USPOL Jan: In the Year of Our Trump 1

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Jan: In the Year of Our Trump 1

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

blue squares posted:

I'm really eager to watch the State of the Union address tonight. I've gone through an interesting progression with President Obama over the years. At first, I was really excited, like most liberals. Then, again like a lot of liberals, I felt disappointed by the unrealistic expectations I had as a political newcomer. In the last year, though, I have started to appreciate Obama a lot more.

Still, I really don't know where I stand on his presidency overall. Are there any good, in-depth rundowns of the Obama Presidency that I could read and help me come to a better understanding of his administration?

quote:

Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history

Love him or hate him, Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history � and he will be a particularly towering figure in the history of modern American progressivism.

On Tuesday night, Barack Obama will deliver his final State of the Union address. Previews suggest that the speech will depart from the policy laundry lists of Obama's past SOTUs, and instead focus on "outlining what Obama sees as his lasting achievements."

"We still have work to do," White House chief of staff Denis McDonough wrote in an email about the speech last week, "But there's no question: Together, we've brought America back."

Whether America has been "brought back" or otherwise improved is of course deeply debatable. But love him or hate him, Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history � and he will be a particularly towering figure in the history of American progressivism.

He signed into law a comprehensive national health insurance bill, a goal that had eluded progressive presidents for a century. He got surprisingly tough reforms to Wall Street passed as well, not to mention a stimulus package that both blunted the recession and transformed education and energy policy.

He's put in place the toughest climate rules in American history and signed a major international climate accord. He opened the US to Cuba for the first time in more than half a century, and reached a peaceful settlement to the nuclear standoff with Iran. If Obama were to cover every major policy shift he's effected during his time in office in his speech Tuesday, attendees are going to be there all night.

You can celebrate or bemoan these accomplishments. Liberals hail them as moves toward a social democratic welfare state and a foreign policy more skeptical of military intervention; conservatives critique Obama's efforts to expand regulation and the government's reach, and accuse him of abdicating America's role as world hegemon.

But no one can deny that the changes Obama has wrought are enormous in scale. When he gets up at the State of the Union and speaks of what he's accomplished, he may be putting a positive gloss on things, but he won't be lying about the gravity of what he's done.

Obamacare: a big ****** deal

Teddy Roosevelt, one of the first American politicians to call for national health insurance. (Social Security Administration)

National health insurance has been the single defining goal of American progressivism for more than a century. There have been other struggles, of course: for equality for women, African Americans, and LGBTQ people; for environmental protection; and, of course, against militarism. But ever since its inclusion in Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Bull Moose platform, a federally guaranteed right to health coverage has been the one economic and social policy demand that loomed over all others. It was the big gap between our welfare state and those of our peers in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

And for more than a century, efforts to achieve national health insurance failed. Roosevelt's third-party run came up short. His Progressive allies, despite support from the American Medical Association, failed to pass a bill in the 1910s. FDR declined to include health insurance in the Social Security Act, fearing it would sink the whole program, and the Wagner Act, his second attempt, ended in failure too. Harry Truman included a single-payer plan open to all Americans in his Fair Deal set of proposals, but it went nowhere. LBJ got Medicare and Medicaid done after JFK utterly failed, but both programs targeted limited groups.

Richard Nixon proposed a universal health care plan remarkably similar to Obamacare that was killed when then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) walked away from a deal to pass it, in what Kennedy would later call his greatest regret as a senator. Jimmy Carter endorsed single-payer on the campaign trail but despite having a Democratic supermajority in Congress did nothing to pass it. And the failure of Bill Clinton's health care plan is the stuff of legend.

Then on March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. It wasn't perfect by any means. Liberals bemoan that it wasn't single-payer; it lacked a public option, or even all-payer rate setting. And it still left many uninsured.

But it established, for the first time in history, that it was the responsibility of the United States government to provide health insurance to nearly all Americans, and it expanded Medicaid and offered hundreds of billions of dollars in insurance subsidies to fulfill that responsibility.

In an email, UC Berkeley's Paul Pierson likened the law to a "starter home" to be expanded later on, much as Social Security � which initially had no disability benefits, left out surviving dependents and widows, and excluded (largely black) agricultural and home workers � was.

Brian Steensland, a sociologist who studies American social policy at Indiana University�Purdue University Indianapolis, agrees. "The main thing it does, I think, is establish the expectation in the public�s mind that access to basic health care is a right," he says. "It�s going to be hard to go back to a time when access to health insurance, and the subsidies to help pay for it, wasn�t near universal."

To pay for it all, the Affordable Care Act cut back on Medicare spending and hiked taxes on rich people's investment income and health plans. It effected a massive downward redistribution of income. It's one of the most startlingly progressive laws this country has ever enacted.

And it was passed with more opposition than the social insurance programs it followed. "FDR and LBJ had lots of fellow Democrats in Congress when they pushed for the New Deal and Great Society," College of William and Mary political scientist Chris Howard says. "Their opponents, in and out of government, were not nearly as ideological or hostile as the ones facing Obama. The fact that the ACA exists at all is pretty remarkable."

""Obama is the most consequential and successful Democratic president since LBJ""

A lot of these facts are familiar to people who've been following Obamacare, but it's worth dwelling on them for a second. When you consider the law in the context of 100 years of progressive activism, and in the grand scheme of American history, it starts to look less like a moderate reform and more like an epochal achievement, on the order of FDR's passage of Social Security or LBJ's Great Society programs.

It is, to quote Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol, "a century-defining accomplishment in the last industrial democracy to resist using national government to ensure access to health coverage for most citizens." FDR failed, Truman failed, Nixon failed, Carter failed, Clinton failed � and Obama succeeded. He filled in the one big remaining gap in the American welfare state when all his forerunners couldn't.

But Obama's domestic achievements were not just limited to health care.

"On domestic issues Obama is the most consequential and successful Democratic president since LBJ. It isn't close."

The Affordable Care Act was hardly Obama's only accomplishment. He passed a stimulus bill that included major reforms to the nation's education system, big spending on clean energy, and significant expansions of antipoverty programs. He shepherded through the Dodd-Frank Act, the first significant crackdown on Wall Street's power in a generation, which has been far more successful than commonly acknowledged.

He used executive action to enact bold regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and to protect nearly 6 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. He ended the ban on gay and lesbian service in the military, made it easier for women and minorities to fight wage discrimination, cut out wasteful private sector involvement in student loans, and hiked the top income tax rate. He reprofessionalized the Department of Justice and refashioned the National Labor Relations Board and the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department into highly effective forces for workers' rights.

His presidency holds massive symbolic value as proof that the reign of white men over American government can be halted and America as a whole can be represented. And while he was too slow in announcing support for same-sex marriage, he appointed two of the justices behind the Supreme Court's historic decision that legalized it nationwide, and enlisted his Justice Department on the side of the plaintiffs.

There are obviously places Obama fell short. I think he didn't take monetary policy nearly seriously enough, that he's fallen short on combating HIV/AIDS and other public health scourges abroad, that his early push to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants was indefensible, and that perpetrators of torture and other war crimes from the Bush administration should have been criminally prosecuted. But while Obama could have accomplished more, it could never be said that he accomplished little.

"When you add the ACA to the reforms in the stimulus package, Dodd-Frank, and his various climate initiatives," Pierson says, "I don't think there is any doubt: On domestic issues Obama is the most consequential and successful Democratic president since LBJ. It isn't close."
Obama's foreign policy was a new direction for the Democratic Party � and the country

And on foreign issues, Obama's record is perhaps the most successful of any Democratic president since Truman. He has reestablished productive diplomacy as the central task of a progressive foreign policy, and as a viable alternative approach to dealing with countries the GOP foreign policy establishment would rather bomb. He established a viable alternative to the liberal hawks that dominated Democratic thinking during the Bush years, and held positions of influence on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. And he developed a cadre of aides who can carry on that legacy to future Democratic administrations and keep a tradition of dovishness alive.

To understand how this happened, it's worth going back to 2008, when YouTuber Stephen Sorta asked the most important question of the Democratic primary debates: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

The safe, reserved thing to do would be to say no: Sure, diplomacy's great, but obviously there will be "preconditions." This was the response of future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called the idea "irresponsible and frankly naive" following the debate. It was also the response of future Vice President Joe Biden, who said, "World leaders should not meet with other world leaders unless they know what the agenda is, so you don�t end up being used."

This was, famously, not the response of future President Barack Obama. "I would," he replied. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them � which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration � is ridiculous."

At the time, Obama's statement was treated like a gaffe. Today it feels more like a statement of purpose. Obama did correspond with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. His secretary of state met for weeks at a time with Rouhani's foreign minister to hammer out a deal. And the result is a historic accord with Iran that, if successful, will stop Iran from developing a nuclear device for at least 10 years. More important than that, it eliminates the odds of a war between the US and Iran in the near future.

And of course, Iran isn't the only country on Sorta's list with whom Obama has engaged in direct talks. He also did away with America's failed policy of isolating Cuba, ending the embargo and allowing for a rapprochement after more than 50 years. His radical openness to dialogue abroad got results in the form of two of the biggest American diplomatic breakthroughs since the Oslo Accords in 1994, perhaps since Camp David in 1978.

But the Iran and Cuba deals were of a different nature than those accords, or similar breakthroughs by Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush. From Watergate through 2009, America's major diplomatic breakthroughs were generally either arms control deals with the Soviet Union or Russia, or trilateral agreements meant to protect Israel's long-term security, like Camp David and Oslo.

Those are important steps, but they solidified America's existing relationships. Obama, by contrast, achieved two huge openings to countries the US had previously counted as enemies for decades. They are achievements more like Nixon's opening to China than, say, the SALT accords. And, of course, Obama has a major Russian arms control deal under his belt in the form of New START, as well.

In December 2015, Obama added the climate deal in Paris to the list. This wasn't a traditional agreement, as it was not legally binding. But nonetheless, 195 countries agreed to submit plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's an astonishing degree of global consensus, even without a legally binding treaty.

And with luck, the Paris deal, for which the Obama administration fought hard, will encourage a flurry of bilateral or multilateral binding agreements between its signatories, creating a virtuous cycle in which nations pressure each other to cut emissions further and further. It may not be enough to stop catastrophic warming � but with 195 nations, it's likely the best anyone could've hoped for.

Obama's decisions haven't been perfect. He revived Clinton-style militarism in the Middle East, where periodic airstrikes and special ops missions take the place of Bush-style invasion and occupation. The drone war is a moral catastrophe, and the 2009 surge in Afghanistan was a mistake. Syria remains a morass with no good options, though arguably Obama had no better option than to muddle through. But certainly compared to his predecessors, Obama was a model of restraint, prudence, and openness in foreign policy.

You can generally divide American presidents into two camps: the mildly good or bad but ultimately forgettable (Clinton, Carter, Taft, Harrison), and the hugely consequential for good or ill (FDR, Lincoln, Nixon, Andrew Johnson). Whether you love or hate his record, there's no question Obama's domestic and foreign achievements place him firmly in the latter camp.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 17:35

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

ReidRansom posted:

Do they though? I mean, the republicans certainly don't. And I'm not sure anyone on the left does either these days, really.

The intellectual/political commentator elite do

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:53

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

MODS CURE JOKES posted:

because nobody likes Hillary Clinton or the Democratic leadership, even if it's kneejerk.

I think you'll find that statement falls apart when you talk to a lot of the gears that turn the democratic establishment. The kind of people who got Obama and Clinton elected.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:53

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Khisanth Magus posted:

I think my favorite part of the "Bernie isn't going to do anything about helping minorities, just try to fix economic problems!" is that the common solution to this is to elect someone who both doesn't give a poo poo about helping minorities and isn't going to do poo poo about economic problems.

Clinton has had less of a tin ear regarding minorities than Sanders and has worked for civil rights for decades. It's not really accurate to say that she doesn't give a poo poo about helping minorities.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:54

Dolash: Oct 23, 2008; aNYWAY,
tHAT'S REALLY ALL THERE IS,
tO REPORT ON THE SUBJECT,
oF ME GETTING HURT,

Mulva posted:

Or maybe someone might look at that, wonder why that sentiment seems common and then educate themselves.

Eh, I kind of have to agree that if you want to win people over outside of an echo chamber, that's not going to work. If anything it just feeds the tit-for-tat "look both sides are racist so I guess I can ignore this" mentality. Expecting people to come to your cause penitently and overcome obstacles you throw in their path to see if they 'get it' won't get a lot of converts from the masses who might otherwise be open to your message, it's almost deliberately self-defeating and meant to confirm an existing prejudice that white liberals are unreachable and deaf to reason.

But this is a comedy forum's political discussion zone and not national TV, so there's no point in taking everything that seriously when we could be kicking back and saying Death to Whitey. Vote Trump for accelerationism to bring an end to American hegemony faster.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:55

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

MODS CURE JOKES posted:

I don't think that either of these things are necessarily an issue. The first one falls apart because nobody likes Hillary Clinton or the Democratic leadership, even if it's kneejerk.

Hillary is extremely popular with the democratic base. And yes nobody in the DNC like's DWS but she won't be there for much longer.

MODS CURE JOKES posted:

The second one, well, there's a lot of Very Serious People who love that sort of "bipartisan" bullshit. I think these both play well in terms of optics, especially since you can spin it as Bernie being willing to work with anyone.

Eh not really. Being nice to your enemies does nothing for your side at best and drags it down at worst. Participating in politics isn't a clean family fun game and acting like the other side actually has a point instead of being morons is self defeating. One of the main attractions of Hillary is she is very good at the political game (for better or worse).

Staying positive for the primary is good, the general? no.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:55

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Trabisnikof posted:

The kind of people who got Obama and Clinton elected.

I thought that was the American people.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:56

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

McDowell posted:

I thought that was the American people.

And that's who Clinton is banking on too!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

# ? Jan 12, 2016 22:59

Maarek: Jun 9, 2002; Your silence only incriminates you further.

MODS CURE JOKES posted:

The second one, well, there's a lot of Very Serious People who love that sort of "bipartisan" bullshit.

Ironically, worrying about a politician being too nice to their opponents is actually part of that same dynamic. Very Serious People expect them to vote together to cut entitlements, raise the debt ceiling, etc but it's also understood that they will augment that with political theater. No one gives a poo poo about that except people who make their living covering politics and people who consume that coverage as entertainment, AKA everyone of us in this thread. Do you really give a poo poo if someone is 'too nice' to Jeb Bush? What bearing does that have on the actual function of the government?

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:00

Huzanko: Aug 4, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

Talmonis posted:

The statement was "White people really are the worst." Kind of a lovely thing to say, and turned into any other ethnic group would be racist as hell to boot. As common a refrain as it is around here, it's pretty tiresome. And no, nobody who already tries to "get it" as TB so eloquently puts it, is going to stop from stupid poo poo said on the internet, but I maintain that things like that are offputting to anyone new to it all.

Pretty sure "white people" is shorthand for 2012 Romney Voters.

lol if you still consider yourself white in 2016. #rekt

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:00

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

McDowell posted:

I thought that was the American people.

It may turn out that these are the primaries that will begin to wrest even more power away from the establishment of both parties.

I was thinking about it more and Clinton has a huge superdelegate lead right now. Her message might have more to do with pressing that lead to neuter the possibility of Sanders catching up through actual delegates received through voters.

The Republicans have been seriously concerned about Trump destroying their dog whistles once and for all.

Exciting times. Why can't we have a boring election? Something like 1996.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:02

ReidRansom: Oct 25, 2004

icantfindaname posted:

The intellectual/political commentator elite do

If an election is ever tipped one way or the other by those few hundred people, I'll suck my own cock.

Somehow.

If only... :allears:

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:02

rkajdi: Sep 11, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

MaxxBot posted:

The "cars and guns" thing is true where I work as well, although I think the fact that my workplace is agriculture/construction related and tends to hire people from a few really specific places makes the feel a bit different. There is definitely a big disconnect between how D&D views engineers and how literally everyone else I have ever met views them. Sure there are stereotypes but I've never met someone who upon hearing the that someone was an engineer would assume a braindead, libertarian, socially inept, arrogant rear end in a top hat which seems to be the assumption here.

Honestly, I'm an engineer and have worked in the field for 15+ years. In my experience, that stereotype is way closer to right than lots of people want to believe. The big thing is the guys I work with are 90% white men and everybody is well paid, so you get piles of idiots who won life's lottery and act like it makes them better people or something.

I also work about as far away from the Valley as you can get (DC Metro area) so it's more widespread than just some Valley NRx types poisoning the well.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:04

ufarn: May 30, 2009

Hillary 2016 - no boners like hate boners

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:05

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

ufarn posted:

Hillary 2016 - no boners like hate boners

Only Hillary has a large enough hate boner for the GOP. :awesome:

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:07

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

Thank you! I learned a lot from this article.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:08

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Bipartisanship and dealmaking through porkbarrel spending was how Washington actually got anything done. You could wax some Republican's balls by spending money in his state and he'd help pass your bill. Now there is no incentive to do that. Add in the openly hostile Tea Party element that is pretty open about wanting to burn it all down, and here we are.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:09

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Wait for the 13 US sailors being held by Iran (who have promised to return them to the US) after their ship was disabled pop up in the post SOTU hubbaloo

EDIT: I see that I'm late and slightly incorrect to boot.

Shageletic fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 12, 2016

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:19

Khisanth Magus: Mar 31, 2011; Vae Victus

foobardog posted:

It may turn out that these are the primaries that will begin to wrest even more power away from the establishment of both parties.

I was thinking about it more and Clinton has a huge superdelegate lead right now. Her message might have more to do with pressing that lead to neuter the possibility of Sanders catching up through actual delegates received through voters.

The Republicans have been seriously concerned about Trump destroying their dog whistles once and for all.

Exciting times. Why can't we have a boring election? Something like 1996.

Gotta love superdelegates and the whole concept of "Your primary votes don't actually mean poo poo, the establishment gets enough votes that short of a landslide if you don't vote for our candidate, gently caress you, your vote doesn't count."

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:22

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Talmonis posted:

Bipartisanship and dealmaking through porkbarrel spending was how Washington actually got anything done. You could wax some Republican's balls by spending money in his state and he'd help pass your bill. Now there is no incentive to do that. Add in the openly hostile Tea Party element that is pretty open about wanting to burn it all down, and here we are.

Bipartisanship is dead due to political polarization, it has nothing to do with people being mean or nice.

Khisanth Magus posted:

Gotta love superdelegates and the whole concept of "Your primary votes don't actually mean poo poo, the establishment gets enough votes that short of a landslide if you don't vote for our candidate, gently caress you, your vote doesn't count."

The democratic primary is way, way better set up than the Republican one and part of that is super delegates. No holds barred shitshow like the GOP primaries should not be the goal.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:24

ex post facho: Oct 25, 2007

Khisanth Magus posted:

Gotta love superdelegates and the whole concept of "Your primary votes don't actually mean poo poo, the establishment gets enough votes that short of a landslide if you don't vote for our candidate, gently caress you, your vote doesn't count."

Welcome to the....Democratic party?

Two brokered conventions would be too much to dream for, wouldn't it?

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:26

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

a shameful boehner posted:

Welcome to the....Democratic party?

Two brokered conventions would be too much to dream for, wouldn't it?

Compromise candidates for everyone!

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:29

BetterToRuleInHell: Jul 2, 2007; Touch my mask top
Get the chop chop

Man, if Clinton really does lose the democratic nomination then we deserve Trump. Democrats make shooting themselves in their own foot a loving work of art.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:33

ReidRansom: Oct 25, 2004

e: ^^^^ Sanders is currently polling better in the general against all republicans including Trump, not that it means too much right now

This is probably a question for Joe, but has there been an instance of superdelegates changing the outcome of the primaries/convention against the will of the voters/caucuses rather than just reinforcing it?

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:33

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Man, if Clinton really does lose the democratic nomination then we deserve Trump. Democrats make shooting themselves in their own foot a loving work of art.

How are the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot when they have two candidates running that are mostly similar on a lot of things and both enjoy a large amount of popular support from the base. The GOP primary's front runner is currently Donald Trump IE it's a literal joke.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:34

ex post facho: Oct 25, 2007

Now I'm picturing a shadowy cabal of the elites from the establishment of both parties coming together to figure out how to keep their chosen candidates in the race, like the Simpsons portrayal of the Republican party HQ

ex post facho fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jan 12, 2016

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:38

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

rkajdi posted:

Honestly, I'm an engineer and have worked in the field for 15+ years. In my experience, that stereotype is way closer to right than lots of people want to believe. The big thing is the guys I work with are 90% white men and everybody is well paid, so you get piles of idiots who won life's lottery and act like it makes them better people or something.

I also work about as far away from the Valley as you can get (DC Metro area) so it's more widespread than just some Valley NRx types poisoning the well.

Well I've certainly seen that attitude around but it seems to be more of an older white male thing than an engineer thing specifically, there's plenty of jobs besides engineering that fit into the "won life's lottery" category.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:40

PleasingFungus: Oct 10, 2012; idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Jesus christ dude, take it to reddit. They love hearing about oval office feminazis and their crotchdroppings there. They'll compliment your fedora too.

why yes i am 27 years old and enjoy video games and harry potter. what is this little thing on my head, you ask? 'tis but a fedora

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:41

BetterToRuleInHell: Jul 2, 2007; Touch my mask top
Get the chop chop

Venom Snake posted:

How are the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot when they have two candidates running that are mostly similar on a lot of things and both enjoy a large amount of popular support from the base. The GOP primary's front runner is currently Donald Trump IE it's a literal joke.

Do you really believe Bernie will overtake Trump? Maybe I'm more pessimistic because I keep up with this thread and 99% of the time everyone considers Bernie a joke and any Bernout a idiot.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:42

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Do you really believe Bernie will overtake Trump? Maybe I'm more pessimistic because I keep up with this thread and 99% of the time everyone considers Bernie a joke and any Bernout a idiot.

If you get your ideas of whats actually happening in elections from USPOL the only one being shot in the foot is you. Bernie has out fundraised everyone currently running for the office of President except Hillary.

The dems could run a cardboard cutout of FDR and beat the GOP in 2016.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:46

Bushiz: Sep 21, 2004; The #1 Threat to Ba Sing Se; Grimey Drawer

ReidRansom posted:

This is probably a question for Joe, but has there been an instance of superdelegates changing the outcome of the primaries/convention against the will of the voters/caucuses rather than just reinforcing it?

Not really(in the modern incarnation of the primary), the closest is 2008, where Florida and Michigan's fuckery invalidated both of their primaries in terms of delegates but the votes were still known, so Clinton had a bigger share of the total popular vote. Everyone downfield of her and Obama endorsed Obama, though, so if you add Edwards's popular vote to Obama's tally, he still comes out ahead. That's not even superdelegates though.

At this point superdelegates work as a calming effect and measure of establishment support, and no matter how stupid the DNC is, they're not stupid enough to do it here. It would almost certainly destroy the party, so they'd only do it if the alternative was to 100% certainly destroy the party

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:48

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Do you really believe Bernie will overtake Trump? Maybe I'm more pessimistic because I keep up with this thread and 99% of the time everyone considers Bernie a joke and any Bernout a idiot.

Bernie has a six year career in the Senate, while Donald Trump is a reality TV star.

I don't know if Bernie is particularly well-liked by his Democratic colleagues in Congress, but I'm betting he's more liked than Ted "If the lights went out in the Senate the only question would be how many knives would be in his back when the lights came back on" Cruz.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:50

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Nobody is hated more in congress than Ted Cruz, except for maybe Trey Gowdy

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:53

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Talmonis posted:

The statement was "White people really are the worst." Kind of a lovely thing to say, and turned into any other ethnic group would be racist as hell to boot. As common a refrain as it is around here, it's pretty tiresome. And no, nobody who already tries to "get it" as TB so eloquently puts it, is going to stop from stupid poo poo said on the internet, but I maintain that things like that are offputting to anyone new to it all.

If you don't understand the difference between insulting the oppressor and insulting the oppressed you fundamentally do not Get It and need to stop claiming that you do. Whining about reverse racism deserves a whole hell of a lot more than a "yikes" so quit while you're ahead.

# ? Jan 12, 2016 23:58

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

Here's the equivalent Republican poll from yesterday. Bush at -23 favorable :lol:

# ? Jan 13, 2016 00:01

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

If you don't understand the difference between insulting the oppressor and insulting the oppressed you fundamentally do not Get It and need to stop claiming that you do. Whining about reverse racism deserves a whole hell of a lot more than a "yikes" so quit while you're ahead.

It's possible to recognize the difference between the two and not view "reverse racism" as a legitimate issue while also thinking the "lol kill whites" stuff is dumb and unfunny.

# ? Jan 13, 2016 00:06

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Venom Snake posted:

If you get your ideas of whats actually happening in elections from USPOL the only one being shot in the foot is you. Bernie has out fundraised everyone currently running for the office of President except Hillary.

The dems could run a cardboard cutout of FDR and beat the GOP in 2016.

If you get your ideas of what the election will be like from primary fundraising numbers the only one being shot in the foot is you.

The dems could run GW Bush and get a hard, nasty and money-filled cycle from the GOP.

# ? Jan 13, 2016 00:06

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

I actually agree with this. sure Obama could definitely be better. but he is pretty drat decent.

# ? Jan 13, 2016 00:11

A Man With A Plan: Mar 29, 2010; Fallen Rib

Trabisnikof posted:

If you get your ideas of what the election will be like from primary fundraising numbers the only one being shot in the foot is you.

The dems could run GW Bush and get a hard, nasty and money-filled cycle from the GOP.

Small donor fundraising is the only thing that matters, which is why we have lived in the Ron Pauliphate of America these past 16 years.

# ? Jan 13, 2016 00:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 17:35

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

Luigi Thirty posted:

Here's the equivalent Republican poll from yesterday. Bush at -23 favorable

I knew his polling numbers were way down but I always figured it was just a "he lost anything that sets him apart from the establishment mess, nobody particularly inspired by him", not "2:1 dislikes to likes, no demos with even a plurality favorable to him" bad.

# ? Jan 13, 2016 00:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Jan: In the Year of Our Trump 1

«‹›260 »