Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Oh, that's fair enough. I just find it a little strange how a large number of people think Sanders would lose the general when on the data we have before us, he'd have 2008 style landslides against the vast majority of the Republican field. The GOP is a dead party walking.

And outside of that CNN poll, he loses against everyone but Trump:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07302015_U645de.pdf
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf

 

[Reckless Onion]

Does donald trump realistically have a chance to become president? I dont really follow politics all that much, let alone US politics so excuse me if it's really dumb to ask.

 

[kirblar]

Obama was always considered a serious challenge to Clinton because his politics weren't too much further to the left of her and he was given multiple high-profile speaking engagements by the Dem national party. Everyone just figured he'd get it AFTER Hillary.

Bernie is different in that he's seen as too far left by the majority of the country... at least for now. If he can come closer to the center while maintaining his fringe base it will be interesting. The debates will tell the tale I suppose.

His economics are crippling- it's not that he's far left, he's just out of sync where mainstream non-partisan economics is. His age shows.

 

[werks]

I'll say this to the Hillary supporters. If she is the better candidate, then beat sanders in the primary (shouldn't be an issue according to you guys). Quit telling us that we shouldn't vote for sanders because Hillary is the default choice. A contested primary didn't hurt Obama and it won't hurt whoever the presidential candidate is.

 

[danm999]

Good on Bernie but I'd still wait for more than a single poll to put him ahead before I'd call it conclusive.

 

[benjipwns]

I also reject the idea that the products aren't that different. Fundamentally, American politics takes place within a system that is overwhelmingly dominated by moneyed interests. Sanders wants to put an end to that, and what's more, that is an entirely believable claim given his track record of avoiding the large funding organizations entirely. That's a sharp contrast to Hillary. Even if their policies while in office would be similar, the effect they'll have in what that office looks like in the future is very different.

Ah, like Obama's unprecedented transparency. And his potential "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people."

 

[Kill3r7]

I've been hearing a lot of "I want Bernie, but he probably won't win, so..."

I think if everyone that said that actually voted for him, we might have a chance.

I like what Bernie stands for but he has about the same chance of winning as Trump. Could he win the primary? Sure, but he would make for a terrible candidate in the general election. History has shown that in order to win the general election you can't be too far off center, especially on economic issues. You have to offer gradual change (much like Obama did) and that's not what Bernie is pitching. He basically wants start from scratch and that's not a winning strategy IMO.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And outside of that CNN poll, he loses against everyone but Trump:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07302015_U645de.pdf
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf

Both of those pollsters have generally over-estimated Republican support over the last few national elections. ORC has produced much more accurate results, particularly in recent years.[1]

 

[shinra-bansho]

I also reject the idea that the products aren't that different. Fundamentally, American politics takes place within a system that is overwhelmingly dominated by moneyed interests. Sanders wants to put an end to that, and what's more, that is an entirely believable claim given his track record of avoiding the large funding organizations entirely. That's a sharp contrast to Hillary. Even if their policies while in office would be similar, the effect they'll have in what that office looks like in the future is very different.

Sanders would change America. He'd be the left's Reagan if he made office, it would fundamentally change the political landscape. Hillary would be fine. But she wouldn't be that.

I should probably clarify, I'm largerly referring to product dimensions that the broader market cares enough about to affect their purchase voting decision.

For a certain [niche] segment of Democratic and/or general election voters the issue of campaign finance reform is their order-winner. For the broader market the order-winning factor is probably more likely to be real or perceived greater electability, (within that the potential need to replace SCOTUS Justices in the next Presidential term), or just more mainstream domestic issues. For black voters within the Democratic fold, it presumably includes providing a voice for minority issues.

Ultimately, in my view, these candidates are for all intents and purposes products. The best product will win.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Ah, like Obama's unprecedented transparency. And his potential "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people."

You don't think the Iran nuclear deal is a sign of "strengthening international diplomacy"?

If this was 1988 and the gop had smart/serious people like bush Sr running I would vote for Bernie. However this republican field is batshit insane, I can't risk a nutjob like trump or Cruz winning.

 

[benjipwns]

Both of those pollsters have generally over-estimated Republican support over the last few national elections. ORC has produced much more accurate results, particularly in recent years.[1]

Nobody has produced "accurate" polling results 17 months from an election that may never occur.

 

[Interfectum]

I like what Bernie stands for but he has about the same chance of winning as Trump. Could he win the primary? Sure, but he would make for a terrible candidate in the general election. History has shown that in order to win the general election you can't be too far off center, especially on economic issues. You have to offer gradual change (much like Obama did) and that's not what Bernie is pitching. He basically wants start from scratch and that's not a winning strategy IMO.

Doesn't sound like he wants to start from scratch, just fix some shit that should have been fixed years ago.

End Offshore Tax Havens: Corporations must begin paying their fair share in taxes.

End Subsidies to Big Business: The most profitable corporations do not need to be subsidized by American taxpayers.

Overturn Citizens United: Bernie wants to overturn the Citizens United ruling to prevent corporations from having an outsized influence on our democracy.

Support Entrepreneurship and Small Businesses: Instead of helping multinational corporations, Bernie wants to support small and medium American businesses by providing them with the low-interest loans.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall: Separating commercial banking from investment banking will buffer normal Americans from risky investments.

Break up the Big Banks: Banks that are “too big to fail” make risky investments because they know that the American taxpayer will bail them out — and are therefore too big to exist.

Tax on Wall Street Speculation: Change the tax code to discourage short-term gambling and instead promote long-term investing.

 

[metalslimer]

Well Hilary has barely been campaigning and you hear about her when they're talking about her dumb email sacandal

 

[HylianTom]

No, he cannot at all. No chance. Not even close. And now motherfuckers want to split the democratic ticket when we need solidarity the most.

This is what sticks in my mind:

Folks love Bernie, and for damn good reason. They trust him. They trust his judgement.

So what happens if he concedes next year and says, "hey folks, we've shifted the conversation, and now it's time to unite for Hillary. I'm not running independently. This is absolutely critical."

He has good judgement and is trying to do what's best for the long-term cause of progressivism... riiiiiight?

So I'll be quite interested if/when we get to that point.

And I'll put this out there:
any swing state voter - Hillary or Bernie or Biden or Webb supporter - willing to temper tantrum because they don't like the nominee either really doesn't care about progressivism as much as they claim to, or they don't quite get how damn high the stakes are for this election. The Democrats losing this one likely means that progressivism is dead for a few decades, as anything we manage to pass from thereon will be challenged and strangled by a Republican judiciary.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I should probably clarify, I'm largerly referring to product dimensions that the broader market cares enough about to affect their purchase voting decision.

For a certain [niche] segment of Democratic and/or general election voters the issue of campaign finance reform is their order-winner. For the broader market the order-winning factor is probably more likely to be real or perceived greater electability, (within that the potential need to replace SCOTUS Justices in the next Presidential term), or just more mainstream domestic issues.

Ultimately, in my view, these candidates are for all intents and purposes products. The best product will win.

That's a fairly contentious usage of best. If by best, you mean "being the most-preferred option of a majority of voters given informational constraints", yes - but then you're effectively just saying something tautologically true. If by best, you mean "most likely to improve the lives and welfare of American citizens", then no, the best candidate actually only rarely wins.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Nobody has produced "accurate" polling results 17 months from an election that may never occur.

Sure, but you're goalpost moving now. My point was simply that there's actually not much data to suggest that Sanders would lose. By saying "well, there's no much data at all!", you're conceding that.

 

[benjipwns]

any swing state voter - Hillary or Bernie or Biden or Webb supporter - willing to temper tantrum because they don't like the nominee either really doesn't care about progressivism as much as they claim to, or they don't quite get how damn high the stakes are for this election

Or they know their vote will not change the outcome in any measurable way, can't be confirmed by a third party and is simply an act for personal pleasure.

Sure, but you're goalpost moving now.

No, I'm not. You said we should look "on the data we have before us" and used exactly one poll rather than two contradictory others from the same time period that also polled Sanders head-to-heads.

If by best, you mean "most likely to improve the lives and welfare of American citizens", then no, the best candidate actually only rarely wins.

They probably are rarely a candidate.

Thankfully, Trump is actually one this time.

 

[kirblar]

I'll say this to the Hillary supporters. If she is the better candidate, then beat sanders in the primary (shouldn't be an issue according to you guys). Quit telling us that we shouldn't vote for sanders because Hillary is the default choice. A contested primary didn't hurt Obama and it won't hurt whoever the presidential candidate is.

The Bernie support is infuriating because the Dems had a long history of getting their asses handed to them every time they ran a candidate from the left-most side of the party

People saying "It'll be different this time!" are ignoring history, ignoring the realities of voting, and are doing the EXACT SAME THING they keep making fun of most of the GOP candidates for. They're embracing a candidate who throws tons of red meat to the base in a way that makes them completely unelectable come the general.

It doesn't work on either side of the aisle- if you nominate a true believer vs a center/left or center/right candidate, the electorate will go with the more moderate candidate. barring a picture of them in compromising positions with farm animals.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I respect her. Would I like for someone to come up like Obama and challenge? Sure. Is Sanders that person? No. He's wholly and totally unelectable, barring the farm animal scenario.

Here's a big example of why-

His economics also show incredible amounts of illiteracy, both with him, and with the people supporting him. Bernie supports protectionism. (Free trade/immigration is a net positive for a society, things aren't zero-sum.) Bernie supports a $15/hr national minimum wage. (Hillary does not, correctly noting that it would blow up areas of the country with low costs of living that do not need that degree of an increase.) Bernie has made comments asking "Why do we need 27 brands of deoderant?". (This ignores that competition is fundamental to capitalism, and that each individual brand represents jobs.) The worldview he espouses quite clearly shows both that his "socialist" label isn't a joke and that he's failed to evolve his views alongside the last 50+ years of development in economic theory. This is not simply someone with far-left political views- having those and a rational sense of economics is completely feasible. If he were to make it to the general, he would justifiably be ravaged by the GOP for the stuff he's said, and it's not stuff that's defensible by liberal economists on the democratic side, because these are things where a bipartisan consensus is in place.

 

[Coriolanus]

What? Can you comprehend how many would vote against a self proclaimed socialist? The majority of America doesn't even know what that means, except that we've fought wars against them. Can you imagine the Putin/Sanders allegories?

This shit is Ron Paul 2.0, misguided salvos with no chance in the general election.

Again, we're talking a miracle scenario where Sanders could beat Hillary. In such a scenario, thinking that whoever wins the clown car can easily defeat sanders is delusional.

Anyone that would even entertain an allegory between putin and sanders isn't ever voting hillary, let alone sanders, in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No, I'm not. You said we should look "on the data we have before us" and used exactly one poll rather than two contradictory others from the same time period that also polled Sanders head-to-heads.

Yes, and I also gave a reasonable explanation to why we should lend credence to one set of data more so than the others.

 

[shinra-bansho]

That's a fairly contentious usage of best. If by best, you mean "being the most-preferred option of a majority of voters given informational constraints", yes - but then you're effectively just saying something tautologically true. If by best, you mean "most likely to improve the lives and welfare of American citizens", then no, the best candidate actually only rarely wins.

Well, there's a reason I specifically said best product. The best TV [by whatever dimensions one chooses to determine this] is not necessarily the best product for the market. The best car is not necessarily the best product. And so on.

It's somewhat of a tautology though, I suppose.

 

[benjipwns]

Anyone that would even entertain an allegory between putin and sanders isn't ever voting hillary, let alone sanders, in the first place.

I thought Putin was a good guy again? I can't keep track.

Yes, and I also gave a reasonable explanation to why we should lend credence to one set of data more so than the others.

R +0.6 vs R +0.7? Really? Even vs R +0.9? The difference isn't within the margin of error for the margin of error.

 

[Coriolanus]

I thought Putin was a good guy again? I can't keep track.

The best. Unmatched track record on gay rights.

 

[Stinkles]

Again, we're talking a miracle scenario where Sanders could beat Hillary. In such a scenario, thinking that whoever wins the clown car can easily defeat sanders is delusional.

Anyone that would even entertain an allegory between putin and sanders isn't ever voting hillary, let alone sanders, in the first place.

There's a lot of poorly informed democratic voters and swing voters who are allergic to the term "socialist " and in fact a significant number of posters on this very liberal forum have a poor understanding of the term.

It's actually a big problem for him.

 

[ucdawg12]

His economics are crippling- it's not that he's far left, he's just out of sync where mainstream non-partisan economics is. His age shows.

Where is mainstream non-partisan economics?

 

[Opiate]

Guys, we clearly aren't insisting that he cannot win the nomination loudly enough. We need to insist that he cannot win more loudly or he might actually start picking up votes.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I thought Putin was a good guy again? I can't keep track.


R +0.6 vs R +0.7? Really? Even vs R +0.9? The difference isn't within the margin of error for the margin of error.

Also A+ vs. B+ and B-, which is fairly significant for 538 - they're pretty soft with their rankings.

 

[ShironRedshift]

What? Can you comprehend how many would vote against a self proclaimed socialist? The majority of America doesn't even know what that means, except that we've fought wars against them. Can you imagine the Putin/Sanders allegories?

This shit is Ron Paul 2.0, misguided salvos with no chance in the general election.

Key words on why that won't be an issue--if they really don't know what it means, than why would they care/why would it be an issue?. The GOP have already made that word lose all meaning by trying to drag candidates like Obama through the mud with it, only for it to bounce off him since people apparently aren't as stupid as you think they are. It would be the same with Sanders--people won't give a fuck whether he actually calls him a socialist or whatever, since that has just become a buzzword, people know it, and those actually convinced by it were never going to vote for a candidate with a (D) next to their name regardless whereas those who aren't will care more about stuff like policy and the debates, as per usual.

This is also just completely ignoring current polling data and just how tight the electoral map is for the GOP right now, period. If Bernie gets past the primary, he'll have the general on lock--there's just no real viable way to a GOP presidency in 2016 way.

I just don't get how it's misguided at all, especially with the above combined with a feeling of how much of a snail's pace the Democratic party has been moving at these past years due to this exact train of thought. It's due to this exact train of thinking and somehow feeling we need a candidate who appeals to both Democrats and Republicans and is able to compromise or whatever to get stuff done now that we're at where we're at now, where the Dems have to fight tooth and nail to get anything passed the GOP-controlled congress, and despite knowing that it will take such a fight regardless of what they do, opt for compromise "feel-good-for-all-side" stuff like the Affordable Care Act that neither side is really happy with, but having all their political pull used up to get it past regardless because... why exactly?

What's the benefit of "compromise" politics like that when the GOP will fight it regardless, trying every trick they possibly can to fight it back like shutting down the government and going to the Supreme Court, and using up all their political clout and going through all that effort just for the sake a "compromise" the GOP was never interested in to begin with and the left isn't happy with regardless?

What's the point of fighting that hard for something that still doesn't bring the United States anywhere close to being in line with the rest of the developed world on issues like healthcare? If the GOP's going to fight so tooth-and-nail regardless, shouldn't the Democratic party be doing the same? Actually fighting for legislation that actually will bring the US in line with the rest of the world, not just fighting for some compromise with the GOP that they're not interested in and resulting in bills the left isn't happy with anywhere and leaves the fundamental core issues they're meant to "treat" still in place?

And we're just supposed to continue down this road with more "compromise" candidates like Clinton? Just what's the point of this train of thought? Just how long will it take the US to actually get with the rest of the world and implement changes such as a single-payer health-care system when we continue to be obsessed with compromise candidates who can "appeal" to both the bases of the left and the right, when the right has clearly made it evident that they're not interested in the word time and time again and it just results in legislation neither side is happy with. Who does this really benefit? What's the point of this approach? How can anyone truly be satisfied with it? I just don't get it.

Meanwhile, current polling data is very favorable towards Sanders in a hypothetical run in the general election, and that's just now, before most of the public even knows who the dude is. That's how skewed against the GOP the electoral map is. That being the case, why not give him a shot? If the polls are favorable toward him now, that could only become more the case with time, especially as he would completely clown the GOP in the debates. Why not go for him, a candidate actually in favor of a single-payer healthcare system for a change? I mean, even if he gets elected, there's the question of if he'd even be able to get such a thing passed, but at least he'd be someone to fight for it and due his hardest to get it passed and try, which is much better than just giving up right from the get-go and assuming defeat from the beginning.

Why vote against him and favor candidates that continue to be in favor of the compromise method instead, who vote for and fight for legislation that leaves neither side happy instead? That instead of fighting for stuff like single-payer, fight for stuff like the ACA, which, while certainly an improvement, still leaves the fundamental issues in play and thus make it necessary for us to come back and fight over these same issues election after election anyway? Why fight for someone instead who would just go for compromise options that leave neither side happy and the core issues remaining, for someone else to have to tackle again regardless at a later day? If we're going to fight so hard, shouldn't it at least be something to bring the US in line with the rest of the world? Regardless of if it actually happens or not, shouldn't that at least be what we're willing to fight for, to say we did our best for and actually tried what we could to make it happen instead of just kicking it decades further down the line to even do that much?

How can anyone, Democrat, or Republican, liberal or conservative, truly be happy with the current state of the Democratic party when that's it's current mindset and as a result it just keeps moving at such a snail's pace to nowhere in particular, accomplishing nothing, leaving no one satisfied and energizing the bases on neither side? Why is that what we want? Why is that what we fought for and we continue to fight for? If we're going to fight, and the current polls by all right suggest we should, then shouldn't we fight for something more?

Sorry this turned into such a rant, but I'm just tired of the current Democratic party at this point and just don't get it and why people keep fighting for something that they themselves admit they don't really event want and leaves them unsatisfied and leaves the core issues in play, and then does it again, again, and again, and for some reason then attacks anyone who even so much as suggests doing otherwise despite it being in everyone's best interests, there's no reason to not believe we can do it, the polling and electoral maps suggest we can, but yet we stop ourselves and turn pessimistic and cynical at every turn and just keep doubting ourselves, resulting in us fighting for policy that does nothing instead of policies and candidates that are truly worth fighting for. I just don't get it...

 

[Coriolanus]

There's a lot of poorly informed democratic voters and swing voters who are allergic to the term "socialist " and in fact a significant number of posters on this very liberal forum have a poor understanding of the term.

It's actually a big problem for him.

Indeed. In order to ever have a chance of defeating Hillary, he'd have to find a way to overcome that.

Which is why i said "miracle scenario".

 

[lednerg]

Is there anything that can stop Hillary?

I'm uncomfortable being so sure about things this far in advance. I mean, while I don't see a way of Bernie actually getting the nom, his poll numbers do still have a large "Not Sure" percentage; he's a bit of an unknown. Anyway, it's fun looking back to what we were saying in 2007.

Oh, and people who give a shit about "socialism" were never going to vote Democratic anyway.

 

[Dude Abides]

Where is mainstream non-partisan economics?

In an Econ 101 textbook.

 

[benjipwns]

Where is mainstream non-partisan economics?

Located entirely within one paragraph in the first chapter of The General Theory probably.

 

[werks]

Indeed. In order to ever have a chance of defeating Hillary, he'd have to find a way to overcome that.

Which is why i said "miracle scenario".

Which is why I don't understand all this split ticket bullshit and Hillary supporters acting like we are hurting the party by actually wanting to contest the primary. If Hilary has such a lock on the nomination, ask Hillary to stand up and take it, not for us to stand down and give it to Hillary.

 

[metalslimer]

Honestly I support Hilary because I think she would get more done than Bernie would. Bernie, even, if he managed to win would quickly learn how hard it is to pass sweeping overhaul legislation. Also I think both sides need to stop the bickering. Hilary supporters shouldn't call Bernie supporters delusional and unrealistic but at the same time Bernie supporters need to stop calling Hilary supporters uninformed and supporters of the status quo

 

[Imm0rt4l]

TYBG

 

[Interfectum]

Honestly I support Hilary because I think she would get more done than Bernie would. Bernie, even, if he managed to win would quickly learn how hard it is to pass sweeping overhaul legislation.

You're assuming Hillary would even try to pass anything even remotely progressive economically. I'm not interested in 8 years of stagnation.

 

[Interceptor]

As a non American... do we really get a 70+ year old, hillary or trump as the next US president? Is there nothing else? Jesus Christ.

 

[The Lamonster]

Is there anything that can stop Hillary?

I'm uncomfortable being so sure about things this far in advance. I mean, while I don't see a way of Bernie actually getting the nom, his poll numbers do still have a large "Not Sure" percentage; he's a bit of an unknown. Anyway, it's fun looking back to what we were saying in 2007.

Oh, and people who give a shit about "socialism" were never going to vote Democratic anyway.

That thread is amazing. Really highlights how little we actually know at this point in the election cycle.

 

[ezrarh]

Honestly I support Hilary because I think she would get more done than Bernie would. Bernie, even, if he managed to win would quickly learn how hard it is to pass sweeping overhaul legislation.

That might be the case but I think what irks a lot of people, and myself included is the talk of "inevitability". Let her win the primary by earning people's votes instead of just being the default option.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Honestly I support Hilary because I think she would get more done than Bernie would. Bernie, even, if he managed to win would quickly learn how hard it is to pass sweeping overhaul legislation. Also I think both sides need to stop the bickering. Hilary supporters shouldn't call Bernie supporters delusional and unrealistic but at the same time Bernie supporters need to stop calling Hilary supporters uninformed and supporters of the status quo

Say what? Sanders has a heavyweight track record of being able to get bipartisan support for his amendments.

 

[benjipwns]

As a non American... do we really get a 70+ year old, hillary or trump as the next US president? Is there nothing else? Jesus Christ.

 

[metalslimer]

That might be the case but I think what irks a lot of people, and myself included is the talk of "inevitability". Let her win the primary by earning people's votes instead of just being the default option.

Sure I don't like the aura of inevitability that she has and there certainly needs to be a strong fight.

 

[Coriolanus]

Honestly I support Hilary because I think she would get more done than Bernie would. Bernie, even, if he managed to win would quickly learn how hard it is to pass sweeping overhaul legislation.

Why would Hillary be able to work with congress more than Bernie? Dude's been a legislator for a very long time, he knows how it works.

Like, there are plenty of points where one can criticize Sanders. Arguing that he doesn't know how the system works shouldn't be one of them.

 

[Kill3r7]

Doesn't sound like he wants to start from scratch, just fix some shit that should have been fixed years ago.

End Offshore Tax Havens: Corporations must begin paying their fair share in taxes.

Great idea. How do you do it? Show me even one major first world nation that has been able to successfully accomplish this. Also, this is bigger than plugging a loop-hole in the tax code.

End Subsidies to Big Business: The most profitable corporations do not need to be subsidized by American taxpayers.

Subsidies have been part of the way states have attracted big business for decades if not centuries. NJ arguably was the mecca of Big Pharma and when the subsidies (ie tax breaks) ended Big Pharma started to move out of the state.

Overturn Citizens United: Bernie wants to overturn the Citizens United ruling to prevent corporations from having an outsized influence on our democracy.

Good luck overturning Citizens United.

In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy (swing vote) resolved what appeared to be an empirical question about independent spending and corruption: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Support Entrepreneurship and Small Businesses: Instead of helping multinational corporations, Bernie wants to support small and medium American businesses by providing them with the low-interest loans.

Fantastic idea except how does he plan to do this? Will he provide the big banks with a subsides, so they issue low-interest loans, or will the American taxpayers foot the bill for it. There is a reason why small businesses have trouble getting low-interest loans and that is because they tend to have a high rate of failure.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall: Separating commercial banking from investment banking will buffer normal Americans from risky investments.

I wholeheartedly support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act but how can this in combination with breaking up the big banks not be considered starting from scratch.

Break up the Big Banks: Banks that are “too big to fail” make risky investments because they know that the American taxpayer will bail them out — and are therefore too big to exist.

Break them up sounds great but to what size? How? The "Big Banks" are many times bigger today than they were back in 2007. The problem is that they have become essential to the global economy and no G10 country is exempt from their impact.

Tax on Wall Street Speculation: Change the tax code to discourage short-term gambling and instead promote long-term investing.

Do it.

 

[ShironRedshift]

I think, as the current data suggests, he has a harder time in a general election. Looking at the crosstabs it stems from a weakening in the non-white vote compared to Clinton's match ups. And basically, I see nothing wrong with people choosing the more product of greater utility on offer, particularly when the products really aren't that different in the grand scheme.

I don't get that though. Yeah, it suggests he'd have harder time, but it still suggests that he'll win. And that's now, before most people even know the guy--if he were to win the primary and become more exposed to the public-eye, there's no way that wouldn't tilt even more into his favor.

But apparently that's not enough and so we have to "compromise" and go with Clinton despite the data suggesting that Bernie could also do it? Even though that truly serves the best interests of no one and if Bernie could indeed win and his policies align more with people's own views, he shouldn't be who people should vote for because while he'd also beat the GOP candidate, he wouldn't beat them hard enough and thus it makes more sense to "compromise" and vote for Clinton who lines up less with their views just so that... the GOP is creamed even harder, like that's really a relevant criterion?

That's what I'm talking about, I don't get this obsession with "compromise" among the liberal and democratic base, when it doesn't actually serve their interests at all and if they're going to put up a fight, they actually can get what they want and polling suggests this, but we should just "compromise" and vote for someone less favorable instead just to cream the GOP even harder when that doesn't actually offer any benefit of note? That's what I don't understand--how the left continues to fight against their own interests to that much of an extreme and then wonders why in the world it's so hard to get their base fired up during midterm elections and shit when they keep espousing that same kinda mindset. I just don't get it.

Why would Hillary be able to work with congress more than Bernie? Dude's been a legislator for a very long time, he knows how it works.

Like, there are plenty of points where one can criticize Sanders. Arguing that he doesn't know how the system works shouldn't be one of them.

Pretty much. And besides which, it's not like the GOP will want to work with any candidate with a D next to their name. Anyone who's paid any attention to the GOP during Obama's presidency should have picked up at least that much from it--the GOP has gone fully insane and has thrown any semblance of compromise out the window. It's a worthless goal and there's absolutely no reason Hillary would be any better at it than Bernie, since it's just not something the current GOP is interested in regardless.

 

[ezrarh]

Also, one of the big things that happened the last time a Clinton worked with Congress was repealing Glass-Steagall. Sanders has already shown he can work with Republicans for things so I don't think that's a huge concern versus Hillary.

 

[benjipwns]

There is a reason why small businesses have trouble getting low-interest loans and that is because they tend to have a high rate of failure.

Look, all you have to do is bundle a bunch of those loans together and sell them in highly rated packages to other financial institutions.

 

[kirblar]

Where is mainstream non-partisan economics?

Here's where it is on a few issues: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/4-politically-controversial-issues-where-all-economists-agree/255600/

edit: Another: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html

 

[Rentahamster]

What? Can you comprehend how many would vote against a self proclaimed socialist? The majority of America doesn't even know what that means, except that we've fought wars against them. Can you imagine the Putin/Sanders allegories?

Well, if you want to get technical, even Sanders doesn't define "socialsim" properly, since the Nordic model that he refers to doesn't have the working class have ownership of the means of production.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Sanders is technically a social democrat, from my recollection, rather than an actual socialist.

Is there anything that can stop Hillary?

I'm uncomfortable being so sure about things this far in advance. I mean, while I don't see a way of Bernie actually getting the nom, his poll numbers do still have a large "Not Sure" percentage; he's a bit of an unknown. Anyway, it's fun looking back to what we were saying in 2007.

While nothing is a forgone conclusion this early on, the situation to Obama isn't really that analogous.

Obama drew a coalition of the more liberal wing of voters, while sweeping the black vote after his early wins, the latter of which really seems key to winning the candidacy. Obama essentially matched Clinton in fundraising. Clinton also had a relatively small proportion of weighted endorsements in 2008, when last I checked on 538, Sanders still had none to a weighed score of 300+ for Clinton. And I was just reminded, national polling results didn't show the degree of disparity we're seeing. Again, while these are only loose indicators for eventual nomination this early, there's a major disparity between the 2008 and current situations.

I don't get that though. Yeah, it suggests he'd have harder time, but it still suggests that he'll win. And that's now, before most people even know the guy--if he were to win the primary and become more exposed to the public-eye, there's no way that wouldn't tilt even more into his favor.

But apparently that's not enough and so we have to "compromise" and go with Clinton despite the data suggesting that Bernie could also do it? Even though that truly serves the best interests of no one and if Bernie could indeed win and his policies align more with people's own views, he shouldn't be who people should vote for because while he'd also beat the GOP candidate, he wouldn't beat them hard enough and thus it makes more sense to "compromise" and vote for Clinton who lines up less with their views just so that... the GOP is creamed even harder, like that's really a relevant criterion?

That's what I'm talking about, I don't get this obsession with "compromise" among the liberal and democratic base, when it doesn't actually serve their interests at all and if they're going to put up a fight, they actually can get what they want and polling suggests this, but we should just "compromise" and vote for someone less favorable instead just to cream the GOP even harder when that doesn't actually offer any benefit of note? That's what I don't understand--how the left continues to fight against their own interests to that much of an extreme and then wonders why in the world it's so hard to get their base fired up during midterm elections and shit when they keep espousing that same kinda mindset. I just don't get it.

The given voter may simply value greater probability than whatever particular issue doesn't align as well.

And/or alternatively, a greater proportion of the Democratic base may simply align ultimately better with Clinton's platform, which ultimately will be pretty "liberal" (under American political vernacular.)