A bit like the Gipper who was loved by the establishment politicians before he rose to power?
All kidding aside, I do acknowledge your point and Cruz has been making quite a lot of enemies during the past few years.
I saw Bernie Sanders live in Madison tonight.
- Thread starter disastermouse
- Start date
- Status
A bit like the Gipper who was loved by the establishment politicians before he rose to power?
All kidding aside, I do acknowledge your point and Cruz has been making quite a lot of enemies during the past few years.
Obama raised more than her and was close in the polls at this point in 2007.
Neither even close to being true for Bernie.
The comparison doesn't work.
GoldenEye 007
Member
How is Bernie polling? Being in Florida and a registered independent, I can't vote in the primaries. But it will be interesting to see his chances.
But I guess either way, even if he got the nomination and somehow wins it all, little would likely be accomplished given other aspects of American politics. There is just no will to fix anything for the masses. Just maintain the status quo or improve it for the rich while middle class seems to always vote against their own interest because they believe they can be rich someday. Dat American Dream.
But I guess either way, even if he got the nomination and somehow wins it all, little would likely be accomplished given other aspects of American politics. There is just no will to fix anything for the masses. Just maintain the status quo or improve it for the rich while middle class seems to always vote against their own interest because they believe they can be rich someday. Dat American Dream.
Latest Iowa numbers:
Clinton 52, Sanders 33, Biden 7, O'Malley 3, Webb 1, Chafee
Latest New Hampshire numbers:
Clinton 43, Sanders 35, Biden 8, O'Malley 2, Webb 1, Chafee
Latest national numbers:
Clinton 58, Biden 17, Sanders 15, Webb 1, O'Malley 1, Chafee
Whoever wins will have to deal with a Republican House of Reps and Republican Senate. Bernie would not get anything significantly more liberal than any other Democrat passed through that.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Wow that's actually better than I would have thought. I remember in 2008 Hillary was the no brainer nominee before Obama seemingly came out of nowhere.
I know Sanders isn't the money machine that Hillary is, but it'll be an interesting race.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
My girlfriend is warming up to Bernie, I think Hillary is a lock but I'm looking forward to the debates to really get underway so people can see that he's a legitimate alternative.
These are very similar to Hillary's platform.
Like everyone else said: Sanders has no chance of winning the general, and Hillary will be far better than any Republican canidate. As much as I dislike her, her polocies, executive orders, and most importantly Supreme Court Nomenees will be what changes this country for the better, not a pipedream canidate who looses. There will be a time when a Sanders-esqe canidate will be viable, but the climate now is not correct. We are too close to the fall of the Soviet Union, and too close to the Regan presidency to make him viable.
Change happens quickly at times, but now is not that time. We need Clinton in office to help get rid of Citizens United, and push one major piece of legislation. Maybe campaign reform, so that in the future canidetes like Bernie will be heard on their ideas instead of how may millionares they can suck up to. We'll see, and I'm an optimest, but if we get a Republican in office with how the party is in this day and age, America will be set back 20+ years.
Change happens quickly at times, but now is not that time. We need Clinton in office to help get rid of Citizens United, and push one major piece of legislation. Maybe campaign reform, so that in the future canidetes like Bernie will be heard on their ideas instead of how may millionares they can suck up to. We'll see, and I'm an optimest, but if we get a Republican in office with how the party is in this day and age, America will be set back 20+ years.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
@NateCohn Why Sanders is going to hit a wall if he has not already.
Pretty much every objective person is aware of how incredibly implausible Sanders being even a major player in the election is.
Its the same old Ron Paul memes from 2008/12 down to ignoring all of the polling data, to claiming "if everyone voted, Bernie would win," pinning hopes that his debate performance is going to erase a 40 point deficit, or claiming that winning New Hampshire is either likely or in the unlikely event that occurs, likely to start a domino effect among every other state and implode Hilary's massive lead in money, mindshare and support.
I love Bernie. I'm probably voting for him in the primaries, mostly because California's primary is so late it doesn't really matter.
That being said, I do get a little annoyed by those on the left at how poor they are at engaging within the political process except to vote for president once every four years. At this point, there are only a few politicians in the Senate I'd consider true "progressives": Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, and Tammy Baldwin (I'm admittedly less familiar with members of the Hawaii delegation, along with a few other states). There's only 68 voting members of the Progressive Caucus in the House.
So even if Bernie is elected (and let's just assume his successor in Vermont is also a progressive, probably Peter Welch), what can he do? By not engaging in the primary process in not just 2016, but 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008 etc, you're setting yourself up to fail. Populist politics can work in swing states and swing districts -- see Sherrod Brown, Ann McLane Kuster, Rick Nolan, Peter DeFazio. People not getting involved in the process early enough are the real cancer, especially those who then go on to decry their choices by saying "it's all the same, man." At least understand the choices and the context with the choices as well as the state/district/country's demographics that you're working with are paramount when understanding who to vote for!
Also -- Vermont is one of the whitest states in the country. That just isn't the Democratic party's demographic. Until he can figure out a way to appeal beyond white, liberal enclaves like Madison and Denver, his appeal only can go so far.
That being said, I do get a little annoyed by those on the left at how poor they are at engaging within the political process except to vote for president once every four years. At this point, there are only a few politicians in the Senate I'd consider true "progressives": Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, and Tammy Baldwin (I'm admittedly less familiar with members of the Hawaii delegation, along with a few other states). There's only 68 voting members of the Progressive Caucus in the House.
So even if Bernie is elected (and let's just assume his successor in Vermont is also a progressive, probably Peter Welch), what can he do? By not engaging in the primary process in not just 2016, but 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008 etc, you're setting yourself up to fail. Populist politics can work in swing states and swing districts -- see Sherrod Brown, Ann McLane Kuster, Rick Nolan, Peter DeFazio. People not getting involved in the process early enough are the real cancer, especially those who then go on to decry their choices by saying "it's all the same, man." At least understand the choices and the context with the choices as well as the state/district/country's demographics that you're working with are paramount when understanding who to vote for!
Also -- Vermont is one of the whitest states in the country. That just isn't the Democratic party's demographic. Until he can figure out a way to appeal beyond white, liberal enclaves like Madison and Denver, his appeal only can go so far.
Sure, so what is the harm in supporting him in an effort to shift the party further left?
Hillary is a lock, so why the concern over people making a protest vote?
I think it's a great idea. My personal concern comes from the idea that they won't support a center-left politician in the general and the "both parties are the same" mentality that plagues certain supporters of fringe candidates. My goodness, just look at Kansas. Think about those economic policies on a national level!
The concern is less over who wins the primaries and more over those who are adamant that they won't vote for anything if Bernie doesn't win. That's counterproductive in the general election.
Nope, it's her time. It just is.
It's clear that she has the party's backing, she has raised an obscene amount of money, and she's put in the work through the system.
Most important? She has the money.
That is not really true. It was true in 2006 before the pre-primaries kicked off but by this point in the cycle in 2007 it was a close horse race between Obama and Clinton and they were neck and neck in fundraising as well.
I am not saying she doesn't share views, because she does. It's where they differ and more important, where their influences lie that divide them.
It's her turn because she has the poll numbers to dominate any Republican challenger and bring up purple and slightly-red state Democrats with her to hopefully cobble together a majority in the Senate and maaaaaaaaybe the House in order to try to enact shades of center-left legislation.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
It doesn't really shift the party to the left. As in every election, it just causes the nominee to have to back off a bunch of stances in the general and look dumb. The GOP will have to do it too.
My real issue with this is that I think there's a poor understanding of the actual issues people believe Sanders stands for, the same way a lot of people convince themselves they understand the banking system after they read a HuffPo article on Elizabeth Warren. Sending everyone to school for free is a bad idea to begin with, you can't just switch to single-payer because you feel like it, and going after the banking system is more complicated than "fuck rich people."
dehydratedbabies
Member
Help me understand all of that, please. Show me the good blogs.
It's a tough sell because all the power and influence rests with a few who like things the way they are, to the detriment of the majority. Most money wins an election, biggest lobby wins policy.
This x 1000. As everyone should have learned with Obama, you need Congress to make any meaningful change and right now, there is no politician on the left that can help carry up Senatorial candidates to taking back the Senate. Blue state Republicans are terrified of the dynamics of the elections partially because of the turnout Hillary will bring to their already doomed races.
^This. She is the quintessential trump card for the democratic party. No matter who the Republican nominate, she is beating them all so far. Polls will tighten well into the general election but as Obama's pollster realized, Obama despite what the public polls said never lost his lead. Yes, even after that disastrous 1st debate.
And this notion that Bernie will destroy Hillary in the debates is silly. Hillary is a very good debater. The primary is not going to be a clown car like Jeb Bush will deal with in his primary. Jeb would love to be in the position she is. Jeb is more equivalent to Hillary 08. He is not the frontrunner people thought he was but he wont have the advantages and mood of the country Hillary will have going into the general if he makes it out.
eBay Huckster
Member
and this is largely gonna remain this way regardless of money's role in the electoral system (simply due to the realities of policymaking), though it'd likely be less potent if politicians aren't getting lobbied from the day they declare candidacies
many places
Member
I'm voting for this guy, hope he's our next president.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
You're right Bernie won't destroy her because she has co-opted many of his views and positions and has suddenly become 'the candidate of the people'. We'll see what happens when the big money backers she is beholden to come calling.
eBay Huckster
Member
probably the same thing that happened to obama, which is that about 3/4 of his campaign promises were implemented in some form
ErasureAcer
Banned
Bernie is doing better than Obama in Iowa at this time.
July 2007
Clinton 51 percent
Obama 29
July 2015
Clinton 52
Bernie 33
Lmao at people thinking Clinton will fight Citizens United if she is President.
July 2007
Clinton 51 percent
Obama 29
July 2015
Clinton 52
Bernie 33
Lmao at people thinking Clinton will fight Citizens United if she is President.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Ok, and where is Hillary now compared to 8 years ago?
I think Sanders would be great for this country, but this is some Fox News spin.
I'm just waiting for the Bernie Money Bombs to start. They sure worked for Ron Paul...
All the enthusiasm in the world doesn't mean anything if the candidate that enthusiasm is directed toward has zero chance of winning. The Ron Paul supporters learned that (eventually) - the Sanders supporters will get there too. The second he declared himself a socialist, his Presidential aspirations were dead in the water. I'd love to have a democratic socialist country, but most people in the US don't agree. Socialists are even lower than Muslims and atheists on the 'would you vote for a X for President polls' - having that name associated with you is political suicide, and the media won't let us forget it.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Then you can spend the next 8 years feeling smugly superior while President Walker destroys the country.
It was me Austin
Banned
Why don't people like Hillary now?
Adam_Roman
Member
I side with Bernie the most out of the current campaigners, but someone else may come along that I have more in common with. I'll most likely vote for him in the primaries. In the general election, if it's not Bernie that gets the nomination, I'll probably vote independent.
NullPointer
Member
I'd like a new rule - candidates should not be shot down with a "zero chance of winning" until we're at least midway into the primaries.
God damn. Whats bugging me is the people (here and in the press) who feel the need to follow up any mention of some candidates by immediately stating that the candidate has no chance in hell. We get it. But maybe we could respect this whole democratic process thing and your fellow voters enough to wait just a little while on that stuff. A small period of time where people and their ideas are just that.
Otherwise it comes across as a desperate narrative meant to keep people from even considering some alternate views.
Let the man speak, let him have his followers and opportunities to speak before shouting people down with the electibility arguments. If he has no chance in hell then he will have no chance in hell - there's no need to repeatedly chant it like some fucking mantra or hex. And apply this to all the other candidates too.
God damn. Whats bugging me is the people (here and in the press) who feel the need to follow up any mention of some candidates by immediately stating that the candidate has no chance in hell. We get it. But maybe we could respect this whole democratic process thing and your fellow voters enough to wait just a little while on that stuff. A small period of time where people and their ideas are just that.
Otherwise it comes across as a desperate narrative meant to keep people from even considering some alternate views.
Let the man speak, let him have his followers and opportunities to speak before shouting people down with the electibility arguments. If he has no chance in hell then he will have no chance in hell - there's no need to repeatedly chant it like some fucking mantra or hex. And apply this to all the other candidates too.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Ha, as if Hillary would ever overturn Citizens United.
Can't even see how some people are enthusiastic about her. She's very much a "hold your nose and vote" candidate, not "Hilldawg"
Won't be eligible to vote this election unfortunately
Can't even see how some people are enthusiastic about her. She's very much a "hold your nose and vote" candidate, not "Hilldawg"
Won't be eligible to vote this election unfortunately
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
OP derailed their own thread by posting this in post #1:
Pretty much this entire thread has been about trying to explain how foolish and dangerous such an attitude is.
You're right, the executive has no power to undo Supreme Court precedent and is also completely removed from any attempt to initiate a constitutional amendment, a process that initially only involves Congress.
Hyperactivity
Banned
You get my point. I highly doubt she would fight to get it overturned
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
This is one of those ridiculous notions that doesn't survive the primaries. The general election is so far off that there's very little chance of it actually coming to fruition.
No, I don't really get your point. There's little a president can do without sympathetic majorities in Congress. Neither Bernie nor Hillary will have that (especially not in the House), so the point is moot.
There's nothing to fight for since it won't happen, so anything else is lip service.
NullPointer
Member
I've seen it everywhere, not just this thread and not just on GAF. Its driving me a little nuts because we're still in the very early going.
I also see the Republicans getting mocked specifically for having so many candidates (not talking about the quality of those candidates, just the number), but I don't see the problem there. That seems healthier than what we have going on the Dem side of things honestly.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Wouldnt sane SC justices be able to reverse the decision if its brought back up down the road? If the SC gets more conservative the chance of that is nil whereas if the it gets more liberal there might be a chance years down the line.
edit:
Its definitely not an isolated occurrence on GAF. ive seen the sentiment way more than i like.
eBay Huckster
Member
Nobody had Clinton up 22 in Iowa at any point in the lead-up to those caucuses, and certainly no one had her anywhere near 51%.
Me too.
that Obama 08 revisionist history lol.
eBay Huckster
Member
I'm struggling to find what weird crevice of the internet he pulled that 51-29 number from, because that wasn't even a result of any national poll in that entire race (but it was a random crosstab).
exmachina64
Banned
Are you saying you'll be under 18 for the 2016 election?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked