|
D_I posted:Fair enough, but was your point that republicans would be more likely to work with Hillary than Bernie? Because that seems tone deaf. JT Jag posted:They won't work with anyone, didn't you read my post? I think generally she's more likely to have some small legislative victories a la a Obama, with the added caveat that I think she's more likely to win the General to begin with, and that's frankly the biggest issue for me.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Right, as opposed to noted friend-of-the-right, Hillary Clinton?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Oh no, Bernie is going to put an end to viable leftist third parties! Sucking the organizational and ideological base of third parties, or potential third parties, into the Democratic party is a well-observed phenomenon though. The Rainbow Coalition for example sucked up a number of black maoist organizations into the Party. You can look at exactly the same thing happening right now in the UKPOL thread as droves of greens and reds rejoin Labour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:That's the core of the issue though. In 2008 progressives rallied around Obama's message of hope, change and progress. He made a lot of campaign promises that were aimed at the left Democratic bloc. And after becoming President, he governed as a centrist, and famously left his most fervent supporters in the cold, especially during the various budget negotiations when he put major welfare cuts on the table. Obama didn't even have the legacy of triangulation and being a posterchild for the Democratic Leadership Conference in the 90s. The Clintons have been in bed with the Third Way Dems who threw the working class base of the party to the wolves and allied themselves with Wall Street and the interests of rich urban liberals. People like myself may have been fooled by Obama in 2008, but with Clinton she's ideologically toxic off the bat if you disapprove of the direction the Democratic party has taken since the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think generally she's more likely to have some small legislative victories a la a Obama, with the added caveat that I think she's more likely to win the General to begin with, and that's frankly the biggest issue for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Though that does give me a point to circle back to -- if you don't think they'll work with her, why then are you worried about her suddenly shifting back to the Right. There's no political incentive.D_I posted:So the real issue is electability? Why bog down the argument then? I am not Anti-Sanders. I am trying to point out that a lot of the "anti-Hillary" rhetoric is, to a point, unfounded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think generally she's more likely to have some small legislative victories a la a Obama, with the added caveat that I think she's more likely to win the General to begin with, and that's frankly the biggest issue for me. I think this is the most honest and apt description of this race I've ever seen. Don't Rock The Boat 2016.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Though that does give me a point to circle back to -- if you don't think they'll work with her, why then are you worried about her suddenly shifting back to the Right. There's no political incentive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Sucking the organizational and ideological base of third parties, or potential third parties, into the Democratic party is a well-observed phenomenon though. The Rainbow Coalition for example sucked up a number of black maoist organizations into the Party. You can look at exactly the same thing happening right now in the UKPOL thread as droves of greens and reds rejoin Labour. well hopefully Bernie drops out soon so the current black maoist organizations have a chance to become viable
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I think this is the most honest and apt description of this race I've ever seen. Don't Rock The Boat 2016. I am not willing to risk losing the general and ushering in an era of unrestricted Republican governance for a slightly more left candidate. D_I posted:It's the things they might work with her on that bother me. The republicans worked with Bill Clinton...to end welfare and get rid of glass-steagall. Things she doesn't have the space to do in 2016 because the make up of the Democrat party has shifted. Like to do so would make her unelectable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders must be bad at everything
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:well hopefully Bernie drops out soon so the current black maoist organizations have a chance to become viable Agreed, friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Another thing that could be a big deal: Bernie Sanders in charge of the DOJ instead of someone who has cement mixers full of hundreds being poured into their campaign from wall street. That could be cool, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not willing to risk losing the general and ushering in an era of unrestricted Republican governance for a slightly more left candidate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I think this is the most honest and apt description of this race I've ever seen. Don't Rock The Boat 2016. Sometimes if you rock the boat you fall out and drown. I don't like boats, is what I'm saying here. e: D_I posted:Check the demographics and electoral college, I don't believe any republican has an actual chance. I don't think this is actually well-founded. There's a slight Democratic advantage in that a close race would probably go to the Democratic candidate. But if the Republicans win the popular vote by any significant margin, they'll probably win the election. And I don't think we've reached the point where demographics make that impossible. I'm also not sure that we can count on the Republicans nominating Walker or Bush or Trump to bail us out. At the very least it's probably not best to rely on it. Bob Ojeda fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not willing to risk losing the general and ushering in an era of unrestricted Republican governance for a slightly more left candidate. Bob Ojeda posted:Sometimes if you rock the boat you fall out and drown. This is what I mean about the blocs within the party. There are people who think things are pretty much ok but need some tweaking and they are never going to get behind Sanders and I don't begrudge them for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Agreed, friend. me too, unironically. in other news the international labor union i work for has finished tallying up our internal poll amongst our membership for the 2016 presidential race. hillary easily is #1 #2? Donald Trump 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not willing to risk losing the general and ushering in an era of unrestricted Republican governance for a slightly more left candidate. A. She wasn't bogged down in scandals that are killing her national favorability, and: B. Apparently terrible at campaigning, to the point that she is unable to divert the discussion away from the scandals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
D_I posted:Check the demographics and electoral college, I don't believe any republican has an actual chance. "Republicans won't take back the house for decades" ~ Democrats 2006 Maarek posted:Another thing that could be a big deal: Bernie Sanders in charge of the DOJ instead of someone who has cement mixers full of hundreds being poured into their campaign from wall street. That could be cool, I guess. Well, given that she's proposed being far tougher on WS than Obama, one has to generally think she will. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Another thing that could be a big deal: Bernie Sanders in charge of the DOJ instead of someone who has cement mixers full of hundreds being poured into their campaign from wall street. That could be cool, I guess. Do you really think Eric Holder was bought off by Wall Street? Or could it instead be that the case budget of the DOJ is tiny compared to the legal budget for a big Wall Street firm and companies built by smart criminals often have record-keeping "issues"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
So is the House going to pass a spending bill or does the government shut down again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Well, given that she's proposed being far tougher on WS than Obama, one has to generally think she will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/delta-state-university-active-shooter And literally no one cares.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you really think Eric Holder was bought off by Wall Street?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Someone should inform JP Morgan, Goldman, and Citigroup of this immediately before they accidentally give her all their money. What an oversight!Trabisnikof posted:Do you really think Eric Holder was bought off by Wall Street? I don't care why the DOJ had no interest in going after the people who hosed up the global economy and made tons of money doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you really think Eric Holder was bought off by Wall Street?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Who cares WHY Eric Holder didn't do his job. We can't really prove whats deep within his heart without magical powers. What matters is that he didn't and more importantly he didn't even TRY. I think you're incredibly gullible if you think that these guys all escaped prosecution and coincidentally they gave tons of money to the people who run this country, but in the end it doesn't really make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
I just have this gut feeling that one party will pull at 1972 this cycle, but I'm very unclear which party will do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Sucking the organizational and ideological base of third parties, or potential third parties, into the Democratic party is a well-observed phenomenon though. The Rainbow Coalition for example sucked up a number of black maoist organizations into the Party. You can look at exactly the same thing happening right now in the UKPOL thread as droves of greens and reds rejoin Labour. The idea that it's Jesse Jackson's fault there are no viable black maoist parties in the US is... far-fetched.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Maarek posted:This is what I mean about the blocs within the party. There are people who think things are pretty much ok but need some tweaking and they are never going to get behind Sanders and I don't begrudge them for it. Well, to make an actual answer, I'd like to see some more change in the party. But I also view the stakes as really, really high. I mean, Scott Walker just announced his plan to eviscerate the unions. While I don't think he'll be the nominee, that's the kind of thing a Republican President would want to do. Or start another war in the Middle East, or appoint a SC Justice who would roll back Roe and entrench Citizens United. So I'd very much like to avoid those things, even if it means electing a president that I think is deeply imperfect. And I also think there are ways to move the party to the left outside of the presidential primary. So supporting Bernie feels like a much less apocalyptic concern to me. Of course there's still a good chance I'll vote for him in the primary. But his electability is an issue. JT Jag posted:This presupposes that Hillary is more electable. I'd agree that she was, if: I agree that this is a concern but I'm going to give it a couple more months before I start freaking out about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Guys give Hillary some credit. She didn't believe the Iraq war was right she only voted for it knowing it would be an issue in 2008 and and she miscalculated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Obama proposed a lot of things during his campaign that he didn't follow through on too. He didn't and hasn't gone as far as she has in terms of going after the actual people involved. JT Jag posted:This presupposes that Hillary is more electable. I'd agree that she was, if: A is pretty questionable at best. In fact, we have a whole trove of data to support it. She's much more popular (and favorable) when she's not running for office than when she isn't. In fact, her favorability ratings this time in 2008 were the same as they are now. That generally suggests the email thing isn't really pushing this. Also, there's pretty good evidence to indicate favorability doesn't matter. Add to that the polls showing her support "tanking" also include Joe Biden, who isn't currently running (which means he's a more attractive choice -- again data supports that.) and most of his support is peeled off from Hillary supporters who are clearly willing to vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
So are these guys just idiots who give this person who is going to put them in jail lots and lots of money? Whats up with that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Someone should inform JP Morgan, Goldman, and Citigroup of this immediately before they accidentally give her all their money. What an oversight! Then you're not going to be a very effective advocate for change. If you want to fix a problem, you have to understand why it is broken. JT Jag posted:The DOJ handles a lot of things. Prosecution of Wall Street was given a low priority. Would you rather the DOJ have dropped a few civil rights cases instead? Maybe not investigated the Ferguson PD?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Maarek posted:So are these guys just idiots who give this person who is going to put them in jail lots and lots of money? Whats up with that? They'd rather Hillary win than a Republican. Like again, if she says "we're going to be tougher on Wall Street" and then, doesn't, she's going to run the risk of getting lit up by Liz Warren and face a possible primary challenge when she runs for re-election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Would you rather the DOJ have dropped a few civil rights cases instead? Maybe not investigated the Ferguson PD? Lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Would you rather the DOJ have dropped a few civil rights cases instead? Maybe not investigated the Ferguson PD?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Then you're not going to be a very effective advocate for change. If you want to fix a problem, you have to understand why it is broken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They'd rather Hillary win than a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Then you're not going to be a very effective advocate for change. If you want to fix a problem, you have to understand why it is broken. or maybe they could have actually prosecuted some of the corporations and people directly responsible for the largest financial catastrophe in a generation? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:41
|
|