|
Khisanth Magus posted:I love how much the GOP managed to get the left to turn on Obama after 8 years of obstruction. And people wonder why we don't have many good leftist politicians. I think it was less about GOP dark magic mindcontol and more about that your political idols managed to utterly blow the most important election of the century that caused the left to turn on Obama, hth. JeffersonClay posted:There's no inherent contradiction in a populist, conservative economic message. As we are all aware, there were significant discrepancies between the pre-election polling and the electorate that showed up at the polls. And even if the polls showing Bernie would have outperformed Hillary against trump are accurate, can we necessarily conclude that represents a groundswell of support for socialism? It could be that he was simply more likeable-- which is how people are explaining Hillary's underperforming Obama despite her similar (and maybe a bit more liberal) policy positions. "More people liked the socialist candidate and the polls showed massive support for his positions so how can we say that people support socialism?" - An ostensible adult in the year twenty-loving-sixteen. Like, do you even know what you're arguing yourself at this point? Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Dec 5, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
Have you considered that maybe Bernie being the most likeable guy was just because he was an old Jew, not because people were responding to his policies? America loves old Jews and they hate socialism, so that must be the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:The ACA in no way provides low-cost health care, unless you define low-cost as having $300-400/per person/per month premiums for a plan with $10k+ OOP maxes "low-cost". I guess I don't have a frame of reference, because I didn't have health insurance until I got my post-college job, and it's basically the same plan we had before Obamacare, which is ~250 a month and has a $2200 deductible. I get free flu shots, and that's about it. Everything else I just pay for out of pocket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:I guess I don't have a frame of reference, because I didn't have health insurance until I got my post-college job, and it's basically the same plan we had before Obamacare, which is ~250 a month and has a $2200 deductible. I get free flu shots, and that's about it. Everything else I just pay for out of pocket. That's really good insurance, easily as good as what I get at my job. I didn't understand how bad PPACA/Obamacare plans were until I started looking into it: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/26/obamacare-deductibles-are-on-the-rise-for-2017-along-with-monthly-premiums.html The average bronze plan has $6k yearly premiums ($500/month), with the average deductible being a little more than $12k. That is not usable insurance for the majority of Americans. Medicaid expansion was a godsend, but the PPACA loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
The real single decision Clinton could have made that would have secured her the presidency: Vice President Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:"More people liked the socialist candidate In flawed pre-election polling which also showed aClinton landslide. quote:and the polls showed massive support for his positions quote:so how can we say that people support socialism?" quote:Like, do you even know what you're arguing yourself at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
It's funny when people pivot from "nobody would ever vote for a socialist, here's a Pew Research survey showing as much" to "how can you rely on ~polling~ to prove that people would have voted for a socialist"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:The ACA in no way provides low-cost health care, unless you define low-cost as having $300-400/per person/per month premiums for a plan with $10k+ OOP maxes "low-cost". I was self-employed in the USA before the ACA and plans were in the area of *thousands* for the self-employed. There was only one company with reasonable prices (thank goodness!) in my area and it was a startup, so no idea how long it would have lasted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:. You're literally reversing yourself within two sentences here. Also there's a slight difference between showing a Clinton landslide where she was winning by a few percentage points and the Bernie-Trump polls where Bernie was up over +10 points in the polling averages. One is a good result, the other is Reagan-Mondale territory, and you and your brave compatriots have not provided any argument as for how Trump was going to get himself out of that particular hole or indeed how, assuming the polling was flawed somehow, how it is mathematically possible to even arrive at such a result by mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:It's funny when people pivot from "nobody would ever vote for a socialist, here's a Pew Research survey showing as much" to "how can you rely on ~polling~ to prove that people would have voted for a socialist" Polling of candidate matchups before the primaries are over are unreliable, the end. I think Sanders would have won because of how key working class whites were, but I still doubt it would have been a landslide. edit: Hillary was up by most of 10 points at 2 separate points of the campaign
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:"More people liked the socialist candidate and the polls showed massive support for his positions so how can we say that people support socialism?" - An ostensible adult in the year twenty-loving-sixteen. That guy is dumb as hell but Sanders didn't appeal to people because he was a socialist, he appealed to people because he was the anti-status-quo figure who wasn't Donald Trump. Had he been President to oversee the economic crash we'll be having in the near future, the backlash would have been tremendous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:That guy is dumb as hell but Sanders didn't appeal to people because he was a socialist, he appealed to people because he was the anti-status-quo figure who wasn't Donald Trump. Had he been President to oversee the economic crash we'll be having in the near future, the backlash would have been tremendous. For the record, I was mainly making fun of the poster in question for contradicting themselves within the same paragraph rather than making a serious analysis of the appeal of socialism in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:That guy is dumb as hell but Sanders didn't appeal to people because he was a socialist, he appealed to people because he was the anti-status-quo figure who wasn't Donald Trump. Had he been President to oversee the economic crash we'll be having in the near future, the backlash would have been tremendous. I also think he would have been massively, massively less effective in office than Clinton would have been because ideological purity isn't a good indicator of how well you push your agenda as president. But it hardly matters now
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I also think he would have been massively, massively less effective in office than Clinton would have been because ideological purity isn't a good indicator of how well you push your agenda as president. I agree, he would have succeeded at killing far fewer people than Hilary Clinton would, or Donald Trump will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You're literally reversing yourself within two sentences here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I'm not. Why don't you quote the contradictory statements. You used bad polls to say "lol Hillary was to left". Then say any polls showing Bernie better then Don are not accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I'm not. Why don't you quote the contradictory statements. You're literally calling the polling inaccurate before basing your argument on exit polls in the next sentence with no explanation for why the polls that show things you like are good and the onthers are bad. This is either indicative of a monumental lack of intellectual honesty or a bad trolling attempt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Yes I'm saying exit polling is more valuable than hypothetical head to heads conducted during the primary. I can tell this is stretching your capacity for nuance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I agree, he would have succeeded at killing far fewer people than Hilary Clinton would, or Donald Trump will. Putting that much faith in either pre-convention head to heads (which are notoriously inaccurate) or exit polling (which is notoriously inaccurate) is pretty dumb in this poster's opinion
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I was self-employed in the USA before the ACA and plans were in the area of *thousands* for the self-employed. There was only one company with reasonable prices (thank goodness!) in my area and it was a startup, so no idea how long it would have lasted. Same, except there was no reasonably priced insurance and I was just uninsured. I wouldn't call my current premiums affordable, but at least I'm capable of paying them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:. Bernie won the Michigan primary in a surprise landslide that overturned expectations from polling. This was not out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Putting that much faith in either pre-convention head to heads (which are notoriously inaccurate) or exit polling (which is notoriously inaccurate) is pretty dumb in this poster's opinion Exit polling is not notoriously inaccurate, what makes you say that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:Have you considered that maybe Bernie being the most likeable guy was just because he was an old Jew, not because people were responding to his policies? America loves old Jews and they hate socialism, so that must be the answer. Hillary Clinton had a negative approval rating among her own party at the start of her campaign, I can't speak to Sanders' likability too much but I feel confident that running Hillary and clearing the field for her was a huge mistake
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
I could see Sanders winning the white voters that Clinton took for granted, but whose to say he wouldn't lose the black voters that didn't like him in the primaries and would take THAT vote for granted and lose?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I could see Sanders winning the white voters that Clinton took for granted, but whose to say he wouldn't lose the black voters that didn't like him in the primaries and would take THAT vote for granted and lose? Where were these mythical black voters that didn't like Sanders? He enjoyed high favorability ratings across the board, Hillary Clinton beat him among black voters for a bunch of reasons (I would assume a big one being "we think she can for sure beat Trump and Trump is awful") but I've seen little evidence "didn't like him" was one of them and ZERO indication they'd stay home with Trump running rather than vote for Sanders
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:That guy is dumb as hell but Sanders didn't appeal to people because he was a socialist, he appealed to people because he was the anti-status-quo figure who wasn't Donald Trump. Had he been President to oversee the economic crash we'll be having in the near future, the backlash would have been tremendous. Yeah in retrospect I don't see how Bernie winning is a good thing. I'd rather 4 years of rabid leftism boiling over trump and be ready in 2020 than have a Sanders presidency met with a total lack of cooperation from both sides of the aisle and the eternal refrain of "well we TRIED socialism and it didn't work!!!" from third-wayists
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
I also fully understand this is accelerationism.txt but it's apparently working hail satan
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Yeah in retrospect I don't see how Bernie winning is a good thing. I'd rather 4 years of rabid leftism boiling over trump and be ready in 2020 than have a Sanders presidency met with a total lack of cooperation from both sides of the aisle and the eternal refrain of "well we TRIED socialism and it didn't work!!!" from third-wayists You'd rather the cluster gently caress of destruction of civil rights and the generation long damage to America Trump's SCOTUS will do than have Sanders win That's kind of a crazy view that I don't understand
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
"An unpopular GOP presidency is better than a weak Dem one" doesn't really hold water when we see the amount of poo poo that the Republicans get up to. Look at Bush or even more specifically, SCOTUS appointments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
override367 posted:You'd rather the cluster gently caress of destruction of civil rights and the generation long damage to America Trump's SCOTUS will do than have Sanders win I'm not happy about that either but lol if you think a Sanders presidency would get a single goddamn thing done in a timeline where the dems haven't learned the lessons that they're learning from a trump victory. A Sanders win would be four years of absolute nothing with absolutely everything negative being pinned on socialism followed by a total abandonment of the progressive wing in 2020. Edit: lol what kind of Senate would allow a  socialist to get scotus nominees? The obstruction under Obama would have been nothing compared to that under Sanders, Bernard, especially when the neolibs would have no reason to help him
Business Gorillas fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Yeah in retrospect I don't see how Bernie winning is a good thing. I'd rather 4 years of rabid leftism boiling over trump and be ready in 2020 than have a Sanders presidency met with a total lack of cooperation from both sides of the aisle and the eternal refrain of "well we TRIED socialism and it didn't work!!!" from third-wayists The only part where this breaks down is there being nobody on the left in 2020 to run, otherwise it's a flawless plan Business Gorillas posted:I'm not happy about that either but lol if you think a Sanders presidency would get a single goddamn thing done in a timeline where the dems haven't learned the lessons that they're learning from a trump victory. A Sanders win would be four years of absolute nothing with absolutely everything negative being pinned on socialism followed by a total abandonment of the progressive wing in 2020. So it would have been a repeat of 2012-2016? Doesn't sound that bad to me. I'd rather nothing get done than have Clinton or Trump fulfilling their desires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I'm not happy about that either but lol if you think a Sanders presidency would get a single goddamn thing done in a timeline where the dems haven't learned the lessons that they're learning from a trump victory. A Sanders win would be four years of absolute nothing with absolutely everything negative being pinned on socialism followed by a total abandonment of the progressive wing in 2020. The timeline where Bernie won the presidency is probably also the timeline where Dem voters swept Congress, so they're probably having a good time in that universe that ISN'T REAL 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I was self-employed in the USA before the ACA and plans were in the area of *thousands* for the self-employed. There was only one company with reasonable prices (thank goodness!) in my area and it was a startup, so no idea how long it would have lasted. ...ok? So now instead of thousands you have to pay every month, it's only a new car payment and the thousands come after you need it. Tell me what percentage of your self-employed friends can come up with a $12k deductible on the drop of a hat and I'll tell you how rich you are/how big of a liar you are. A $12k deductible represents, statistically, unusable insurance based on the amount of cash and retirement accounts the average American household has access to. Oh and, just in case you forgot, the deductible isn't the out-of-pocket max and you can be on the hook for tens of thousands more. ur wrong im right fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
botany posted:Exit polling is not notoriously inaccurate, what makes you say that? And specifically, I was under the impression that everyone gave up on it after 2004 when it seemed to indicate that Kerry had won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
All I'm really saying is that a hammer had to smack the Dems in the loving head to even consider changing their procedure of just assuming everyone would vote for them. The absolute shellacking an orange golem gave the Most Qualified Candidate to Ever Candidate is that hammer. As much as it would have been nice to see Sanders win and i would also prefer nothing for 4 years than trump, it would absolutely slaughter any hope for a resurgence of a left wing in this country and wed be posting the exact same garbage on Something Reddit in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I also fully understand this is accelerationism.txt but it's apparently working hail satan It's not EXACTLY accelerationism because the big prize is the 2020 election. Assuming Trump does a ton of damage, but doesn't fundamentally destroy the country, he could potentially spark a huge anti-Trump wave in 2020 that hits both the presidency and congress (and maybe some state houses) This is not a prediction, but merely what I HOPE happens. Worst case scenario would have been Hillary wins but SHE gets a huge backlash in 2020. i think
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
I really hope you're right, BG! Personally I believe that liberal elites would rather Republicans win in perpetuity if it meant they didn't have to contribute to a UBI, Medicare for all, etc, so they'll continue the divide-and-conquer idpol strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
The Bernie Wins Timeline: 2016 - Bernie wins the presidency. 2017 - Great Recession II comes along. 2017 - Bernie is impeached by a coalition of Republicans and Third Way Democrats. Elizabeth Warren becomes the First Female President of the United States. Literally nothing gets done for the rest of her presidency. 2018 - Both parties change their primary rules to guard against future populist candidates. 2020 - Hillary becomes the First Female President Elect of the United States. 2021 - Hillary starts WW3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's not EXACTLY accelerationism because the big prize is the 2020 election. Assuming Trump does a ton of damage, but doesn't fundamentally destroy the country, he could potentially spark a huge anti-Trump wave in 2020 that hits both the presidency and congress (and maybe some state houses) I predict that Trump will continue to subtweet China about how he wants to be big buddies with their enemies after he takes office, only he'll do it from @POTUS and we're all gonna die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Bernie Wins Timeline: Same but in 2022 China defaults and wall street tries to bail them out ala 2008 and the revolution finally begins 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:20
|
|