|
sullat posted:Is he still promoting that equally zany MMT economic system?
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:How do you suggest we deal with the fact that the "lesser of two evils" still elects "evil?" What if both would plunge us into further wars and pull the world closer to militant corporate fascism? Beer. Good beer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
NEED TOILET PAPER posted:I think you're overreacting a bit here. I also really really don't want a Republican president (especially with the candidates that party is giving us this time around) but I think people around here are downplaying Bernie's potential cross-party appeal. For example, and I know this is vague and unsourced right now, I remember an article on Bernie's growing favorability among veterans who traditionally voted R, mostly because of his proposals to improve veteran care and his past work in extending healthcare for veterans (which incidentally he did working alongside John McCain). So I think that Bernie's message will have a chance to steal some potentially Republican-leaning voters, if he plays his cards right. Of course, some conservatives will see him as a socialist and do everything they can to vote against him, but that he can cannibalize some traditionally Republican votes is no small feat. Anecdotal, but I have several 'moderate republican' family members who are one by one saying on Facebook that while they disagree with some of Sanders ideas, he has more good ideas that they agree with than any republicans do and that they support him because of that. His ideas regarding campaign funding specifically seem to have a lot of support among people I know who usually vote straight republican. And really, I don't see him having a terribly hard time winning the general. He'd get less votes than Hillary, but I just don't see anyone on the republican side of things who could be a realistic threat, especially considering the last two electoral blowouts. Like with Clinton, I think that unless a giant, major scandal got unearthed after he won the party nomination, he would win the general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're reading your polling wrong, sorry. People who are unaware of one candidate but aware of the other will choose the one they know. Clinton would probably be 99.999% vs Lincoln Chafee, that doesn't mean all voters know who that dude is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof apparently has no concept of change over time. He's right, Bernie cannot win the election... if it were held today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Why, though? How? What can she do to make that happen that Bernie couldn't also do? I think she's more adroit at navigating Washington than he is -- she was a very good senator. Also Bill. Her cabinet will be interesting to see. I am guessing a lot of figures like Daschelle and Terry Mac will make appearances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:People who are unaware of one candidate but aware of the other will choose the one they know. Clinton would probably be 99.999% vs Lincoln Chafee, that doesn't mean all voters know who that dude is. Yep. 41-51 heads up hispanic vote for Bernie against Clinton is a huge, huge gain for him and indicates he's likely to at least split the hispanic crowd. Considering a ton of them haven't heard of him yet, its probable he will improve that split over time. This all assumes the Yougov poll is reliable, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:This all assumes the Yougov poll is reliable, of course. Which, one poll is hard to argue with. If, for example, you start to see a run of polls all start showing that, then you're going to see Hillary flip on the switch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think she's more adroit at navigating Washington than he is -- she was a very good senator. Also Bill. No amount of "navigation" will get anything of use through this House. I could also quote numbers on Bernie's bills and such, but they would be equally meaningless. The house republicans will stick around through this election and they will not give an inch, especially not to their #1 hated person, Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Daniel Bryan posted:It's because I'm terrified of his potential performance in the general because I absolutely do not want a Republican president under any circumstances. I think that the Dems could nominate a chimp wearing a wig this election and still win. Demographically, the GOP has really put themselves at a big disadvantage going into any generic D vs R race for president. Just like the Dems need some sort of miracle to win the house, the GOP needs some huge anomaly to overcome their disadvantage in trying to win the presidency. Even if that weren't the case, they have yet to have someone enter the primary race that is really pulling ahead of the pack. Suddenly Trump and someone who is not Trump are starting to gather some support but the bulk of the field is hovering around 10%. If either Trump or not Trump wins, the GOP will have to deal with a bitter split between the two. Those two are going to go hard negative on each other. Even when a winner is chosen, there is going to be very little daylight between the policies they are offering today and what McCain and Romney offered. They certainly aren't going to come up with someone more charismatic (given the current field) to deliver the same policy ideas. Barring some major catastrophe, Obama is leaving office relatively popular and an OK if not spectacular economy. The idea that anyone who can win the Dem nomination but somehow lose the general is pretty much fantasy. Vote for the candidate you think is the better candidate in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Oh man, if goons didn't already love Bernie....quote:Four senators led by Sanders, the independent from Vermont seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, want the Federal Communications Commission to probe high prices for satellite and cable TV services, as well as broadband Internet.... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:No amount of "navigation" will get anything of use through this House. I could also quote numbers on Bernie's bills and such, but they would be equally meaningless. The house republicans will stick around through this election and they will not give an inch, especially not to their #1 hated person, Hillary Clinton. Yes, we all know the House remains an issue. I still think she knows how to work Washington better than him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:How do you suggest we deal with the fact that the "lesser of two evils" still elects "evil?" What if both would plunge us into further wars and pull the world closer to militant corporate fascism? "What if" is an interesting thought and it kept us all warm while the Bush Administration deliberately exploited 9/11 to justify their Neocon policy shop's dream project of blowing the gently caress out of Iraq. Yes, Hillary voted for it, but she is marginally less likely to hire Paul loving Wolfowitz if she wins the election. Not voting for the lesser of two evils in the general has a proven track record of convincing everyone that the people are in favor of Greater Evil. Do your best to support someone you really believe in during the primary and if they win then campaign like heck for them, but we have a concrete living memory example of what happens when you can't swallow that pride if need be. Unless you can argue those eight years of Bush were worth it somehow, there's just no argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Finally, my opportunity to get something on the Reddit front page. Edit: Nope, too late.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think she's more adroit at navigating Washington than he is -- she was a very good senator. Also Bill. Bernie has a very good record of doing exactly this in the Senate, and has been in the House and Senate for 20+ years. It really is silly to assume Hillary would do better at this. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2013
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
MrPants posted:The bottom line of that article is that he doesn't have enough money or support from the wealthy establishment to win. If that is all our elections are about maybe it is time to take a hard look at what we are actually doing here in America. Raskolnikov38 posted:Another, more fun way to read that article is, "DNC leaders ignore popular candidates in bid to ensure defeat". Not entirely. Party actors are a mix of people, from politicians, party leadership, big donors, activists, labor leaders, etc etc. You have to win support from a lot of them, personally, so you can rely on their base. It's not much different than being a military leader and needing to win support from smaller kings to use their army in your campaign. Here's another example outside of politics I like to use. Let's say you put out a great album of music. It's really special, groundbreaking, and beloved by your fan base. Then you want to win a Grammy. The Grammy people don't have the ability or resources to scope out every single indie thing being released out there, and they aren't going to easily know the person behind the music. It's up to the artist to find the Grammy folks (and there are many) and win them over. Once you get enough people to basically vouch for you, you stand a chance of getting nominated, and then voted on for a win. This is normal human social stuff and works the same way in literally any system. You're a great football player? Get in the system, play some games, meet some coaches and agents, make your way through it. If you are good and just playing in your backyard no one has the ability to notice you. Politics has the same set up. Everyone knows WHO Bernie Sanders is, not everyone has been able to meet and/or talk with him. Not only do you have to do that, but, take a labor leader for example. You have 100,,000 active members of your group that can mobilize and help you out. The thing is, you've got 6 different candidates all asking for your support. So it becomes "what can you do for me?" And I don't mean that in a corrupt way. Put yourself in their position - why would you want to pick one candidate over another? It's easy - you pick the one who will help you and your people the most if they win. Then some candidates get in a position where they can promise something new or different and make a change. This is also a good thing. 100,000 people need something new and updated? Try to give it to them! Help folks out! Paid maternity leave is important? Cool, I'll help make that happen if you support me. It is a huge cumulative thing because weaker candidates don't have the kind of resources and pull to make adjustments. This process takes a long time and requires a lot of social and political skill. You are trying to unite a ragtag group of unaffiliated segments of your base, many of which are not always part of your base. It's hard, and it takes time. Bernie has not done the work to make this happen. Frankly, he's been somewhat uninterested. Know why? Because he only decided to run a few years ago, whereas Hillary decided to run like 10+ years ago and has been working constantly. Bernie doesn't have support of party actors and at this point it's too late and too close. He's gotta win support and be on the campaign trail. So usually people do this years in advance, and this is known as the invisible primary. I don't see anything corrupt about any of this, and I don't see this as a conspiracy of Democratic party leaders banding together to stick it to Bernie. Some people will do that, it happens. But people didn't wake up and say "hmm, Clinton it is, I'm sure it will work itself out" - they were treated like real people with real needs. Bernie is a great candidate because he'll push Clinton to the left and she will absorb some new policy positions that will come from his platform. This is a Good Thing. But Bernie isn't going to win. And that's OK. Sheng-ji Yang posted:I can't tell if people are lusting for Bernailure because they're cynical broken creatures who don't want to have to Hope again, or they genuinely prefer Hillary Clinton for some godless reason. I'm not lusting for failure. I'm super happy that he's in the race and whoever wins (it will be Clinton, who I don't much care for) will absorb some of his policies. Which means when President Clinton goes to D.C. she'll have a piece of Bernie with her, and that's a Good Thing. She's already out-lefting him in some ways that are impressive to me, like automatic voter registration. So yeah, it sucks that Bernie is going to lose, but I usually post as a member of team Political Science. I'll vote for Bernie, you should too, it will matter. I probably won't vote for Clinton. You don't have to either. She'll still win. This is as close to being objectively true as it gets in politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes, we all know the House remains an issue. I still think she knows how to work Washington better than him. He's been in Washington longer than she was by a lot, and has experience in the very recent past introducing bills co-authored by republicans that passed. I don't doubt that Clinton can play the game a bit better than him, but I think you are selling him way short.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:People who are unaware of one candidate but aware of the other will choose the one they know. Clinton would probably be 99.999% vs Lincoln Chafee, that doesn't mean all voters know who that dude is. That's an interesting theory. But the poll itself shows that undecided numbers go as high as 25% in other demographics. So I don't think you can hand wave away a 5% undecided number as just respondents unwilling to give undecided as an answer. I don't get why its so hard to accept that among registered D hispanics that most have made up their mind in Clinton/Sanders. pwnyXpress posted:Trabisnikof apparently has no concept of change over time. He's right, Bernie cannot win the election... if it were held today. I'm just saying that pretending that because 46% of all citizen hispanics don't have an opinion about Sanders, doesn't imply jack poo poo about name ID among registered Ds. The same survey series asks a head-to-head matchup question, but the low undecided number gets ignored...I'm not the one unskewing the polls. There are lots of things that could win Sanders the nomination, increasing name ID among Hispanics at the national level is probably not one of those things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I'd have to look, but their record on in the US has never been particularly great. It's a long time to primary and he's going to be campaigning lots of places. His numbers will almost certainly improve after debates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
MrPants posted:I think that the Dems could nominate a chimp wearing a wig this election and still win. I don't think it's a good idea for the Democrats to nominate Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:You can say this about any prospective Democrat president, though.  Or in this case the point being made. I would argue we need a candidate elected on the merits of their policy because either way, we the voters are still on the hook for trying to get good legislation past what may be the greatest obstruction and opposition party we have ever had.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bernie has a very good record of doing exactly this in the Senate, and has been in the House and Senate for 20+ years. It really is silly to assume Hillary would do better at this. Being able to get poo poo done in the senate is a lot different from working the establishment machinery, something that an anti-establishment candidate has trouble doing, see Barack Obama. greatn posted:It's a long time to primary and he's going to be campaigning lots of places. His numbers will almost certainly improve after debates. I can't see this going much past Super Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't get why its so hard to accept that among registered D hispanics that most have made up their mind in Clinton/Sanders. Because it's not supported by any data?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
So who are Bernie Sanders' potential running mates, then? We've talked a lot about Hillary Clinton's potential VP picks, but not Bernie Sanders'. And please, if you say "ELIZABETH WARREN!  " I may kill you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:So who are Bernie Sanders' potential running mates, then? We've talked a lot about Hillary Clinton's potential VP picks, but not Bernie Sanders'. Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Because it's not supported by any data? How does only 5% of registered D hispanics choosing "Not sure" when asked to pick between Sanders and Clinton not support the premise: "among registered D hispanics, most have made up their mind in Clinton/Sanders"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:How do you suggest we deal with the fact that the "lesser of two evils" still elects "evil?" What if both would plunge us into further wars and pull the world closer to militant corporate fascism? Which wars is Hillary going to plunge us into? - Continued bombing in Iraq, which isn't exactly unequivocally bad. - ???
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
So what are the odds Trump actually planned to run on the "hate harder" platform? Or is he just running with the first thing that got the most coverage? Also I dearly, DEARLY want someone to ask Trump what he thinks the President's job actually is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Tripling down on the illegal immigrant platform that is serving him so well thus far
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm just saying that pretending that because 46% of all citizen hispanics don't have an opinion about Sanders, doesn't imply jack poo poo about name ID among registered Ds. Your theory seems to be that the 51-41 split is rock solid and is necessarily going to hold up. That is incorrect. It's incredibly early in the primary season. There's no reason to believe that things are going to stick at any particular level. Though people have ideas about the candidates, many will change their minds. All of these numbers are preliminary and should be treated as such. No one is "unskewing" the polls, but you're reading a hell of a lot into them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I can't tell if people are lusting for Bernailure because they're cynical broken creatures who don't want to have to Hope again, or they genuinely prefer Hillary Clinton for some godless reason. I seriously think that the biggest factor causing the right wing's disproportionate success over the past few decades is pluralistic ignorance. Basically it's like false consensus except instead of people thinking that everyone else thinks like them, people think that they're on the fringe and believe everyone else believes differently from them. I don't have the studies at the tip of my fingers but when asked about ideal policies without any sort of anchor indicating where it would be considered on our political spectrum, voters tended to be surprisingly left wing on some things. As in someone would identify as Republican but prefer policies that would be mainstream Democrat while Democrats liked policies that would be considered social democratic. So people support the Democratic party thinking that they're the only ones doing so because it's the lesser of two evils but don't feel comfortable admitting that to others out of fear of rejection. Truth be told they'd be perfectly fine with someone like Sanders especially over the alternative but worry about how electable he is or how the rest of the party would feel. I don't know how how many people that actually encompasses but I know that I'm one and I think that it's a lot larger than anybody suspects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:So what are the odds Trump actually planned 0%
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
site posted:Tripling down on the illegal immigrant platform that is serving him so well thus far It's going to win him the primary
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Which wars is Hillary going to plunge us into? Russia maybe? Putin has been flirting with NATO and because of article 5 that's not exactly a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:So who are Bernie Sanders' potential running mates, then? We've talked a lot about Hillary Clinton's potential VP picks, but not Bernie Sanders'. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I can't tell if people are lusting for Bernailure because they're cynical broken creatures who don't want to have to Hope again, or they genuinely prefer Hillary Clinton for some godless reason. I am not lusting for it, I don't legitimately think he has a chance in hell at winning outside of Hillary ripping an unborn child out of Chelsea's womb and eating it on live television. Though, par for the Goon Course, that you can't possibly have a "legitimate" reason for liking Hillary without being some sort of cryptofacist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Your theory seems to be that the 51-41 split is rock solid and is necessarily going to hold up. That is incorrect. It's incredibly early in the primary season. There's no reason to believe that things are going to stick at any particular level. Though people have ideas about the candidates, many will change their minds. All of these numbers are preliminary and should be treated as such. He's also saying that 46% of hispanics having no opinion on Sanders vs 9% for Clinton is not indicative at all that he has low name recognition among hispanics, and Clinton polling higher directly against Sanders cannot be because she has significantly higher name recognition but because 95% of hispanic democrats have totally made up their mind, and are perfectly aware of who Sanders is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Syjefroi posted:Not entirely. Party actors are a mix of people, from politicians, party leadership, big donors, activists, labor leaders, etc etc. You have to win support from a lot of them, personally, so you can rely on their base. It's not much different than being a military leader and needing to win support from smaller kings to use their army in your campaign. This is a very good explanation of the importance of securing the endorsement of party actors in the nomination process. Thanks for writing it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
I wonder if any of them knows where Obama's birth certificate is. Alter Ego posted:So who are Bernie Sanders' potential running mates, then? We've talked a lot about Hillary Clinton's potential VP picks, but not Bernie Sanders'. Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:23
|
|