Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

If you want a radical change, start from the bottom up. Get the conservatives out of state houses and county commissions. Then less obstructionists will be in the way.

I think you misunderstand the U.S. system, we get together every four years to elect a king known as The President who is in charge of absolutely everything by himself and responsible for everything that happens if he displeases the populace. In between politics doesn't happen much, elections never happen, which is why we talk so much about the next Presidential race.

 

[MikeDown]

As the Hillary email server scandal unfolds, her polls are going to drop. This is the beginning I think.

for those who don't know: Hillary had a private email server at her house which she used for Top Secret class government correspondence. Your not supposed to keep top secret documents in the home basement, much less a private email server

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.html

do people really care though? Only people hugffing and puffing over this are the conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anway

 

[besada]

I'm running for President

You have my vote. But the real question is who will be your vice president? blamespace or Timedog?

 

[Blader]

Reading and listening to all "I like Bernie, too bad he'll never win" rhetoric really brings home how Democrats are their own worst enemy. I half admire Republicans for voting for whichever crazy candidates they actually like, electability be damned.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Reading and listening to all "I like Bernie, too bad he'll never win" rhetoric really brings home how Democrats are their own worst enemy. I half admire Republicans for voting for whichever crazy candidates they actually like, electability be damned.

Bernie has the charisma of a hotdog though. We are just being realistic.

 

[kirblar]

Reading and listening to all "I like Bernie, too bad he'll never win" rhetoric really brings home how Democrats are their own worst enemy. I half admire Republicans for voting for whichever crazy candidates they actually like, electability be damned.

You have the roles reversed. Not weeding out the outer-edge candidates and sending one to the general election against a moderate is suicide, no matter which party is doing it.

 

[Dude Abides]

Reading and listening to all "I like Bernie, too bad he'll never win" rhetoric really brings home how Democrats are their own worst enemy. I half admire Republicans for voting for whichever crazy candidates they actually like, electability be damned.

But the Republicans didn't do that in either 2008 or 2012.

 

[soleil]

Bernie has the charisma of a hotdog though. We are just being realistic.

Well, I mean the role of charisma is to get people excited and out to the polls, right? Looking at his rallies, I think that role has been sufficiently fulfilled by his agenda and authenticity.

 

[Knoxcore]

do people really care though? Only people hugffing and puffing over this are the conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anway

Independents care. Her numbers with them has taken a huge hit. What you're looking at then is an energized conservative base against Clinton, depressed interest among Independents for Clinton and lack of excitement among the Democratic base.

 

[inner-G]

Bernie has the charisma of a hotdog though. We are just being realistic.

But Hillary has charisma?

Bernie seems like a real human, she seems like a PR robot.

 

[Blader]

Bernie has the charisma of a hotdog though. We are just being realistic.

I didn't know Bernie was lacking charisma, much less that that was the reason he's pegged for not winning the general. Nor why that would matter when Hilary utterly lacks charisma.

But the Republicans didn't do that in either 2008 or 2012.

eh, yeah, but they chose moderates who promptly started veering hard right.

 

[HylianTom]

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.

If you know the secret to getting Congressional Republicans to cooperate, you should be working in DC and not wasting your talents here. Or if it's Bernie who knows this long sought-after secret, someone should tell him to contact the White House immediately.

But seriously.. I know you likely find my rhetoric disrespectful and/or glib, but I need to hear more than "it can be overcome" in order to take your position seriously.

Let's say Bernie wins (and for the record, I'd be dancing and crying in the streets if it were to happen). And let's also say that the House stays Republican. Meanwhile, the Senate, with its favorable map for the Democrats, gives them a 51-seat majority. Paint us a precise, realistic step-by-step picture of how Congress is overcome.

 

[benjipwns]

Reading and listening to all "I like Bernie, too bad he'll never win" rhetoric really brings home how Democrats are their own worst enemy. I half admire Republicans for voting for whichever crazy candidates they actually like, electability be damned.

Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan (the actor?!?), H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, W. Bush, McCain, Romney.

Yeah, that's a murderer's row of crazy straight for the ideologue, electability be damned, nominees.

Your "true" "unelectable" conservatives: Reagan in 1968, Ashbrook in 1972, Pat Robertson in 1988, Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996, Phil Gramm in 1996, Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer in 2000, Mike Huckabee in 2008, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann in 2012. Hermain Cain in 2000 and 2012 though he never actually ran in a primary or caucus.

 

[JustenP88]

Bernie has the charisma of a hotdog though. We are just being realistic.

If Bernie has the charisma of a hot dog then Hillary has the charisma of a slice of bologna. The woman is a politics robot if I've ever seen one.

Is it not kinda shitty to compare the left-of-normal Democrat candidates with the right-of-normal Republicans? I have an inherent bias but one of those two falls pretty well in line with what I want from a politician and the other seems better suited as a politician in a middle eastern theocracy. A bit of a false equivalence, is it not? Especially since America's center is generally to the right of most industrialized nations.

 

[soleil]

If you know the secret to getting Congressional Republicans to cooperate, you should be working in DC and not wasting your talents here. Or if it's Bernie who knows this long sought-after secret, someone should tell him to contact the White House immediately.

But seriously.. I know you likely find my rhetoric disrespectful and glib, but I need to hear more than "it can be overcome" in order to take your position seriously.

Let's say Bernie wins. And the House stays Republican. Meanwhile, the Senate, with its favorable map for the Democrats, gives them a 51-seat majority. Paint us a precise, realistic step-by-step picture of how Congress is overcome.

There's no magic formula to get anyone to agree to anything you want. Like the Iran deal that was brought up earlier: it doesn't have strong majority support of the public, so OF COURSE it won't pressure people into supporting it. Second, the people have to demonstrate their support, not just show it through a poll.

Bernie's agenda, issue by issue, polls with strong majority support, except for a couple things like $15 minimum wage ($10.10 gets majority, $15 doesn't at this time).

So on those issues that DO have strong majority support, public demonstration and pressure can indeed help get things passed.

Again, this is not some "guarantee." It is, however, something that's been done before, when Presidents bother using the bully pulpit to push an agenda that has majority support.

Iran deal does not have majority support. The use of that example earlier in this thread showed a severe lack of analytical thinking.

I also would like to add that even a failed attempt at pushing an agenda can still build momentum to make it happen in the near future afterwards. Progress isn't made when people are holding out for a 100% guaranteed victory. It's made when people are not afraid to fail, to show support and build momentum. If Bernie tries to get college tuition to be free and fails, supporters are not going to say "Well let's never try that again." But what WILL happen is that in the process, arguments are made, information supporting the issue is disseminated to the public, and momentum is built for another run at the issue.

If Clinton tries the same thing, it won't be through public pressure. It will be through attempted backroom dealings. And when those fail, there's no momentum built up in the public sphere. So HOW you fail can make the difference between building momentum for success in a future attempt, or not accomplishing anything at all.

TL;DR you're thinking of working within the sphere of Congress to pass a bill. Same old establishment style of politics. That's why you're not understanding the support for Bernie. Bernie is all about getting the people to rally behind causes that are common sense, and sending the message to ALL politicians that they need to find a way to pass the agenda, or risk being voted out. Using examples of unpopular issues like the Iran Deal is not going to disprove anything.

 

[Blader]

Bernie's agenda, issue by issue, polls with strong majority support, except for a couple things like $15 minimum wage ($10.10 gets majority, $15 doesn't at this time).

So on those issues that DO have strong majority support, public demonstration and pressure can indeed help get things passed.

The wrapping matters though. A lot of people opposed the ACA even though they approved of many of its provisions. It's only when you grouped them all together under the Obamacare label that many of those supporters would, in the same poll, say they oppose it.

 

[Abinash117]

Independents care. Her numbers with them has taken a huge hit. What you're looking at then is an energized conservative base against Clinton, depressed interest among Independents for Clinton and lack of excitement among the Democratic base.

Independents at times don't vote for democrats. Obama lost independents in 2012 and the so did the Democrats in 2010 and 2014, I think. The Democrat candidate doesn't need a majority of independents to win, just a lot of moderates.

 

[benjipwns]

Is it not kinda shitty to compare the left-of-normal Democrat candidates with the right-of-normal Republicans? I have an inherent bias but one of those two falls pretty well in line with what I want from a politician and the other seems better suited as a politician in a middle eastern theocracy. A bit of a false equivalence, is it not? Especially since America's center is generally to the right of most industrialized nations.

You have to define left, center and right first.

Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams are different from Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. We can align both sets as a "left", "right" and centrist though. And multiple ways.

 

[soleil]

The wrapping matters though. A lot of people opposed the ACA even though they approved of many of its provisions. It's only when you grouped them all together under the Obamacare label that many of those supporters would, in the same poll, say they oppose it.

Well, the public never approved of the individual mandate, something the pro-ACA group left out every time they argued that people support its provisions. And it's too important of a provision to just ignore. Ignoring the low popularity of the individual mandate didn't exactly win anyone over. I personally approve of most of the ACA but not the individual mandate, and that one provision is important enough for me to say that overall, I'm pretty neutral on the bill. The positives were small-time. The one negative was BIG time. (Mandating more money into the hands of the same companies that stand in the way of single payor? Come on.)

 

[titiklabingapat]

Well, I mean the role of charisma is to get people excited and out to the polls, right? Looking at his rallies, I think that role has been sufficiently fulfilled by his agenda and authenticity.

 

[JustenP88]

You have to define left, center and right first.

Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams are different from Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. We can align both sets as a "left", "right" and centrist though. And multiple ways.

The definitions are pretty murky. In terms of stated policy and goals, is Sanders really that far to the left of Hillary? I don't necessarily think so. I don't see what Sanders says that is so "radical" that we should just laugh him off the stage. Also, it's strange to me that "Republicans won't get on board with Sanders" is used as an argument against him while it seems fairly obvious they wouldn't give Hillary anything more than a middle finger either.

 

[soleil]

(pics)

Charisma wasn't Ron Paul's problem either. It was his agenda. Most of his agenda didn't have public support. Ending the Fed? How well was that polling?

 

[Joel Was Right]

Ron Paul had a popular campaign as well.

 

[PeskyToaster]

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.

There's nothing in the Constitution on political parties. It's only the parties themselves that are perpetuating the two party system. The United Kingdom has a FPPS but also has a wider variety of parties when compared to the United States and their influence of the legislature is felt more. There's not much laid down in immutable law on the parties and their interactions with the electoral process, the issue is all the people that could change it are members of those parties that you want to decrease in power. When you ask people why they aren't voting for a third party, they don't talk about political strategies and voting blocs, all they say is "They won't win" but there's only one way to change that. If enough people "waste their vote" then it won't be a waste but you just need more people to take that first step. Maybe I'm just too idealistic though.

 

[werks]

I am not sure why the Iran deal keeps getting brought up all the time. The GOP already approved the Iran deal in the summer when they passed legislation that required them to have a veto proof majority to overturn the deal.

No party would knowingly do that if they actually intended to fight the deal. It's all political theater, the deal has already been approved.

 

[werks]

The definitions are pretty murky. In terms of stated policy and goals, is Sanders really that far to the left of Hillary? I don't necessarily think so. I don't see what Sanders says that is so "radical" that we should just laugh him off the stage. Also, it's strange to me that "Republicans won't get on board with Sanders" is used as an argument against him while it seems fairly obvious they wouldn't give Hillary anything more than a middle finger either.

But we have to reach out to republicans no matter what the cost. Remember all the compromises we made to the ACA to get one republican vote. Glad that worked out for us.

 

[soleil]

But we have to reach out to republicans no matter what the cost. Remember all the compromises we made to the ACA to get one republican vote. Glad that worked out for us.

LOL. To add to this, I think we didn't even did get one GOP vote, at least not on the version of the ACA that passed. I think the narrative that Hillary will do better with the GOP than Bernie is unsubstantiated conjecture. Articles written about Senate activity shows that Bernie has gotten more compromises done than Hillary.

 

[benjipwns]

There's nothing in the Constitution on political parties.

There is in the law though....

 

[Inuhanyou]

Ron Paul had a popular campaign as well.

Yes exactly. Bernie Sanders is 100% like Ron paul because they both have a dedicated following.

What is this tripe.

99% of Bernie's platform is something a majority of people claim to support in this country on an issue related basis. Ron Paul's platform is not.

 

[Fenderputty]

Charisma wasn't Ron Paul's problem either. It was his agenda. Most of his agenda didn't have public support. Ending the Fed? How well was that polling?

During a primary? Probably not anywhere near as bad as you think.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-of-americans-want-fed-reined-in-or-abolished

 

[soleil]

During a primary? Probably not anywhere near as bad as you think.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-of-americans-want-fed-reined-in-or-abolished

Well,

1) Curbed or Abolished isn't the same as just plain Abolished. Adding the "Curbing it" option, of course adds to the number.

2) My point was about his agenda in general, not just that example I came up with on the top of my head. Ron Paul wants to abolish way more than the Fed, too. And he wants to slash education funding and whatnot. That won't get you strong majority support. Ron Paul was heard saying that he doesn't even think we should have gotten involved in World War II. None of these apply to Bernie, who again, has an agenda that's way more popular than Ron Paul's.

 

[cDNA]

There's no magic formula to get anyone to agree to anything you want. Like the Iran deal that was brought up earlier: it doesn't have strong majority support of the public, so OF COURSE it won't pressure people into supporting it. Second, the people have to demonstrate their support, not just show it through a poll.

Bernie's agenda, issue by issue, polls with strong majority support, except for a couple things like $15 minimum wage ($10.10 gets majority, $15 doesn't at this time).

So on those issues that DO have strong majority support, public demonstration and pressure can indeed help get things passed.

Again, this is not some "guarantee." It is, however, something that's been done before, when Presidents bother using the bully pulpit to push an agenda that has majority support.

And the recent gun control measurements had like 90 percent support in one moment, and absolutely nothing was approved in the congress.

 

[dabig2]

I am not sure why the Iran deal keeps getting brought up all the time. The GOP already approved the Iran deal in the summer when they passed legislation that required them to have a veto proof majority to overturn the deal.

No party would knowingly do that if they actually intended to fight the deal. It's all political theater, the deal has already been approved.

The hubbub about the Iran deal especially pisses me off too. This is a matter of education. Obama could set the record straight by utilizing that bully pulpit more. I'm talking full Reagan bully pulpit by taking his case directly to the american people. Matter of factly stating in a grand televised broadcast that this deal is less horrible than the only other alternative - war. There is no convincing our allies to negotiate a better deal, our own sanctions aren't worth jack shit, and keeping the status quo while openly hating on Iran only accelerates the bomb and enforces their behavior of believing Israel and its puppet, America, are not only to be trusted but should be defeated in these proxy battles raging across the Middle East.

 

[soleil]

And the recent gun control measurements had like 90 percent support in one moment, and absolutely nothing was approved in the congress.

I don't recall the president using the bully pulpit to lead the people to demonstrate, march, and flood Congressional offices with phone calls to make that happen.

 

[danwarb]

You'll know when Sanders has a chance of winning when the corporatists and conservatives set their (all of the) news media after him. Look at how Jeremy Corbyn has them frothing in the UK because he's going to win the Labour party leadership race.

 

[benjipwns]

For one moment in history, third parties had some strength in Congress.

The 53rd through 56th Congresses had 4, 6, 12, and 9 non-GOP/Dem Senators respectively.

Similarly the House had 8, 12, 10, 23, 7 and 5 non-GOP/Dem Representatives for the 52nd through 57th Congresses.

The Progressive and Peoples and Populist Parties had a tiny spell. And the Eugene Debs era Socialist Party had a member in Congress for a while, most notably:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger

Then there was Vito:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Marcantonio

But we have to reach out to republicans no matter what the cost. Remember all the compromises we made to the ACA to get one republican vote. Glad that worked out for us.

Those compromises were to get Democratic votes.

 

[cDNA]

I don't recall the president using the bully pulpit to lead the people to demonstrate, march, and flood Congressional offices with phone calls to make that happen.

There was a big push by Obama after Newton and negotiations with Joe Biden and the Senate to improve the background checks, and even the most timid proposals failed.

 

[soleil]

There was a big push by Obama after Newton and negotiations with Joe Biden and the Senate to improve the background checks, and even the most timid proposals failed.

What kind of push do you mean? Were people flooding Congressional offices with phone calls? Because that's the kind of effort that it took to get the FCC to agree to protect net neutrality.

 

[gogosox82]

But we have to reach out to republicans no matter what the cost. Remember all the compromises we made to the ACA to get one republican vote. Glad that worked out for us.

To be fair, the ACA had compromises because of blue dog dems as well.

 

[werks]

Those compromises were to get Democratic votes.

www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/

The bipartisan bill includes more than 160 Republican amendments accepted during the month-long mark-up, one of the longest in congressional history.

160 GOP amendments accepted, 0 GOP votes. Bipartisan indeed. I'm glad we started from the center and negotiated to center right.

 

[dramatis]

There's no magic formula to get anyone to agree to anything you want. Like the Iran deal that was brought up earlier: it doesn't have strong majority support of the public, so OF COURSE it won't pressure people into supporting it. Second, the people have to demonstrate their support, not just show it through a poll.

Bernie's agenda, issue by issue, polls with strong majority support, except for a couple things like $15 minimum wage ($10.10 gets majority, $15 doesn't at this time).

So on those issues that DO have strong majority support, public demonstration and pressure can indeed help get things passed.

Again, this is not some "guarantee." It is, however, something that's been done before, when Presidents bother using the bully pulpit to push an agenda that has majority support.

Iran deal does not have majority support. The use of that example earlier in this thread showed a severe lack of analytical thinking.

I also would like to add that even a failed attempt at pushing an agenda can still build momentum to make it happen in the near future afterwards. Progress isn't made when people are holding out for a 100% guaranteed victory. It's made when people are not afraid to fail, to show support and build momentum. If Bernie tries to get college tuition to be free and fails, supporters are not going to say "Well let's never try that again." But what WILL happen is that in the process, arguments are made, information supporting the issue is disseminated to the public, and momentum is built for another run at the issue.

If Clinton tries the same thing, it won't be through public pressure. It will be through attempted backroom dealings. And when those fail, there's no momentum built up in the public sphere. So HOW you fail can make the difference between building momentum for success in a future attempt, or not accomplishing anything at all.

TL;DR you're thinking of working within the sphere of Congress to pass a bill. Same old establishment style of politics. That's why you're not understanding the support for Bernie. Bernie is all about getting the people to rally behind causes that are common sense, and sending the message to ALL politicians that they need to find a way to pass the agenda, or risk being voted out. Using examples of unpopular issues like the Iran Deal is not going to disprove anything.

"Bully pulpit" is apparently your magical formula. And there has been no substantial data proving that it will work, so your proposition doesn't prove Bernie will be more effective in government than any alternative either.

"Getting the people to rally behind the causes"? Why do you need Bernie to do that? Why couldn't you look at the causes and rally behind it yourself? Do you need an angel figure to lead you and the 'people of America' by the nose to do that?

Political capital is limited. Try your run at free college tuition and fail, it costs you the legislative branch. Try again later? What later? You won't get reelected failing one issue after another.

During Bill's tenure as president, Hillary and Bill pushed for universal healthcare and failed. Bill gave speech stumping for it, and this is a guy who is easily still more charismatic than any candidate on the field right now. Nearly 20 years later, the issue was revisited, and it passed. It required the collaboration of Congress. It takes much longer and much more than one man to get things done in Washington. The bully pulpit is not enough; it is barely even useful positively in the modern media environment.

Before you deride the sphere of Congress, come up with something that actually works. Times have changed. "It's been done before" is meaningless if that 'before' is 50 years ago.

 

[soleil]

"Bully pulpit" is apparently your magical formula. And there has been no substantial data proving that it will work, so your proposition doesn't prove Bernie will be more effective in government than any alternative either.

"Getting the people to rally behind the causes"? Why do you need Bernie to do that? Why couldn't you look at the causes and rally behind it yourself? Do you need an angel figure to lead you and the 'people of America' by the nose to do that?

Political capital is limited. Try your run at free college tuition and fail, it costs you the legislative branch. Try again later? What later? You won't get reelected failing one issue after another.

During Bill's tenure as president, Hillary and Bill pushed for universal healthcare and failed. Bill gave speech stumping for it, and this is a guy who is easily still more charismatic than any candidate on the field right now. Nearly 20 years later, the issue was revisited, and it passed. It required the collaboration of Congress. It takes much longer and much more than one man to get things done in Washington. The bully pulpit is not enough; it is barely even useful positively in the modern media environment.

Before you deride the sphere of Congress, come up with something that actually works. Times have changed. "It's been done before" is meaningless if that 'before' is 50 years ago.

I never said that the bully pulpit could get anyone to agree to anything you want. Try getting some reading comprehension skills.

And are you seriously saying that it doesn't help to have political leaders leading a populist movement? LOL

 

[Inuhanyou]

Apparently for some people its better to have corporate controlled governments they claim to be against than fight for something real even if its hard or inconvenient.

"Realism" is not another word for "self defeating"

 

[lednerg]

Hillary elites are freaking out. This memo tells them to STOP. [Vox]

Hillary Clinton's campaign circulated a memo to top allies in Washington this week with an unmistakably Obama-esque theme: Don't worry, we've got this.

It comes at a time when Clinton's elite Acela-corridor allies have watched her battle flagging approval and honesty ratings, an investigation into the handling of her State Department emails, a surprisingly robust challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and the possible entrance of Vice President Joe Biden into the race. And they've watched it all play out in the newspapers they read and on the television shows they watch. Some of them have started to freak out a little bit.

The six-page memo, written by campaign manager Robby Mook and distributed in DC Monday by communications director Jennifer Palmieri, argues that there's no reason for Clinton's backers to panic.
[...]​

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

This whole pushing the debates back until october might back fire on her. Hell, I think she was screwed eitherway.

 

[jtb]

I doubt any Democrats are freaking out. They're probably just bored.

 

[And_Gignac]

I doubt any Democrats are freaking out. They're probably just bored.

Well, the Vox report says otherwise. The need for a six pages long memo to reassure themselves "everything is fine" is very telling.

 

[Fenderputty]

Apparently for some people its better to have corporate controlled governments they claim to be against than fight for something real even if its hard or inconvenient.

"Realism" is not another word for "self defeating"

Sure if you sacrifice pragmatism for idealistic bullshit.

 

[boiled goose]

Democrats playing it safe got them their asses handed to them in the midterms. A complete slaughter.

If you can't excite your base and actually stand for progressive principles people are not going to give a fuck about voting.

Feel the Bern

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

They need to appeal to change again.

It's giving the conservative base their power, and the dems can beat that if they just put effort into it like Sanders.