The electoral college.
Quinnipiac Poll: Bernie leads Hillary in Iowa 41% to 40%. Diamond Joe back at 12%.
- Thread starter ErasureAcer
- Start date
- Status
The electoral college.
ErasureAcer
Banned
People will be upset on both sides but the idea that some people are floating around here of armed revolt is hilarious. Good luck with that.
FireAndBlood
Member
What can Bernie accomplish with a republican congress, aside from judicial appointments?
Fenderputty
Banned
Liberals would be fucked, it's the right wing people with all the guns
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...aphics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/
metalslimer
Member
Are people serious with the idea that somehow bernies huge deficit will disappear if he manages to win 1 or 2 early states?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5f2792-cb3c-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gops-pr...oral-college-letters-to-the-editor-1425927283
So Bernie inherits the GOP's problem but Hillary just walks on through?
OK.
"backlash" /= "armed revolt". "People" (plural) aren't talking about that.
Fenderputty
Banned
Nothing, which is why the bickering about which dem makes it out is stupid and shortsighted. Bernie would probably get less done.
There are congressional elections too, you know.
The current congress, which is majority Republican, is sitting at a 14% approval and 82% disapproval rating right now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
Ripe for people to flip the tables at the next election.
They are living in la la land, thinking Clinton and Republicans will agree on something other than foreign war mongering
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If he can show appeal with minorities then maybe you'd have a point.
If neither one will be able to get much past Republicans then what's the difference? The only people in la la land are people thinking Sanders will usher in some new age of liberalism and get stuff passed with Congress.
LegendofJoe
Member
They're opinions from different people with multiple different perspectives. And I take offense at you concluding a lack of spine from the comments I have made. I was out in the trenches in North Carolina in 2008 going county to county in the poorest parts of the state registering people to vote. I do not lack spine, I am just a realist that wants the same things every other progressive person my age wants. The difference is that I am willing to put in the work and I understand that you have to be patient.
And I don't believe Bernie to be batshit in the slightest. I've been following him since 2006 so I know all about his policy positions and how great a person/leader he is.
I could see Bernie getting more media attention and driving his poll numbers up if it wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire, but I also think it's likely that he will hit a wall due to his low support with minority voters, thus undercutting his potential momentum.
Unless he can actually make inroads with minority voters the same way Obama was able to make inroads with African-American voters, it will be very difficult for him to win Nevada and South Carolina, even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.
That's not how Congress works!
ErasureAcer
Banned
He can appoint his cabinet in which those people wield great power. Attorney General can reclassify controlled substances for instance.
I'd say the candidate running in the General with a "D" next to their names will likely have decent support from minorities. Unless the implication is that they'd bail on Bernie for the conservative nominee which would be bizarre to say the least.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to insinuate that you contradicted yourself or anything. This conversation is just going all over the damn place and it's getting to the point where none of this shit people are saying seems to mean anything any more.
Do we really see Hillary as the type of candidate that I'd going to inspire people to get out and vote? She's a known quantity and all everyone wants to talk about is how she's unbeatable. Get hyped! Go vote!
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Third option, not vote at all. Now that's really bizarre.
dehydratedbabies
Member
I totally disagree, but I feel that I've already express my point. If you worry about Bernie's chances against the boorishness of Trump then I don't understand why you feel that Hillary would fare better.
Wouldn't want to alarm the wealthy...
ErasureAcer
Banned
Bernie has a platform for minorities to embrace. Yeah, if they don't want to embrace it...it's their loss. I'd expect they'd show up to vote.
Maybe the right question is "what's wrong with Bernie's message/campaigning that minorities have thus far refused to embrace him as a candidate"?
For me having a different foreign policy is enough of a reason.
Instead of more knee jerk reactionary nation building - things might actually be planned out with the international community. Instead of power vacuums that bring new terrors into power - we might have some stability and international consensus. I've seen Obama's foreign policy and it has been largely a continuation from Bush. Hillary has shown her hawkish ways - "She came, she saw, he died" is pretty much the plan and it has proven to be a great plan if you are planning to destabilize the entire globe.
There is only one ANTI WAR candidate in the field and his name is Bernie Sanders.
Iran deal is pretty much the first time we singled any change in his stance.
That's certainly an interesting interpretation.
exmachina64
Banned
Agreed.
The House is going to remain solidly Republican for the next several cycles.
The approval/disapproval rating combines liberals not satisfied with Republican obstructionism and conservatives angry over Democrats (and the presidential veto) preventing larger spending cuts, banning abortion and same-sex marriage, etc.
What controlled substances might be reclassified besides marijuana?
What can other cabinet secretaries do to influence political action? Could the Secretary of Transportation withhold infrastructure funds to ensure Republican compliance with another Democratic goal? Could the Secretary of Education override states attempting to block Common Core?
I wish.
Well, if we're talking about the general election, that seems like a weird onus to put on one candidate considering all the premature talk about the idiotic Sanders supporters who may not vote for Hillary in the general.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Many racial minorities do embrace his message. Obviously not a majority yet. Do racial minorities want to listen to him, do they even know who he is? I dunno. I think Bernie should take his own advice...he was recently talking about how there should be more debates and some of the debates should have themes(the environment/global warming). If he held some speeches focusing on individual topics that matter to those racial groups and took questions afterwards...that'd be a good start of making inroads. He probably needs to do the same with the elderly crowd too where his numbers are low. He definitely needs to target his weakness demographics especially since he has ideas that would them out. He has stuff to say. He just needs to say it...to them.
It's not really that idiotic when a lot of other Bernie supporters have been saying as much in other threads. I'm #TeamBernie due to his foreign policy positions, but jesus christ am I pulling that level as fast as possible for Hillary if/when she's in the general. There's been enough "I'm only Bernie, fuck Hillary!" and even "if not Bernie, then Trump" on GAF that it's a legitimate frustration in the discourse here.
I don't disagree, but the way you phrased it seem to blame minorities for not understanding Bernie, when I would argue it's his campaigns inability to properly engage with minority voters on progressive issues of race and class.
teruterubozu
Member
eh, it wasn't too long ago when Hillary supporters were threatening to sit out voting for Obama. Such is elections - goddamn boring and petty.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Committing hundreds of thousand of ground troops like Bush is one big difference. Sanders seems a lot like Obama if you actually look at their words and actions. It's basically war is necessary only after every other option.
Yes, but let's talk about the now -- this has been a consistent and annoying theme in threads surrounding the two, enough that it's a legitimate complaint to bring up that shouldn't be boiled down to "premature talk about the idiotic Sanders supporters who may not vote for Hillary in the general."
It's cropped up enough that it's not "idiotic".
dehydratedbabies
Member
Just as much as Hillary Clinton could, but probably more if he's able to continue to motivate young people and non-voters at large to participate in politics. Only around 50-60% of the country voted in the last ten presidential elections, only around 40% voted in the last ten midterm elections, and statewide participation in the last ten primary elections ranged from around 20-30%, but meanwhile, as of last month, only "14% of U.S. adults approve of the job Congress is doing". Congress sucks, we know Congress sucks, but we allow them to suck. For that to change someone needs to motivate these people to start voting, and the only candidate who is really trying to do that is Bernie Sanders.
How so?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I personally vote for the option that acknowledges the foolishness and clurlessness of a large plurality of the electorate, minority or not.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You and I both know how this will play out. Hope and enthusiasm fades as soon as the FIRST sign of gridlock appears. Obama had more enthusiasm than Sanders will likely ever have. Sanders won't even be able to count on all Democrats to follow his policies just like Obama struggled with blue dogs. Just like some Democrats now oppose the Iran deal.
His campaign has done a shitty job reaching out to minority voters, and framing most of his message in economic terms up until recently, instead of also racial terms, glosses over the intersectionality of both race and economics (at least in rhetoric). His constituency is one of the whitest in the country, and it's not really surprising (but disappointing) it's taken him so long to begin to engage with minority voters and talking about the intersection of race and economic prosperity.
And you don't mean it like this, but you're dangerously close to saying If only those minorities would just listen!, which has been an annoying and somewhat patronizing tone in most of my fellow Bernie supporters' discussion on his inability to thus far win over minority support.
Fenderputty
Banned
Has Obama closed Gitmo yet?
I meant that the Sanders supporters who would actually follow through with that would be idiotic. Also, that it's silly that blame is being deflected to the potential missing voters of one hypothetical nominee while the blame for potential missing voters is being placed on the other hypothetical nominee.
exmachina64
Banned
Not for lack of trying.
Abinash117
Member
I expect they won't. That doesn't mean shit. Any candidate can have a platform that appeals to minorities; what matters is if that candidate has a good relationship, reputation with the demo, and trust of them. It also comes down to being able to convince them through aides and ads, among other things and also comes down to minorities usually voting for candidates that have a chance of winning.
Bernie has very little with all of that. Unlike some of you progressives; just saying neat things about helping minorities doesn't amount to anything because you need more than words.
Also " He just needs to get his word out" is also BS because it is again it is thinking the Bernie can just say stuff can minorities can just eat them up. It is basically projecting that " I like he says and talks about Black people needs to have policies that better help them, so black people should like him." , you like what he says and he says progressive stuff that should help people, so some people will assume that black people would suddenly go to him. He says basically some of the same stuff as Hillary and if Hillary doesn't she can begin to.
I would of thought Bernie could get his nationwide infrastructure program passed, in some form, as this would directly benefit some GOP donors (those that rely heavily on the transportation infrastructure) and indirectly many, many, more, from the huge economic stimulus it would generate, from the hundreds of thousands of well payed workers ($15 living wage and up), having money in their pockets to spend.
The costs would be offset by the extra taxes generated, with a Bernie administration insisting that if your construction firm doesn't pay a reasonable amount in corporation tax, you can hit the road, jack
.That's fair, but one of the nominees is the clear frontrunner and establishment favorite who's still has the best chance to win the nomination, so it's understandable why that onus falls on Bernie supporters versus Hillary supporters.
If you're left-wing, not supporting the eventual Democratic nominee is the epitome of stupidity.
Yes. You need whatever the hell Hillary has been doing for minorities over the past 2 decades.
I agree with that. I also feel that minorities lean pretty hard to the left based on history and whatnot. I don't see what Bernie specifically has done to alienate that portion of the electorate and I think it's strange to assume they'd turn against him in the general but stick with Hillary.
ErasureAcer
Banned
They don't understand Bernie because they probably don't know who the hell he is. Any national news is horserace stuff and nothing of policy whatsoever. Bernie does need to focus on specific issues besides his income based stump speech which only slightly touches some tangent issues(environment, education, justice). He needs to go down to Florida and talk up his social security plan. He needs to go to Ferguson and tell us of what he'll do in reforming the police within his power. He needs to bring global warming to the forefront. He needs to do a lot of things in changing tactics so his message does get out there...the message itself is fine.
Abinash117
Member
And yet they still have her in high favorability and support her vastly over Sanders. What do you say about that?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Sanders has been in Congress since 1991. He should have no issue pointing to what causes he has advocated for minorities.
Well, me bringing up name-recognition (second to only Obama among Democrats and 3rd place isn't even close), and the fact that minorities roll with the D pretty deep would probably be dismissed as irrelevant so I guess I've got nothing.
True. I think he'll handle that well as they proceed through the campaign. His history on such issues is impressive and pretty consistent.
I agree with this post.
Team Alucard
Banned
If Bernie beats Hillary he will easily win the general election. Anyone could beat the GOP clown car. All this baseless "he's unelectable!" fear-mongering from Hilldawg stans is just as sad and pathetic as the Bernie stans who are threatening to abstain in the general if their guy doesn't win.
That being said, he's not beating Hillary.
That being said, he's not beating Hillary.
He is from Vermont.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Tell me more.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I'm not a Bernie supporter. I prefer him to Clinton, but I don't think he has a chance.
My point is not that "The minorities won't listen!", it's that the electorate, in general, is far too passive and too clouded in its thinking. Bernie has done a bad job of reaching out to minorities, yes, but his publicly available campaign platform is nevertheless one that, objectively, would do right by many of them, whether he reaches out or no. Bush's platform was one that, objectively, was horrendous, but he got 8 years on the strength of his down-to-earth charm and appeal to Middle America. I have little respect for such shallowness, no matter what subset of the electorate is engaging in it, because it's at the root of stasis.
neogaffer1
Banned
for those who still think that bernie has no chance in general i think before counting him out we should wait for two things:
because if bernie outperforms hillary in the debates (and with his charisma and her lack of charisma this is somewhat likely) we could see him break into gaining support from more minorities (depending on the questions and the answers given) and if he defeats hillary in iowa then that'll be the best chance he has of gaining enough support to win the general. that's not a guarantee that he'll win, just that if he loses iowa it'd take a miracle for him to win. if he takes it, he has a decent chance of getting the nomination.
- The debates
- Early primaries
because if bernie outperforms hillary in the debates (and with his charisma and her lack of charisma this is somewhat likely) we could see him break into gaining support from more minorities (depending on the questions and the answers given) and if he defeats hillary in iowa then that'll be the best chance he has of gaining enough support to win the general. that's not a guarantee that he'll win, just that if he loses iowa it'd take a miracle for him to win. if he takes it, he has a decent chance of getting the nomination.
There's some major hypocrisy going on here with all of the people using polls to say Bernie doesn't stand a chance against Clinton, while simultaneously claiming he'd have no shot in a general, ignoring all the polls showing Bernie beating every republican.
Either the polls matter or they don't. You can't just say that only the polls you like matter. That goes for people in both camps. For the record, i don't think Bernie is going to beat Clinton, though he has a nonzero chance. I do think he could beat most of the republicans sans Kasich, who would probably even beat Clinton.
Either the polls matter or they don't. You can't just say that only the polls you like matter. That goes for people in both camps. For the record, i don't think Bernie is going to beat Clinton, though he has a nonzero chance. I do think he could beat most of the republicans sans Kasich, who would probably even beat Clinton.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked