Support NeoGAF

[dramatis]

Seriously, this settle for less issue is really big. The entire Republican party is focused on it, and when comparing Hillary to Bernie on certain issues, so is she. To a much lesser degree than the Republicans and their 1950's regressive ideas, mind you, but she's still far too much in the favor of corporate interests, which themselves are at a foundation of many a problem in this place we call a nation. Of the candidates running, I truly do see Bernie as the candidate who seems less eager to settle for less, considering he's talked about these issues for decades.

jtb gave the nice answer:

Okay. So how would Bernie accomplish any of his goals without compromising? Or, as it is more commonly known, "settling for less"?

I'm going to give you a not so nice response. What the fuck? What are you even saying? This "settle for less issue is really big"? In what world is "settling for less" a huge issue compared to the actual, real circumstances of the poor, the discriminated, and the overall social and economic problems of the US? God forbid YOU have to settle for something less, because someone less fortunate would probably settle for having anything right now.

The Republican party is not focused on the imaginary issue of Democrats "settling for less". They are keen to implement only their policies and what they will not accept is settling for less, thereby doing nothing at all. Which works for their interests, since they would like to keep a status quo or make it worse. The government needs to run. The bills need to be made and paid for. The Democrats have to keep going. In your scenario of "not settling for less", nothing gets done. A room of 435 people not getting anything done because nobody wants to "settle for less".

Compromise, do you know it? Learn it. That is the engine that runs democracies. Bernie won't be able to implement any policies without it.

You're well-intentioned, Foffy. But live in reality a little. Your quickness to jump to the defense of the ideals makes you look stupid.

Also, that terrible PAC money can be integral in forming a ground game. If people genuinely think campaign money just goes for TV commercials. Remember, we're democrats, not an organized political party. Grassroots activism is not free. You don't pull a competent ground game out of thin air. You have to spend money...a lot of money to get something competent.

Ground game has been explained over and over. If they're not listening, they're not listening.

At best Bernie can run ground game in the early primary states (maybe three?). However, that's a measly portion of delegates. It's not going to snowball effect like people think it will; Obama had to fight long and hard for his delegate count, and he had a lot more money than Bernie. The 2008 primary ran into May; Bernie doesn't have the resources for that.

 

[Dude Abides]

Bernie handled it fine. People turned on BLM more than anything else. They clearly have no handle on affecting tangible change outside of making more money for the companies that manufacture just as many body cams as "less lethal" and "tactical" gear for a militarized police force, and while Sanders has acted fantastically in good faith, its overblown to focus on this.

He didn't handle it fine. Bernie looked like an old white liberal professor confused as to why the black kids with their hippity hops aren't flocking to hear his Gramscian analysis of the Ferguson situation. And his supporters looked like the lily-white sheltered UVm students that they are.

 

[User 463088]

He didn't handle it fine. Bernie looked like an old white liberal professor confused as to why the black kids with their hippity hops aren't flocking to hear his Gramscian analysis of the Ferguson situation. And his supporters looked like the lily-white sheltered UVm students that they are.

This is actually my biggest problem with Bernie. Not the BLM thing (although I do support them) but with his incredibly myopic view of nearly everything.

Everything, no matter what, is always the result of economic inequality. It's like he's a textbook definition of a conflict theorist, or something. There is huge income inequality, and it does have far ranging impact on America, but there are structural issues that will not simply be resolved by breaking up the big banks or what have you. Economic inequality is the result of these problems, not the cause of all of them.

Any time he's not allowed to talk on economic issues, it all starts to get a bit wonky for me. His statements on supporting Israel and a Palestinian State were straight out of a bag of verbal salad.

 

[B-Dubs]

He didn't handle it fine. Bernie looked like an old white liberal professor confused as to why the black kids with their hippity hops aren't flocking to hear his Gramscian analysis of the Ferguson situation. And his supporters looked like the lily-white sheltered UVm students that they are.

Pretty much.

Had he given the same answer Hillary did, they would have left him alone. I mean shit, that's what every activist ever wants to hear from a candidate and they had nothing. I just can't get over that, especially when there's so much shit they could have suggested. Personally I would have gone with asking for a special prosecutor's office to handle prosecuting crimes by cops as their only job, and getting rid of the grand jury in those situations. Or forcing the racial makeup of the local police force to match that of the community they are policing. Or getting rid of three-strike policies and mandatory minimums. Or forcing police forces to do more community outreach. Or any of the other dozen or so suggestions that people have been throwing out there for the past decade.

But yea, Bernie flubbed it. He's always fine on economic issues, but he needs to learn to talk about more than that.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

You're right, Hillary's never run for President. She ran for First Lady.

Hillary Clinton has an advantage held by no other candidate in American history -- she has already been through, not just two presidential campaigns, but two actual presidential terms as a front-row participant with just as much vulnerability and just as many people targeting her as the big guy himself. If there's one thing you can say for sure, it's that nothing that happened before 2000 will have any relevance whatsoever to Hillary's campaign, because it's been picked clean. That's something you can't say about anybody else.

Yet now she has a reign as Secretary of State which is under extreme scrutiny and more and more material is showing up by the day. The compromising of Top Secret documents is a massive wound that she'll never be able to properly recover from.

The GOP try a Party of Lincoln campaign every single time. It's never worked, because, well, people of color aren't stupid. (But on that topic, it's yet another place Bernie's actually more vulnerable than Hillary -- in case you didn't notice the people of color protesting him already.)

Because they're weak and will largely be irrelevant in the larger election. Outside Agitators went after Bernie because they could and it created a sentiment against BLM more than anything else.

Sure, it'll be a talking point. For Hillary. You're right, this isn't Dinesh D'Souza. This is Hollywood. You know, Los Angeles? The city that gives Democrats a million net votes every four years? You know, the liberal media establishment? You don't think this movie will offer the Democratic perspective on Benghazi? If you think this movie is going to make Hillary look bad, you've radically misunderstood how American culture actually works. If anything, it'll make her look like an American hero. She might do a guest star appearance.

Hollywood is one of the most Right wing, heavily white establishments in America.

The point is that it's not the worst we've got. The point is that that took one reporter one week! And it's not even a conservative reporter, because Vox is a liberal mouthpiece! You don't think a full year of superPAC money, conservative bloggers and professional smear artists won't dig up much, much darker dangers?

And you don't think they don't have more than enough ammo with Hillary? I'm convinced they do, you don't. Hardly anyone actually likes her, its easy enough to turn those undecideds clear against her.

That story was the definition of low-hanging fruit. But there's always a lot more fruit in the tree if you're willing to climb. The only presidential nominee without a scandal in modern politics was Barack Obama, and that's only because, as an African-American with a Punahou education, he knew exactly how to keep his hands on the dashboard at all times. (And even he had to disavow Reverend Wright in order to make it to the White House.)

That line of attack was always a long shot to rile up the racist establishment. On the other hand Hillary is, well, a woman. So we'll get to see that unfold.

The fact that you already know the campaigns the GOP will run against Hillary is her strength. The fact that nobody knows what people will run against Bernie is his glaring weakness.

He's a socialist, he's anti-American, they're pretty easy and pretty forgettable. She's got specifics that will drive away independents.

I just love the fact that people are actually lining up to defend Hillary, when she's one of the most dyed in the wool Republicans to ever take up the Democrat mantle. From praising Henry Kissinger to her approval by Wall Street (up against Trump all he has to declare is she's a bought woman) to parroting the Republican line of abortion being "safe, legal, and rare," to her endorsement of every single military encounter America has gotten involved in that she's been able to voice her opinion on.

Hillary is "electable" because the Right has proven that they can go so far off the reservation they can get the Democrats to become a by-and-large extension of the Republican party in nearly every way possible. It's disgusting to see the Left line up and accept her without question when we have a moral imperative to get involved and fight her tooth and nail.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I have looked at Sanders [relatively barebones, although presumably the intent is to actually flesh these out at some point] policy prescriptions more recently, they range from reasonable progressive planks, to unrealistic fantasy, to harmful demagoguery.

I'm sorry, I can't let someone post something like this, without giving any specifics.

Which of his policies are unrealistic, and why? Which of his policies are harmful, and why? As an outsider looking in, I don't find his policies to be extreme at all. In fact, they seem to be close to traditional Scandinavian social democracy, an ideology that has served us Scandinavians well for a long time. Please enlighten me.

 

[Fenderputty]

But yea, Bernie flubbed it. He's always fine on economic issues, but he needs to learn to talk about more than that.

He needs to do a better job of explaining why economic issues affect social issues. I largely agree that racism and economics go hand in hand.

 

[B-Dubs]

He needs to do a better job of explaining why economic issues affect social issues. I largely agree that racism and economics go hand in hand.

So do I, but there are racial issues that cannot and will not be solved through economic solutions. My point was that when it comes to these things, Bernie can't talk that well.

 

[Fenderputty]

Yet now she has a reign as Secretary of State which is under extreme scrutiny and more and more material is showing up by the day. The compromising of Top Secret documents is a massive wound that she'll never be able to properly recover from.

This if fucking hilarious.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

The idea he's not gonna accept money if he gets the nomination is legitimately laughable. Bernie Sanders not having any money doesn't equal Bernie Sanders not wanting any money. The idea that he's going to win against multiple GOP SuperPACs AND take no money, yet people still think he should be the nominee is I don't even know what.

So you and pigeons argument really is that you are realists who think it cannot be done with superPACs?


But do you honestly think people want to vote for the person who goes "yeah im gonna take this money but im gonna make it so everyone else cant"?

Wasn't that what Obama said? He was going to take Wallstreet to church, but not a single individual was indited - On the contrary. The CEO of goldman sachs ended up in the administration.



If the American people cannot elect a president without these SuperPACs, then the American people cannot elect a president who has not been swayed by political conflict of interest. Nobody gives a fuck if it's how it is done now. That United Citizens ruling needs to change, and Hilary being the one to do it with 900 million in the bank?

I don't see it. I like Hilary, I actually do. But you're not electing Hilary. Your electing the same sort of people that will tie her hands and feet like Obama.
He can't do shit about so many things because he is sponsored by all these people.


I think that if Bernie Sanders grass root movement can take off- and they can ride this to the finish line, on him not being corrupt due to not taking these "donations", then I think it can be done.
It's one thing for the GOP to run gross attack adds- It's another for the people to buy their smear campaign if they know the truth. The internet can be instrumental- We've seen that.


I just think it's frustrating that you guys (or any democrat) who says they like Sanders but don't want to vote for him because there is no way he can win- You overestimate how terrible the republican party is today. Internationally they are known as the worst part of America. Racist, fanatic, religious, stuck in a previous century, and now- Ready to incite war with Iran.
You need to stop being afraid of these crazies.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yet now she has a reign as Secretary of State which is under extreme scrutiny and more and more material is showing up by the day. The compromising of Top Secret documents is a massive wound that she'll never be able to properly recover from..

This is hilarious. The media really is doing a number on some people.

 

[dead souls]

Damn, it's going to be a long time until November 2016.

I admire Bernie Sanders but he has no legitimate chance to be the nominee and his superfans are extremely aggravating.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Yet now she has a reign as Secretary of State which is under extreme scrutiny and more and more material is showing up by the day. The compromising of Top Secret documents is a massive wound that she'll never be able to properly recover from.
[...]
And you don't think they don't have more than enough ammo with Hillary? I'm convinced they do, you don't. Hardly anyone actually likes her, its easy enough to turn those undecideds clear against her.

Please tell us what this "material" and "ammo" is going to do that everything else in the last 22 years didn't do to her as First Lady, Senator, or Secretary of State, to say nothing about anything in Arkansas state politics.

Because right now, you're sounding a lot more like a concern troll and a lot less like a rational human being.

I just love the fact that people are actually lining up to defend Hillary, when she's one of the most dyed in the wool Republicans to ever take up the Democrat mantle. From praising Henry Kissinger to her approval by Wall Street (up against Trump all he has to declare is she's a bought woman) to parroting the Republican line of abortion being "safe, legal, and rare," to her endorsement of every single military encounter America has gotten involved in that she's been able to voice her opinion on.

I love the meme that Hillary Clinton, 11th Most Liberal Senator during both of her terms, is somehow a Dyed in the Wool Republican because 1) she's not literally a socialist and 2) things from 1965.

Maybe, at worst, she's a dyed-in-the-wool Rockefeller Republican in the vein of Eisenhower and that's probably a fair assessment - but holy shit what even are you talking about otherwise

 

[noshten]

This is hilarious. The media really is doing a number on some people.

The media has also had made a lot of people think Clinton is an undisputed lock for the democratic nomination. You can't have it both ways

 

[hydragonwarrior]

He's helping to rile up a liberal base that will hopefully be able to maintain pressure on Hillary even if Bernie loses.

This I agree with. Even if he loses, he lights a spark that hopefully continues to spread and impact a future election.

But I don't think the US as a whole is ready for someone as progressive as Bernie. Yet.

 

[gogosox82]

There's a huge difference, absolutely, which is why Citizens United is so problematic.

But, again, the GOP has a superPAC. In fact they have like a thousand of them. They have unlimited financial resources for this election.

There's a reason why Obama accepted reality and started his own superPAC last year. These are the rules of the game.

Now, admittedly, money has diminishing returns, and superPAC money is less effective than campaign money because of various regulations privileging campaign cash, so obviously parties can win even with a money deficit. But the scale of the deficit between a campaign without a superPAC and one that has one would be massive. I'd rather not take that bet.

I agree which is exactly why this system has to change. It has to be the number 1 propriety for every candidate. We will never get any goals accomplished without dealing the money in politics because its honestly asking too much of every politician to be like Bernie and refuse the pac money when the other side has so much pac money just waiting to be used.

 

[pigeon]

Because they're weak and will largely be irrelevant in the larger election. Outside Agitators went after Bernie because they could and it created a sentiment against BLM more than anything else.

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter has a higher favorability rating than Bernie Sanders.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/08/18/rel8b.-.democrats.2016.pdf

Not to mention their 54% favorability rating among people of color. But sure, they're irrelevant. Who needs to persuade people of color anyway? Not Bernie, apparently!

Hollywood is one of the most Right wing, heavily white establishments in America.

You are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Yes, Hollywood has serious racism and sexism issues having to do with propping up the world's kyriarchy. But if you think they aren't incredibly liberal and a constant force for liberalism, you have apparently not watched a television show or movie in the last fifty years. Or, you know, looked at voting records.

And you don't think they don't have more than enough ammo with Hillary? I'm convinced they do, you don't. Hardly anyone actually likes her, its easy enough to turn those undecideds clear against her.

You are missing the point. It's not a question of I'm convinced, you're convinced, it's a question on which there's evidence.

The Democratic Party wants, very very badly, to win elections. It's like the only reason they exist. They have the resources to round up groups of voters, run exhaustive tests, and find out exactly how badly the Republican attack ads against Hillary will hurt her. They have certainly already done so.

If they found that those ads would destroy her in the general? She wouldn't be the presumptive nominee. All that party power would've turned towards blocking Hillary out of the nomination instead of ushering her in. That is literally what that party power is for. On the GOP side, that's why Chris Christie's presidential campaign ended in 2013 (although he apparently didn't get the call).

Instead every single Democrat who's endorsed anybody has endorsed Hillary (except one guy, fine), all the major Democratic donors have lined up beside her, and all the party mouthpieces are trumpeting her narrative. You know what that means? It means that the party has done its research and thinks Hillary is electable and the GOP have no ammo.

So it's not that I'm convinced. It's that I'm convinced and the entire Democratic Party apparatus is also convinced after having spent large amounts of time and effort on verifying whether they should be convinced or not.

He's a socialist, he's anti-American, they're pretty easy and pretty forgettable. She's got specifics that will drive away independents.

I feel like you're plugging your ears here. One more time: there are specifics that the GOP will use to attack Bernie. We do not know what they are yet. They are hiding in his past speeches, policy positions, college records, friends and relatives, everything Bernie Sanders has ever done. You can't just shrug them off like they don't exist just because you don't know what they are unless you've just gotten back from doing six months of oppo research on him.

I don't know what they are either! But there's going to be something. I prefer the candidate for whom I already know what they are and I know that the party knows they won't matter.

I just love the fact that people are actually lining up to defend Hillary, when she's one of the most dyed in the wool Republicans to ever take up the Democrat mantle. From praising Henry Kissinger to her approval by Wall Street (up against Trump all he has to declare is she's a bought woman) to parroting the Republican line of abortion being "safe, legal, and rare," to her endorsement of every single military encounter America has gotten involved in that she's been able to voice her opinion on.

Hillary is "electable" because the Right has proven that they can go so far off the reservation they can get the Democrats to become a by-and-large extension of the Republican party in nearly every way possible. It's disgusting to see the Left line up and accept her without question when we have a moral imperative to get involved and fight her tooth and nail.

This is more of this "both parties are the same" stuff. I don't have time for it. If you don't know the difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, I suggest you educate yourself.

 

[dead souls]

The media has also had made a lot of people think Clinton is an undisputed lock for the democratic nomination. You can't have it both ways

No, reality makes any rational person understand that she is the frontrunner and presumptive nominee at this point.

Could that change? Well, anything's possible but it's extremely unlikely. Will Sanders be the cause of that change? Fuck no.

 

[Fenderputty]

I just think it's frustrating that you guys (or any democrat) who says they like Sanders but don't want to vote for him because there is no way he can win- You overestimate how terrible the republican party is today. Internationally they are known as the worst part of America. Racist, fanatic, religious, stuck in a previous century, and now- Ready to incite war with Iran.
You need to stop being afraid of these crazies.

Yeah the GOP is in such shambles. They own the house and senate and that looks like it's pretty much not gonna change for 6 years or more. Nobody who votes republican gives a flying fuck what outside countries think of their party. They regularly fuck liberals in every midterm. They've shut down the government and threatened default and nobody gave a shit for longer than a month. They created a super religious, protectionist, xenophobic base that panders to the rich and makes up almost half the US population.

The one thing Bernie supporters CONSTANTLY do is understate the importance of keeping a Dem in the main spot for another 4-8 years.

Damn, it's going to be a long time until November 2016.

I admire Bernie Sanders but he has no legitimate chance to be the nominee and his superfans are extremely aggravating.

I've said this in other threads and I know it's not rational to feel this way, but his superfans are legit tainting my opinion of him.

 

[Croatoan]

Yeah I'm sure she'll get money of out politics when elected... I'm sure that's first on her list!

That graph just solidifies Hilary Clinton as the Democratic Candidate for me. Now we will see if there is a republican contender or not.

 

[Delusibeta]

William Hill has 6/1 for Sanders to get the Dem nomination. That's probably worth a punt, considering Joe Biden is 5/1. :lol

 

[kirblar]

So do I, but there are racial issues that cannot and will not be solved through economic solutions. My point was that when it comes to these things, Bernie can't talk that well.

Bernie helped crystallize one of the issues with this stuff for me- it's easy for progressives to rally around solutions that marginally benefit everyone (Cop Cams) - the issue is that the solutions for issues that only affect minorities end up getting ignored.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The media has also had made a lot of people think Clinton is an undisputed lock for the democratic nomination. You can't have it both ways

Still is the case. Nothing has changed the ultimate outcome so far.

 

[User 463088]

Please tell us what this "material" and "ammo" is going to do that everything else in the last 22 years didn't do to her as First Lady, Senator, or Secretary of State, to say nothing about anything in Arkansas state politics.

Because right now, you're sounding a lot more like a concern troll and a lot less like a rational human being.

The Ghost of Vince Foster is going to ride in on a Whitewater raft, lifting Hillary's e-mail server above his head screaming BENGHAZZZZI! while wearing Monica's blue dress.

 

[Zyae]

Still is the case. Nothing has changed the ultimate outcome so far.

Shes the favorite, shes far from a lock.

 

[Croatoan]

Yeah the GOP is in such shambles. They own the house and senate and that looks like it's pretty much not gonna change for 6 years or more. Nobody who votes republican gives a flying fuck what outside countries think of their party. They regularly fuck liberals in every midterm. They've shut down the government and threatened default and nobody gave a shit for longer than a month. They created a super religious, protectionist, xenophobic base that panders to the rich and makes up almost half the US population.

The one thing Bernie supporters CONSTANTLY do is understate the importance of keeping a Dem in the main spot for another 4-8 years.

The problem with the Republican party is that

A) its easier to win over hearts and minds when you promise to give people extra money (things) and can easily show how the other party won't.

B) A lot of people that might be economically conservative leaning wont vote for republicans because of liberal social ideals they hold.

I am economically more conservative but I refuse to vote for anyone who even mentions the bible in a debate about politics. I believe religion should be burnt from the face of political and social ideals. Furthermore the absolute hatefulness that Republicans pander too against gays and equality is disgusting.

IMO, the Republican party is dead in presidential elections until they drop the bible and become more socially liberal.

The country itself wont heal until baby boomers get the fuck out of office as well.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I truly believe she is not going to tackle the major issues of Big Money when her largest donors are the fucking banks, who are institutionally a major problem on this earth.

I echo this as well. But I don't think this will ever happen in the next four years anyway, be it Bernie or Hillary. And all the cards have to fall into place as well to make this happen - specifically a progressive congress and senate.

And that's where it falls back onto Hillary. I think Hill is going to help many others win back their House and Senate seats. Bernie is doing well for himself but (in this political climate) he won't be helping his fellow party members out.

Again though, if Bern doesn't get elected, a movement will start on educating more people on what socialist means and other things to gradually move the liberal party and the moderate party more left so that when a candidate like Bern arises, we can side with him or her like we did Obama with less hesitance.

 

[noshten]

Still is the case. Nothing has changed the ultimate outcome so far.

The main reason for that is DNC protecting her from the debates till December. That's when her nomination will get unraveled like it did last time.

 

[B-Dubs]

The main reason for that is DNC protecting her from the debates till December. That's when her nomination will get unraveled like it did last time.

December? The first debate is in October. There's another in November. What are you even talking about?

 

[eBay Huckster]

December? The first debate is in October. There's another in November. What are you even talking about?

What complete fabrication will the Order of the Bern come up with next?

Find out, next time on fuck this fucking campaign and the fact that there's another fucking year left in it

 

[noshten]

December? The first debate is in October. There's another in November. What are you even talking about?

There is only 6 sanctioned debates by DNC and they have threatened any candidate that takes part in any other debate not sanctioned by them.

That was my main point not the month the first debate will be which I was mistaken on.

What complete fabrication will the Order of the Bern come up with next?

Find out, next time on fuck this fucking campaign and the fact that there's another fucking year left in it

We are just getting started, sadly DNC couldn't find a better establishment candidate. They are stuck with Hilary whos debate performance will turn off the majority like it did last time.

 

[timetokill]

Worth posting again

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

hydra @ Even if Hilary can't fix the issue of big money, the bribes, and bought politicians, is there a legitimate chance that she can get legislation done that kills the citizen united bill?

Yeah the GOP is in such shambles. They own the house and senate and that looks like it's pretty much not gonna change for 6 years or more. Nobody who votes republican gives a flying fuck what outside countries think of their party. They regularly fuck liberals in every midterm. They've shut down the government and threatened default and nobody gave a shit for longer than a month. They created a super religious, protectionist, xenophobic base that panders to the rich and makes up almost half the US population.

The one thing Bernie supporters CONSTANTLY do is understate the importance of keeping a Dem in the main spot for another 4-8 years.



I've said this in other threads and I know it's not rational to feel this way, but his superfans are legit tainting my opinion of him.

Good points, but I can't help but wonder if it's really as polarizing as you are making it out the.
Obama was un-electable. The world would freeze over before they would elect a black man. It was suicide. He was too young. Too inexperienced. Nobody had heard of him.

Amazing things can happen if people don't run on fear, and instead run on opportunity. I'm not American so I have to take your word for it, but I just don't understand it.


From the reports I've seen, almost all of the middle class is gone in America. Which means the majority of people are stuck, with underpaid wages, working way too much, with over 100.000 PTSD Veterans running around (presumably with fucking guns), young people who will be in debt until their 60s, people living longer with worse benefits for health, pension, medicare, school - All of these things. I would imagine that all of these things, would make republicans and democrats alike go for security.

America is so rich. It has such incredible funds in the hands of so few. It must be the thoughts of most people?

 

[B-Dubs]

There is only 6 sanctioned debates by DNC and they have threatened any candidate that takes part in any other debate not sanctioned by them.

That's not what you were saying though. You said they were protecting her from debates until December. We can go back up and look at the quote. So what were you saying?

That was my main point not the month the first debate will be which I was mistaken on.

You realize there's like 2 people running who are garnering any sort of attention right? The field isn't as big as the GOP one. I doubt it would take 14 debates for people to see their differences.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Bernie helped crystallize one of the issues with this stuff for me- it's easy for progressives to rally around solutions that marginally benefit everyone (Cop Cams) - the issue is that the solutions for issues that only affect minorities end up getting ignored.

Because they largely don't really work?
Social safety nets on the other hand, can start tackling the problem at the bottom, instead of applying artificial bandages to the top end of the system like affirmative action.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

People need to remember that Clinton is essentially an incumbent of a President with approval ratings consistently in the 40s. In the past, those factors led to a close general election contest. I think you'd still have to give Hillary the edge, but not by all that much. Over the next year, we'll continue to see her polling leads dwindle closer to 0 as voters start to pay closer attention and the field consolidates on both sides. Again, I'd still favor her against the field, but it will be close.

 

[noshten]

That's not what you were saying though. You said they were protecting her from debates until December. We can go back up and look at the quote. So what were you saying?

The date is not important the quantity is. Each debate is going to be another nail in her coffin - just like last time. It would also have little to do with the actual things being discussed but rather her character which will once again sour potential voters on her.

The debates last time acted like a catalyst for Obama and made the DNC realize they had bet on the wrong horse - so this time they are limiting the amount of debates that take place because it has long been decided Clinton will be on the ticket.

You realize there's like 2 people running who are garnering any sort of attention right? The field isn't as big as the GOP one. I doubt it would take 14 debates for people to see their differences.

There were two major candidates garnering any sort of attention last time, but I guess Clinonites forget that

5.1 April 26, 2007 – Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University
5.2 June 3, 2007 - CNN 7:00pm EDT - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.3 June 28, 2007 - PBS - Washington, D.C., Howard University
5.4 July 12, 2007–Detroit, Michigan
5.5 July 23, 2007 - CNN - Charleston, South Carolina, The Citadel military college
5.6 August 4, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.7 August 7, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.8 August 9, 2007 – Los Angeles, California
5.9 August 19, 2007 – Des Moines, Iowa
5.10 September 9, 2007 – Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami
5.11 September 12, 2007
5.12 September 20, 2007 – Davenport, Iowa
5.13 September 26, 2007 – Hanover, New Hampshire, Dartmouth College
5.14 October 30, 2007 - NBC 9:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Drexel University
5.15 November 15, 2007 - CNN - Las Vegas, Nevada
5.16 December 4, 2007 - NPR (radio only) - Des Moines, Iowa
5.17 December 13, 2007 – Johnston, Iowa
5.18 January 5, 2008 - ABC 8:45pm EST - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.19 January 15, 2008 - MSNBC 6:00pm PST - Las Vegas, Nevada, College of Southern Nevada
5.20 January 21, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EST - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
5.21 January 31, 2008 - CNN 5:00pm PDT - Hollywood, California
5.22 February 2, 2008 - MTV 6:00pm EST - MTV Myspace Debate
5.23 February 21, 2008 - CNN 7:00pm CST - Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin
5.24 February 26, 2008 - MSNBC 9:00pm EST - Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland State University
5.25 April 13, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EDT - Grantham, Pennsylvania, Messiah College
5.26 April 16, 2008 - ABC 8:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 

[B-Dubs]

Because they largely don't really work?
Social safety nets on the other hand, can start tackling the problem at the bottom, instead of applying artificial bandages to the top end of the system like affirmative action.

A better safety net still doesn't fix things like cop pulling African-Americans and Hispanics over just because they are driving nice cars or cops rolling up a shooting black kids who are playing with toy guns.

There were two major candidates garnering any sort of attention last time, but I guess Clinonites forget that

Clintonites? Really? That's nice.

God I forgot how fucking long the last primary season was, it was fucking painful.

Let's be real though, they didn't need that many debates. They could have easily cut that list in half and it would have had no effect on the race. I mean fucking hell, there's two debates in Philly listed within 3 days of each other and the same with Chicago. You don't think that's a little much? The networks were looking for ratings, they don't give diddly squat about the candidates differentiating themselves. I'm more shocked we didn't get Obama fatigue over that span.

 

[Lubricus]

If we get a Trump economic plan, what would happen? 2008 all over again?

 

[Days like these...]

The date is not important the quantity is. Each debate is going to be another nail in her coffin - just like last time. It would also have little to do with the actual things being discussed but rather her character which will once again sour potential voters on her.

The debates last time acted like a catalyst for Obama and made the DNC realize they had bet on the wrong horse - so this time they are limiting the amount of debates that take place because it has long been decided Clinton will be on the ticket.

Actually the date does matter both Bernie and O'Malley want more debates and sooner but the dnc is shielding Clinton. They know bernie will gain after the debates.

Here is a link from TIME O'Malley is lobbying Bernie for more debates

http://time.com/4001669/martin-omal...temailed+(TIME:+Most+Emailed+Story+of+the+Day)

 

[Dude Abides]

The date is not important the quantity is. Each debate is going to be another nail in her coffin - just like last time. It would also have little to do with the actual things being discussed but rather her character which will once again sour potential voters on her.

This is just complete nonsense. Hillary generally performed better than Obama in the debates, and she was doing stronger at the end of the primary process than the beginning.

 

[noshten]

This is just complete nonsense. Hillary generally performed better than Obama in the debates, and she was doing stronger at the end of the primary process than the beginning.

Yep she was an absolute knockout in the debates, really connected with the voters.

 

[kirblar]

If we get a Trump economic plan, what would happen? 2008 all over again?

Economics and social policy aren't what I'd be worried about with Trump.

 

[Dude Abides]

Yep she was an absolute knockout in the debates, really connected with the voters.

She won the popular vote and crushed Obama in PA, late in the cycle.

 

[noshten]

Let's be real though, they didn't need that many debates. They could have easily cut that list in half and it would have had no effect on the race. I mean fucking hell, there's two debates in Philly listed within 3 days of each other and the same with Chicago. You don't think that's a little much? The networks were looking for ratings, they don't give diddly squat about the candidates differentiating themselves. I'm more shocked we didn't get Obama fatigue over that span.

Why have the debates at all a lot of people seemed to have decided on Clinton, maybe have Chelsea take over the United States Monarchy once her mom steps down.

 

[pigeon]

Why have the debates at all a lot of people seemed to have decided on Clinton, maybe have Chelsea take over the United States Monarchy once her mom steps down.

I mean, if a plurality of Americans support her, sure. That's how democracy works, people get to vote for the person they want, even if other people don't like that person for who they're married to for some reason.

 

[zou]

Yeah I'm sure she'll get money of out politics when elected... I'm sure that's first on her list!

Sanders vote on TARP alone should disqualify him from office. Even Bush was on the right side of it.

 

[B-Dubs]

Actually the date does matter both Bernie and O'Malley want more debates and sooner but the dnc is shielding Clinton. They know bernie will gain after the debates.

Here is a link from TIME O'Malley is lobbying Bernie for more debates

http://time.com/4001669/martin-omal...temailed+(TIME:+Most+Emailed+Story+of+the+Day)

The fact is unless Bernie is able to speak better on issues of race, and not just how they relate to economic issues, we could have 100 debates and nothing will change. If Bernie wants to win he needs to learn to speak better on race, he needs to steal African-American and Hispanic support from Hillary and he won't do that with his current messaging.

O'Malley wants a debate sooner because he's afraid he won't have the money to last until October because no one knows he's even running.

Why have the debates at all a lot of people seemed to have decided on Clinton, maybe have Chelsea take over the United States Monarchy once her mom steps down.

Really? A straw man? How sweet of you to ignore my entire post and the whole point.

 

[danwarb]

Yeah I'm sure she'll get money of out politics when elected... I'm sure that's first on her list!

Bernie has the people and Hillary has the banks. and the funding to convince people to vote against their own interests and the interests of their communities.

 

[Fenderputty]

Why have the debates at all a lot of people seemed to have decided on Clinton, maybe have Chelsea take over the United States Monarchy once her mom steps down.

This type of hyperbole is reason to never take you seriously.