Exactly. Power-hungriness and selfless service do not compare to each other.
Bernie Sanders Surges to First Place in New Hampshire Primary Polling
- Thread starter starwarsfan541
- Start date
- Status
it's not Sanders. you don't get to be a "powerful Democrat" with consequential despising powers without first being shrewd as fuck
Obama and Sanders are fundamentally different people. Obama was incredibly ambitious to think he could make a run for the white house after becoming the senator from Illinois. Obama had no problem taking money from corporations, including banks. And while Obama had this coalition of voters both young and old that got excited about politics and were ready to work for him, he shunned for traditional, inside the beltway politics and policy thinking.
Sanders, never really had that ambition but he has seen what Citizens' United has done to democracy. Its just all about how much money you have. You get a bunch of money from these superpacs, and run negative ad after negative ad and then you win and in return you give these corporations whatever they want whether than be a government contract, tax breaks, corporate loopholes so they don't have to report how much money they are making. This isn't democracy, its legalized bribery. What Sanders wants is democracy. The issues don't matter as long as we have this system where legalized bribery isn't only the norm but the most effective way of getting your political agenda signed into law. So I would argue that if it wasn't for the Citizens United ruling, Sanders probably wouldn't even be running right now.
So the differences are clear but just because Sanders didn't set up a run for the presidency for years like Obama did, doesn't mean he can't win the presidency. He polls decently against the republicans( and he beats Trump in every poll I've seen so far) and that with no one knowing who he is right now so he has a shot. The problem for him is Hilary, not the republicans. I don't know if he can beat her. Obviously, I'm hoping but its a long shot to beat her.
Pack it up Clinton, QUEEN is about to leave your ship.
Is Katy Perry into politics?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
GOP feeling pressure? Their base will be more fired up than ever against virtually anything he proposes, any Republican politician will be sitting pretty. What about that Democrat that barely won in a red state or red district. What does that leave him with?
What an incredibly naive viewpoint. Look no further than the Iran deal to see how it would play out with a Sanders proposal.
And_Gignac
Member
I guess so, this is her twitter profile pic:
the tide is about to turn
Insightful, tell us more.
No, really, why do you think this is the case?
Dude Abides
Banned
Nobody is doing that. The argument is that the Supreme Court is too important to take a flyer on a risky candidate like Sanders.
Every Democractic president has appointed liberal justices. Those policies were Bill Clinton's. Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer, two liberals.
Obstructionism generally works differently with SC and other appointments than with legislation. That's the whole nuclear option issue.
That's what Obama said he was going to do as well and we see how well that works. There's no reason to think Sanders would be any more successful.
No, its saying that no matter who is elected President, Congress is still controlled by Republicans with the power to stop most campaign promises from happening.
No matter what her nominations would be better then who a Republican president would be nominating and that's almost certainly what we are going to get if Bernie wins the primaries.
Obstructing SCOTUS from getting filled seems like political suicide, stopping Bernie from bringing a $15 minimum wage is not. The obstructionism is mostly about stopping laws.
That was a different time, the Republicans nowadays are all about obstructionism especially if we get a self described socialist in office. The attack ads from the tea party types write themselves.
You drastically overestimate how liberal American's are and how invested we are in politics. What is more likely to happen is pretty much a lame duck president, and many people on the left becoming disenfranchised to politics in 4 years when practically nothing has changed.
National pressure is irrelevant when states and congressional districts exist—these representatives have a built in incentive not to break party lines, not only because of the GOP party infrastructure and the internal ramifications of crossing the party, but because that's exactly what got them elected in the first place. Their own constituents would drop them far sooner than the party would.
soleil's point about supporting a candidate for the civic satisfaction of materializing (voting) your convictions is real and valid. it's a great thing about democracy.
but I think it's important to note he also mentions not expecting his vote to produce victory for his candidate or his party. he understands the realities of the decision he's making in this regard, and that's a crucial distinction.
a vote for principle; a vote for victory. shame they seem to be so diametrically opposed these days.
in whatever way you choose, take care of your vote.
but I think it's important to note he also mentions not expecting his vote to produce victory for his candidate or his party. he understands the realities of the decision he's making in this regard, and that's a crucial distinction.
a vote for principle; a vote for victory. shame they seem to be so diametrically opposed these days.
in whatever way you choose, take care of your vote.
benjipwns
Banned
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
All I know is the justification in point #5 is so naive it almost makes you wonder if this person had been following politics at all in the last 7 years, or even the last 7 days when you look at the Iran deal.
Well I'll be... Good for Katy Perry. And she seems like she's progressive too so that's a plus.
down 2 orth
Member
David Geffen is the first to come to mind, he's voiced his dislike of them on several occasions, even calling them liars. The more telling proof was during the primaries when a lot of the established families and figures like the Kennedys, Kerrys, Harry Reid, and Bill Richardson supported Obama, that it was clear how big a rift there was in the top ranks of the Democrats.
King Tubby
Member
They sure have a funny way of showing it. This is what it means to be establishment.
I also highly doubt most Democrats in office want to jeopardize their electoral chances by aligning themselves with a self-avowed socialist.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I'd vote for him.
That's some pretty harsh criticism, so I'd like to know more about what you're saying here. Are you talking about how a large portion now unfavorably views the deal? How does that fit in with Soleil's main point of active populism? There are other issues other than the Iran deal that has shifted the Left's way, which is probably what is he focusing on.
benjipwns
Banned
hydrophilic attack
Member
we should do a gaf poll
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I'm talking about how the base of the GOP is 100% unified in their opposition to anything remotely liberal, which means this idea of "pressure" is laughable at best. It's also very easy for them to sway public opinion or ignore it completely. Gun laws, diplomacy in the middle east, tax rates on the wealthy, government spending. All it takes is a few ads targeted towards those middle america moderate independents and it's game over.
The examples are right here in front of us.
down 2 orth
Member
But wasn't that the same situation in the 2008 primaries? I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama started picking up major endorsements until after Iowa.
I'm not sure I'd bother with him. Ad hominems and narrowing the focus to cherry-picked examples to argue AGAINST efforts to achieve a more democratically functioning society are not exactly the hallmark of a sincere poster. Especially since the Iran deal doesn't have majority support anyway, unlike a lot of Sanders' policies (not every policy of his, but the strong majority). So the Iran deal doesn't even prove his point, which is incorrect anyway.
Romney's biggest problem was his personality, so it's possible that no big funders were willing to back him again.
benjipwns
Banned
I would argue that Obama never really used the bully pulpit as its referred to make his case over the last 7 years. He always was trying to do deals with republicans so he could be seen as bipartisan. The Iran deal is the only real time I can recall Obama using it in any real way.
Soon Hilary will have the same problem, in fact she is like the female version of Romney flip-flopping multimillionaire without an ounce of personality or charisma. She just positions herself whichever way the wind is blowing
She knows not to. She's perfect where she is- being a contrarian and running for the leadership position aren't really two things that work well together.
benjipwns
Banned
Eyeballing it, Hillary led Obama like 150-50 in endorsement "points" at this point in the cycle. Right now it's 307-0 in Hillary vs. Sanders.
Obama topped out at 330 in 2008.
King Tubby
Member
Obama still had 44 endorsement points, which is 44 more than Bernie does. In any event, this in and of itself does not show that Bernie can't possibly win, but it's certainly another reason to believe that he won't.
Warren jumping in would split the people who would vote Sanders and essentially clinch the nomination for Hilary.
down 2 orth
Member
Well there's no doubt she is the establishment candidate. I don't know what Bernie has to do to win, but I hope he has a fighting chance.
{*snaps fingers*}
"Naive" - that's the word I was looking for.
(and you can read the following in Charlie Day's sarcastic "jobby-job" voice if you wish)
So I suppose that as soon as Bernie finishes his swearing-in, the Magical, Splendiferous Fairy of Congressional Cooperation will descend from the heavens, prancing and singing of cooperation and compromise? If we talk to the GOP, and call them on the phone and email them, suuuuurely they'll listen to us and budge, right? And then afterwards, after that hard work is done, we'll allllll hold hands and sing about ponies and unicorns and rainbows.. and maybe even puppies! And ice cream!
C'mon.
Yes. "Naive" is indeed the correct word.
And_Gignac
Member
Sanders is not a registered democrat, and he doesnt seem very well networked with representatives, for good or bad.
But hey, Congress is really, REALLY unpopular so the least endorsements the better I guess? lol
Hillary doesn't just have the most endorsements in the invisible primary of this cycle, she has more than quite a few eventual nominees even after the party convention. (ie. She has as many senator endorsements as GWB did on election day of 2000). FiveThirtyEight says its basically unprecedented for any non-incumbent.
The problem is that Congress isn't a nationally representative body—it's inherently undemocratic. That's the point. That's why it exists. Representatives are not going to go against their own party, let alone their own constituents, not when they have every incentive to do the opposite. Even if candidates didn't rely on outside money, the commodity that they will never be able to give up is votes.
Bernie's hypothetical inability to deal with an obstructionist congress is a valid criticism, I think, and a real fear.
The problem is that Congress isn't a nationally representative body—it's inherently undemocratic. That's the point. That's why it exists. Representatives are not going to go against their own party, let alone their own constituents, not when they have every incentive to do the opposite. Even if candidates didn't rely on outside money, the commodity that they will never be able to give up is votes.
Bernie's hypothetical inability to deal with an obstructionist congress is a valid criticism, I think, and a real fear.
Naive is believing anything that comes from Hillary's mouth.
The alternative is more of the same, which is what Hillary represents. I dislike Trump, but what he's doing is interesting in that he's not an establishment politician and that he doesn't need to win. If he loses, he's still a billionaire and has a fallback plan. Most of these politicians are desperate for people like him to fund their campaigns.
Bernie is disruptive to the Democratic party in some of the same ways in that he is very different than Hillary and does not necessarily tow the party line. Again, I hate Trump, but it's interesting for politics when outsiders come in and change the political discussion. Though the political discussion I'm more in favor of is Bernie's.
Can Bernie lead with these policies? He's not going to get everything accomplished that he wants, if he gets elected. But would we be better off and would we get closer to what he wants with Sanders in there or Hillary? That's what you have to ask yourself.
WHat your misunderstanding is that this is not a disagreement on policy. Many of the policies in that poll are only given to Hillary because she switched to those in recent months when she started campaigning. She doesn't care about a majority of those things and has pretty much said the exact opposite in the past.
Its about whether you want someone who is actually going to fight for what they say they are going to do, and earnestly want to reform the system. Or, whether you want someone who just says what you want to hear to secure your vote.
Its not a hard choice to make.
The entire point is actually educating people about what his definition of a democratic socialist(or rather a social democrat) is along with his policies. Are you going to let corporate ball draggers and conservatives dominate the conversation and just throw out scary sounding terms with no context forever?
All bernie needs to do is repeat what he said here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFAq-4Vv5c0
PeskyToaster
Member
The change you want won't happen unless you vote for the candidate willing to go the distance. I don't think Hillary is the person that we really want and there's no reason to settle. This apathy is why things don't change. No one is going to do it for you, in fact, they are actively working against you. So if you want Bernie, don't settle for Hillary, vote for Bernie. If you want a third party, don't pick either of the big two, pick a third party. It's the settling for who will win that gets us into these situations of picking the lesser of two evils. If everyone voted for the candidate they actually wanted out of the independent parties then the two party system would be broken. You just have to do it.
I appreciate your mature, non ad hominem argument, which puts you miles above the other posters responding to me. And I agree that it's a valid concern. I'm just saying that 1) it's an equal concern for Hillary, and 2) it's been overcome before. The hyperbole in misrepresenting my argument as a statement that obstructionism won't be a problem at all is a strawman, something that seems lost on some posters here.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The change you want will actively not happen if you vote for a third party
I'm running for President
The Fox News smear machine backfiring and paving the way for socialism would be highly amusing. "Obama was a pretty good President as a socialist, let's vote for another!"
benjipwns
Banned
Even if he was, if you want to get Administration posts/spoils you don't hitch your wagon to someone like Sanders when there's a Hillary in the race.
That's also why so few national endorsements* in the GOP race. Don't want to put in with the wrong candidate. Similar to 2004's chart where Kerry suddenly sucks them all up in like a week after he becomes the frontrunner overnight.
*State endorsements are quite different, a random Kentucky State Senator backing Rand Paul gets him more in the short-term (i.e. an image or video of him near Paul or some useless post that elevates him in the state party) than backing Jeb! or whoever. I believe Sanders has a decent number of Vermont ones like this.
PeskyToaster
Member
That's the attitude that sustains the two-party system that people rail against. All I hear is "I really wish we had another option but there's only two parties that will win". Those two parties only win because people vote for them. There's nothing permanent or inevitable about the two parties. They haven't existed since the beginning.
That's factually incorrect. A first past the post system will always lead to a two party system, particularly on the national scale. If you need 50% to win, it makes no sense to split your vote—you have to form the smallest possible coalition that can still win an election. Likewise, if you need 50% to pass legislation in Congress, the easiest way to form voting blocs is along party lines.
The parties can fracture or be replaced, but, really, functionally it's no different from the Democrats and Republicans moving left or right over time.
First past the post voting system is what perpetuates the two party system, not because people will it into existence by voting. It could only be changed by a constitutional amendment creating a parliamentary system or some other style of government, or an act of Congress maybe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked