PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
Realistically Bernie is too old and too narrow of an appeal to win the primary. Barack Obama at least had the youth and could credibly claim he could bridge the left-right divide (although he didn't ultimately do it). So It's unlikely Bernie Sanders is going to be anything like Barack Obama.

That said, I do see him being something like Howard Dean, an extremely exciting candidate who appeals to the left, and maybe change the dynamics of how future campaigns are run. His best bet is too push Hillary to the left and make "socialism" not a dirty anymore, and possibly killing the SuperPAC as a credibly fundraising scheme. Those would be huge accomplishments, and would be almost as big as an impact as a Sanders presidency.
 
Aaron Strife said:
I can't imagine who would even be cheerleading Cuomo at this point. Who does he appeal to? Certainly no informed liberal uneasy with Clinton's centrism would support him. They'd go with O'Malley or Sanders. There doesn't seem to be any rabble from the establishment for someone more "pro-business," they seem to be pretty content with Clinton.

O'Malley and Sanders have no chance but they at least fill an ideological gap that Clinton might not (who has become markedly more populist from the looks of things). A hypothetical Cuomo candidacy would be the most absurdly futile thing to happen in politics since Ron Paul.

The most traction Cuomo could ever get as a candidate is if Hillary somehow blows it and he could argue Democrats need to return to centrism to win. But that certainly wouldn't happen in 2016 and there are probably better candidates who could make that case anyway.
Click to expand...

Cuomo appeals to the same people who he's always appealed too - people with money who want to destroy the common good, but happen to like gay people and abortions.
 
JesseEwiak said:
Cuomo appeals to the same people who he's always appealed too - people with money who want to destroy the common good, but happen to like gay people and abortions.
Click to expand...

Let's not go that far here. Cuomo is much better than any Republican candidate, and is only bad relative to other Democrats.
 
jamesinclair said:
Yeah the rookie black senator has no chance of being president.

Get in line behind people with actual experience lol.
Click to expand...
Obama is a master politician with an impressive story. He also had grassroots and Goldman Sachs support. Sanders isn't a good politician, is old, and is seen as cranky. I have a lot of respect for him but let's be real. Comparing him to 2007 Obama doesn't make sense.

There are a couple things at work here. Yes, I agree that it's sickening that a candidate's ability to raise money is perceived to be the main factor in whether he or she is a credible candidate for president. Especially when that money is mainly coming from a handful of business men. But I can acknowledge that while also doubting Sanders' ability to create a national campaign and excite voters.
 
Teggy said:
When is Bush going to formally announce? Seems weird that he's going to be close to the last one.
Click to expand...

As long as he doesn't formally announce, he's allowed to coordinate and fundraise for his superPAC. That's why everybody is putting it off as long as possible.
 
Jooney said:
I've never heard of this person until now.

I'm going to assume that means a prolonged period of good luck for me has ended.
Click to expand...
Looks like he has a book.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594036691/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Endorsed by Ted Cruz, Michelle Malkin and Tucker Carlson.

Why Coolidge Matters revisits the record of our most underrated president, examining Coolidge’s views on governance, public sector unions, education, race, immigration, and foreign policy. Most importantly, Why Coolidge Matters explains what lessons Coolidge—the last president to pay down the national debt—can offer the limited government movement in the post-industrial age.
Click to expand...
 
Really hope the liberals in here do all they can to support Sanders during the nomination process and spread the word. There's literally no reason not to.

If Hilary ends up being nominated and you want to pull the pragmatic card then, fine. But I hope there's nobody doing that shit right now when he has a real chance since he's not running as independent and is basically the sole legitimate challenger. The other potential dem nominees are either the same as Hilary, or not as good as Bernie both in terms of principles and electability.
 
Angry Fork said:
Really hope the liberals in here do all they can to support Sanders during the nomination process and spread the word. There's literally no reason not to.

If Hilary ends up being nominated and you want to pull the pragmatic card then, fine. But I hope there's nobody doing that shit right now when he has a real chance since he's not running as independent and is basically the sole legitimate challenger. The other potential dem nominees are either the same as Hilary, or not as good as Bernie both in terms of principles and electability.
Click to expand...
Bernie would lose to bush, walker or rubio IMO.

I'm not going to disparage him and I do share a lot about him with my left leaning friends, I welcome him to push Clinton left on money issues but I'm not "supporting" sanders, giving him money or giving my time like I will for Clinton.
 
Angry Fork said:
Really hope the liberals in here do all they can to support Sanders during the nomination process and spread the word. There's literally no reason not to.

If Hilary ends up being nominated and you want to pull the pragmatic card then, fine. But I hope there's nobody doing that shit right now when he has a real chance since he's not running as independent and is basically the sole legitimate challenger. The other potential dem nominees are either the same as Hilary, or not as good as Bernie both in terms of principles and electability.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders, like Warren, supports GMO labeling. (Sherrod Brown, thankfully, does not.) As someone who grew up in agriculture and who also has little tolerance for anti-science crusades of any sort, that's enough for me not to enthusiastically support him.

I'm not going to be a dick and ostentatiously oppose him, since I think he'll play a very important role in the primary process, but if my two choices are Sanders and Clinton, I'll vote for Clinton.
 
BertramCooper said:
Bernie Sanders, like Warren, supports GMO labeling. (Sherrod Brown, thankfully, does not.) As someone who grew up in agriculture and who also deeply values science, that's enough for me not to enthusiastically support him.

I'm not going to be a dick and ostentatiously oppose him, since I think he'll play a very important role in the primary process, but if my two choices are Sanders and Clinton, I'll vote for Clinton.
Click to expand...
Disappointing for both but I imagine that's cause he's got to court the hippie vermonters
 
APKmetsfan said:
Bernie would lose to bush, walker or rubio IMO.

I'm not going to disparage him and I do share a lot about him with my left leaning friends, I welcome him to push Clinton left on money issues but I'm not "supporting" sanders, giving him money or giving my time like I will for Clinton.
Click to expand...

No republican can win based on social issues alone, they would have to support gay marriage, turn left on the drug war, and be more left on foreign policy/NSA. The only one close to this is Rand Paul.

This election is Bernie vs. Hilary. There's no reason not to support Bernie during the nomination process. Whoever gets nominated will be president.
 
Angry Fork said:
No republican can win based on social issues alone, they would have to support gay marriage, turn left on the drug war, and be more left on foreign policy/NSA. The only one close to this is Rand Paul.

This election is Bernie vs. Hilary. There's no reason not to support Bernie during the nomination process. Whoever gets nominated will be president.
Click to expand...

You're delusional if you think Bernie Sanders could be elected president. The GOP nominee will raise more than a billion dollars. Even with the democrat machine behind him I can't see Bernie doing that.

There are things more important than gay marriage to voters, in fact there are a lot of things more important. Economy and jobs.
 
Angry Fork said:
No republican can win based on social issues alone, they would have to support gay marriage, turn left on the drug war, and be more left on foreign policy/NSA. The only one close to this is Rand Paul.

This election is Bernie vs. Hilary. There's no reason not to support Bernie during the nomination process. Whoever gets nominated will be president.
Click to expand...

You really think a person who publicly describes himself as a socialist is a sure bet to win the White House? A few decades from now, perhaps, but certainly not at the moment.

Democrats can't nominate just anyone and expect to win. That's naive.
 
PhoenixDark said:
You're delusional if you think Bernie Sanders could be elected president. The GOP nominee will raise more than a billion dollars. Even with the democrat machine behind him I can't see Bernie doing that.

There are things more important than gay marriage to voters, in fact there are a lot of things more important. Economy and jobs.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about demographics. They will never allow a republican to become president again unless that person turns left on social issues (immigration, drug war, abortion/religious bs), which will upset their base so most will not do this. The only one who might is Rand Paul.

As for money, it's not about that. Once it's repub vs democrat everyone will know when the election is and who is running, as every media org and website talks about it. Whoever is nominated for dem party will have the dem money/support. The only reason Clinton would raise more is because the banks support her, something Sanders will play off really well as most of the population is anti-bankers, well except for the establishment + Hilary supporters.

As for "pushing" Hilary to the left, this doesn't make sense. Hilary will say what she wants to appease the left, then do nothing about it once elected. What exactly do you want to push? For her to say words? Why play that game when you can nominate someone who actually believes what they're saying?

If Sanders was running on a 3rd party then I'd understand the ambivalence towards him, but him running as a dem means he'll have access to everything Clinton has, except banker money. Isn't it liberals who championed Obama's ability to raise the majority on small donations rather than large corps?
 
BertramCooper said:
Bernie Sanders, like Warren, supports GMO labeling. (Sherrod Brown, thankfully, does not.) As someone who grew up in agriculture and who also has little tolerance for anti-science crusades of any sort, that's enough for me not to enthusiastically support him.

I'm not going to be a dick and ostentatiously oppose him, since I think he'll play a very important role in the primary process, but if my two choices are Sanders and Clinton, I'll vote for Clinton.
Click to expand...

So do most Americans. And here I thought we lived in a democracy!
 
Angry Fork said:
I'm talking about demographics. They will never allow a republican to become president again unless that person turns left on social issues (immigration, drug war, abortion/religious bs), which will upset their base so most will not do this. The only one who might is Rand Paul.

As for money, it's not about that. Once it's repub vs democrat everyone will know when the election is and who is running, as every media org and website talks about it. Whoever is nominated for dem party will have the dem money/support. The only reason Clinton would raise more is because the banks support her, something Sanders will play off really well as most of the population is anti-bankers, well except for the establishment + Hilary supporters.

As for "pushing" Hilary to the left, this doesn't make sense. Hilary will say what she wants to appease the left, then do nothing about it once elected. What exactly do you want to push? For her to say words? Why play that game when you can nominate someone who actually believes what they're saying?

If Sanders was running on a 3rd party then I'd understand the ambivalence towards him, but him running as a dem means he'll have access to everything Clinton has, except banker money. Isn't it liberals who championed Obama's ability to raise the majority on small donations rather than large corps?
Click to expand...

Sanders hasn't proven that he can raise money at the rate Obama did (grassroots, not banks). Come on. And while the dem machine would gear up for him, it's very likely that a variety of dem leaning corporate interests would donate to republicans instead.

This election is too important to die on the hill of principle. If I vote in the democrat primary I'll vote for Bernie, no doubt. But he would be a horrible general election candidate.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Sanders hasn't proven that he can raise money at the rate Obama did (grassroots, not banks). Come on. And while the dem machine would gear up for him, it's very likely that a variety of dem leaning corporate interests would donate to republicans instead.

This election is too important to die on the hill of principle. If I vote in the democrat primary I'll vote for Bernie, no doubt. But he would be a horrible general election candidate.
Click to expand...

I think it's too early to say on raising money. It's possible you're right, but I don't think it's fair to discredit him immediately without at least trying first for a while. I think you guys are really underestimating how much his language resonates with ordinary people.

He has the same appeal as Elizabeth Warren except he's old and white, which will turn off some people but not the majority. Warren is not running, Sanders is her replacement. He can acquire all of the support Warren would have had. Once you have the platform of Sanders vs. christian taliban during televised debates, there's no way people would be hostile towards what Sanders says. Especially on certain issues where the general population is further left than Hilary on, like real campaign finance reform, free universal healthcare, college education and so on.
 
I think the anti GMO movement is bullshit, but I'm not going to get all worked out over labeling.
Like, whatever, information isn't bad, the issue here is that people are misinformed about GMOs, the solution is to educate them, not to hide the information from them.

And in any case, that is a minor minor issue for me.
 
BertramCooper said:
This is an issue where I think there is an objectively right and wrong stance.

Sanders has the wrong stance, and even if a majority of Americans agree with him, I still think it's the wrong stance.
Click to expand...
Well I don't know if I can go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong, but I certainly don't think it's a good or even necessary policy.

The movement is a mashup of people who think it will somehow turn the screws on Monsanto's shitstain policies and people afraid of tinkering with the genetics of foodstuffs that have already been altered beyond recognition from their basal form through centuries of selective breeding.
 
FiggyCal said:
I wasn't saying that he should change his opinions, but that more politicians should support GMO labeling as Sanders and Warren apparently do.

I mean it's not even close. Some 93% of Americans want it.
Click to expand...
You could get similar results polling people with the whole "dangers of dihydrogen monoxide" gag. "Genetically Modified Organisms" just sounds scary, it's a policy born of knee jerk reactionary ignorance.
 
FiggyCal said:
I wasn't saying that he should change his opinions, but that more politicians should support GMO labeling as Sanders and Warren apparently do.

I mean it's not even close. Some 93% of Americans want it.
Click to expand...

No, they really shouldn't. It's a movement rooted in pseudoscience, not entirely dissimilar from climate change denial in the GOP.

The difference is that the Democratic Party as a whole hasn't embraced GMO hysterics the way that the GOP leadership has embraced climate change denial because they know that it's horseshit and ultimately bad policy.

I don't expect everyone to care as much about this issue as I do; we all have specific issues that we care more about than most people. But I think it's a perfectly valid reason for me not to enthusiastically support a Sanders presidential run.
 
Bernie Sanders has zero chance of winning the nomination. And in a general election he'd only be able to beat someone like Ben Carson. It's delusional to think things like the blue wall and demographics!!! guarantee a victory for any Democratic nominee. And even if this somehow happened and he were elected there'd be a very strong chance of a GOP wave in 2018 that would result in a Republican supermajority that would be able to pass whatever they want into law.

Maybe then leftists would wake up to the reality that congress matters. But I doubt it.
 
Yellowtail said:
Bernie Sanders has zero chance of winning the nomination. And in a general election he'd only be able to beat someone like Ben Carson. It's delusional to think things like the blue wall and demographics!!! guarantee a victory for any Democratic nominee. And even if this somehow happened and he were elected there'd be a very strong chance of a GOP wave in 2018 that would result in a Republican supermajority that would be able to pass whatever they want into law.

Maybe then leftists would wake up to the reality that congress matters. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Edit: Nevermind.
 
Yellowtail said:
Bernie Sanders has zero chance of winning the nomination. And in a general election he'd only be able to beat someone like Ben Carson. It's delusional to think things like the blue wall and demographics!!! guarantee a victory for any Democratic nominee. And even if this somehow happened and he were elected there'd be a very strong chance of a GOP wave in 2018 that would result in a Republican supermajority that would be able to pass whatever they want into law.

Maybe then leftists would wake up to the reality that congress matters. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Congress does matter, more than the presidency. But you know turn-out is wildly different on midterms vs. general. The christian taliban portion of America can elect representatives but they're not big enough for the presidency.

That's why I say whoever is dem nominee will be president. The wave of change on things like the war on black people/women, immigration, economic populism, debt, permanent war, etc. is too far now to allow any republican candidate to win the presidency without having a leftish position on some of these.

But this will in turn upset the kkk patriot types, so they're stuck in a rut unless they abandon the base. The only one who will risk this is Rand Paul and maybe that HP corporate lady. Bush will be another Romney. The rest of the nominees are deranged.

Every other potential dem nominee is Hilary-lite without her status. This election is Sanders vs. Hilary.
 
Angry Fork said:
]I'm talking about demographics.[/B] They will never allow a republican to become president again unless that person turns left on social issues (immigration, drug war, abortion/religious bs), which will upset their base so most will not do this. The only one who might is Rand Paul.

As for money, it's not about that. Once it's repub vs democrat everyone will know when the election is and who is running, as every media org and website talks about it. Whoever is nominated for dem party will have the dem money/support. The only reason Clinton would raise more is because the banks support her, something Sanders will play off really well as most of the population is anti-bankers, well except for the establishment + Hilary supporters.

As for "pushing" Hilary to the left, this doesn't make sense. Hilary will say what she wants to appease the left, then do nothing about it once elected. What exactly do you want to push? For her to say words? Why play that game when you can nominate someone who actually believes what they're saying?

If Sanders was running on a 3rd party then I'd understand the ambivalence towards him, but him running as a dem means he'll have access to everything Clinton has, except banker money. Isn't it liberals who championed Obama's ability to raise the majority on small donations rather than large corps?
Click to expand...

Didn't help in 2010 and 2014. It would be a political suicide mission based on principle or the "true believer" route. Republicans certainly dont wanna go that route and neither do Democrats.

There is no way Bernie Sanders like others have eloquently stated could win a general. You cant just expect to nominate any candidate and win. Candidate quality matter a lot.

Congress matters but the Supreme Court matters much more this time. Republicans to be honest have a lock on the House at least till 2023 barring a wave next year or in 2018 or 2020. So that means that whatever progressive policies you may want from Sanders would be dead on arrival in Congress. You do not want a trifecta in 2017 overturning and appointing judges ensuring a conservative Supreme Court for decades to come.

In other words, we need someone who has the best chance to win and the Republicans can atleast be willing to work with and that person is Hillary.
 
NeoXChaos said:
Didn't help in 2010 and 2014. What you are advocating for is a political suicide mission based on principle or the "true believer" route. Republicans certainly dont wanna go that route and neither do Democrats.

There is no way Bernie Sanders like others have eloquently stated could win a general. You cant just expect to nominate any candidate and win. Candidate quality matter a lot.

Congress matters but the Supreme Court matters much more this time. Republicans to be honest have a lock on the House at least till 2023 barring a wave next year or in 2018 or 2020. So that means that whatever progressive policies you may want from Sanders would be dead on arrival in Congress. You do not want a trifecta in 2017 overturning and appointing judges ensuring a conservative Supreme Court for decades to come.

In other words, we need someone who has the best chance to win and the Republicans can atleast be willing to work with and that person is Hillary.
Click to expand...

"Republicans willing to work with" is rubbish so get that out of the way. (Republicans actually have been principled btw, just for principles that are horrible). They will not work with anyone and we shouldn't want to work with them, we should want to overthrow them by getting dems elected. If we don't get dems elected they are going to do what they want because they have a radical insurgency forcing the fire underneath their representatives (as the left should have). Republicans will be like this no matter who is the democratic nominee/president, if this elementary point hasn't gotten through to liberals after Obama's presidency then I don't know what else could.

As for this being about leftist principles, this is not an excuse liberals can use anymore. Sanders is not running as independent/3rd party. You guys can't throw Nader at us. Sanders is running within the establishment party, with all of the benefits included.

The democratic party is going to win this election because of demographics and the grassroots forces that have arisen in the last few years, for left-wing/center-left social and economic positions, and the level of support they get from various celebrities, media organizations, newspapers etc.

The only question is who is going to lead that party and advocate the kind of things liberals want (supposedly) and working people need. There is no reason not to fight as hard as we can to get Sanders nominated as he actually believes in the stuff we want implemented.

There is no reason to convince yourself the left wing position is so hopeless when this is a legitimate chance. If you thought Warren should run for president and had a chance at beating Hilary you should defend and support Bernie as he is her replacement.
 
Angry Fork said:
That's why I say whoever is dem nominee will be president. The wave of change on things like the war on black people/women, immigration, economic populism, debt, permanent war, etc. is too far now to allow any republican candidate to win the presidency without having a leftish position on some of these.
Click to expand...
Black people overwhelmingly vote Democratic anyway (although polls show Warren's and Sanders' support is almost entirely white), abortion is still a 50/50 issue, Jeb Bush and others are already pro-immigration reform, all GOP candidates are now running on an economically populist message (many ran as Clinton Democrats in the last midterms), and polls show that on matters of debt and national security Democrats are at a disadvantage.

This level of confidence is as bad as Republicans back in 1991 who thought they had a lock on the White House because they had won the last 5/6 elections and HW was an incumbent president with 90% approval ratings.

Candidates matter (look at Gore) and Democrats are only one recession or terrorist attack away from losing the White House. All Republicans have to do is flip Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado - that's not difficult at all for Bush or Kasich or Paul or Rubio against a terrible Democratic nominee.

And for the record, all polling shows that when Warren is taken out of consideration most of her support goes to Clinton. Sanders doesn't have anywhere close to the support among women and latte liberals that Warren has and Obama had that would make him a viable challenger.
 
Yellowtail said:
Black people overwhelmingly vote Democratic anyway (although polls show Warren's and Sanders' support is almost entirely white), abortion is still a 50/50 issue, Jeb Bush and others are already pro-immigration reform, all GOP candidates are now running on an economically populist message (many ran as Clinton Democrats in the last midterms), and polls show that on matters of debt and national security Democrats are at a disadvantage.

This level of confidence is as bad as Republicans back in 1991 who thought they had a lock on the White House because they had won the last 5/6 elections and HW was an incumbent president with 90% approval ratings.

Candidates matter (look at Gore) and Democrats are only one recession or terrorist attack away from losing the White House. All Republicans have to do is flip Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado - that's not difficult at all for Bush or Kasich or Paul or Rubio against a terrible Democratic nominee.

And for the record, all polling shows that when Warren is taken out of consideration most of her support goes to Clinton. Sanders doesn't have anywhere close to the support among women and latte liberals that Warren has and Obama had that would make him a viable challenger.
Click to expand...

That level of confidence is the exact same that had all liberals saying Hilary is a shoe-in. Suddenly when it's used for a real liberal you guys shudder, for no reason at all except brand loyalty (a brand that is toxic to anyone aware of who she actually is and the things she's said/done).

On Abortion it's more like 80/20 at least when it comes to 1st/2nd trimester. Half the country are women and most of them support it, and it's likely majority of men support it.

"Pro immigration reform" doesn't mean anything on it's own. If they're not for some form of amnesty/path to citizensihp they're not getting hispanic vote. And they're not going to do that unless they intend to upset the white supremacist base.

The economic populism they run on will be readily seen through during any debate when they're forced to explain how cutting taxes for the rich will help working people.

There is no need to be so defeatist. We can actually win a great victory with a good guy who has the senate experience establishment people crave, and a base who believes in liberal ideas. Besides some future disaster like you alluded to, the stars will not align like this again for a long time since Warren probably won't ever run.
 
Since so many people seem to be paranoid about voter turnout in post-Obama 2016, do the people who legitimately think that Sanders should win the nomination really think that he'll bring more voters to the polls than Hillary?

Because I sincerely doubt it.
 
Sander running is about the same thing as Ron Paul running. He'll fire up pockets of the Internet and quietly resign from the race several states in.
 
BertramCooper said:
Since so many people seem to be paranoid about voter turnout in post-Obama 2016, do the people who legitimately think that Sanders should win the nomination really think that he'll bring more voters to the polls than Hillary?

Because I sincerely doubt it.
Click to expand...

No way, everyone at least knows who Clinton is. The average American voter has probably never heard of Bernie Sanders.

On a side note, I went to a wedding this weekend and saw a Ben Carson 2016 bumper sticker in a parking lot. They're out there, you guys, be vigilant.
 
Angry Fork said:
"Republicans willing to work with" is rubbish so get that out of the way. (Republicans actually have been principled btw, just for principles that are horrible). They will not work with anyone and we shouldn't want to work with them, we should want to overthrow them by getting dems elected. If we don't get dems elected they are going to do what they want because they have a radical insurgency forcing the fire underneath their representatives (as the left should have). Republicans will be like this no matter who is the democratic nominee/president, if this elementary point hasn't gotten through to liberals after Obama's presidency then I don't know what else could.

As for this being about leftist principles, this is not an excuse liberals can use anymore. Sanders is not running as independent/3rd party. You guys can't throw Nader at us. Sanders is running within the establishment party, with all of the benefits included.

The democratic party is going to win this election because of demographics and the grassroots forces that have arisen in the last few years, for left-wing/center-left social and economic positions, and the level of support they get from various celebrities, media organizations, newspapers etc.

The only question is who is going to lead that party and advocate the kind of things liberals want (supposedly) and working people need. There is no reason not to fight as hard as we can to get Sanders nominated as he actually believes in the stuff we want implemented.

There is no reason to convince yourself the left wing position is so hopeless when this is a legitimate chance. If you thought Warren should run for president and had a chance at beating Hilary you should defend and support Bernie as he is her replacement.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders will never be able to pass the progressive policies that you want because there is no chance he will be nominated by the Democratic Party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
968
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
256K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom