conservative social circles. The misogyny and outrage will be there but they won't be able to be remotely as overt about it as they were with Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Bernie is far too outspoken for the VP nom, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
don Jaime posted:I poke around Imgur a lot. Pro-Sanders stuff is very popular and the comments do tend toward running down Clinton. You can also see the Sanders or die attitude at Salon and Huffington Post. Yes, I know, don't read comments sections, that's stupid of me. Oh no, what will Hillary do without the imgur comment section of a few images!!! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
magiccarpet posted:Bernie is far too outspoken for the VP nom, correct? Biden is far too outspoken for the VP nom, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
magiccarpet posted:Bernie is far too outspoken for the VP nom, correct? He adds nothing to the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like saying Bernie Sanders voted to continue the Iraq War? buying you that avatar set is shaping up to be one of my better purchases of the year
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:buying you that avatar set is shaping up to be one of my better purchases of the year I was curious who did that. And besides, Tom Brady is old hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Hillary's VP will be a milquetoast white dude. Terry Mac, O'Malley, Evan Bayh, Warner, Jack Reed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Biden is far too outspoken for the VP nom, correct? The only time the Obama campaign got any cash from me was when they offered those awesome Biden beer coozies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Biden is far too outspoken for the VP nom, correct? They specifically added Biden because he brought them foreign policy cred and ability to navigate the beltway. Bernie doesn't bring any thing to Hillary, beyond putting a "socialist" on her ticket. Her pick will be super safe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
What if Hillary chooses a black dude as her VP? Or is the black vote already assumed to be locked in for the democrats?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Hillary's VP will be a milquetoast white dude. Terry Mac, O'Malley, Evan Bayh, Warner, Jack Reed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Why would Bernie want to be VP?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:If Rubio somehow manages to get the nod I could see them checking that by picking someone like Julian Castro. I think anything other than a boring white dude would be a sign of weakness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They specifically added Biden because he brought them foreign policy cred and ability to navigate the beltway. Bernie doesn't bring any thing to Hillary, beyond putting a "socialist" on her ticket. Her pick will be super safe. yep. my current guess would be someone like Jim Webb Milquetoast as hell, Strong On Defense, worked for Reagan admin, Virginia
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like saying Bernie Sanders voted to continue the Iraq War? The arguments aren't related or connected in any way, and the one you are referring to is as dumb an argument as I've ever seen about anything, even factoring in the racist, oxymoronic "arguments" seen in posts quoted in the freepers thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh no, what will Hillary do without the imgur comment section of a few images!!! Well, that's why I came to you guys, you seem to know more about this poo poo than I do. You know, except for the ones who don't. I'm personally hoping for Clinton/Warren '16. Warren reinforces the liberal end of the party and a two-woman ticket makes the Republicans wet their pants in rage and fear. I doubt Warren wants to be VP any more than she wanted to be P, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
site posted:Why would Bernie want to be VP? I don't know why either, especially since he can use this to become better known in the senate or get a cabinet position. this_is_hard posted:yep. my current guess would be someone like Jim Webb I can't imagine it would be Webb, when you've got a reliable dem like Jack Reed hanging out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
don Jaime posted:Well, that's why I came to you guys, you seem to know more about this poo poo than I do. You know, except for the ones who don't. vp doesnt matter and warren is more effective in the senate and she wont be able to run for president after hillary on account of the olds bad move
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
FireSight posted:What if Hillary chooses a black dude as her VP? Or is the black vote already assumed to be locked in for the democrats? A Latino politician would be a much stronger pick if it's entirely about boosting a specific demographic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:If Rubio somehow manages to get the nod I could see them checking that by picking someone like Julian Castro. I don't see why they wouldn't pick Castro since "must have a white guy" is a GOP thing. Feather posted:The arguments aren't related or connected in any way, and the one you are referring to is as dumb an argument as I've ever seen about anything, even factoring in the racist, oxymoronic "arguments" seen in posts quoted in the freepers thread. Sorry you're mad about Bernie continuing the worst war of the 21st Century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:21
|
|