Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

So we have gone from "Bernie will lose a general election" to "Bernie will elect bad supreme court appointees" to "Bernie lacks experience at that level".

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in 2008. Was that a mistake?

I don't think that's what's being said at all. Part of being President is getting your party to do the shit you want them to do. With a near Fillibuster proof majority it took tons of political capitol to get the ACA passed. Nancy Pelosi was insanely good getting some of the Blue Dogs on board. President Obama had an overwhelming amount of the nation behind him, and he was barely able to get this thing passed.

Hillary has experience doing this. She's been through it before. She knows what works and what doesn't work (Hillarycare, for instance.) For Sanders to get his agenda passed, he would, hands down, have to have a majority in each House, as would Hillary. But, even more problematic, would be that he would have to get the Democratic Caucus to accept him as their leader. That's a battle Hillary wouldn't have to fight.

So, I agree that I think Hillary would be more effective than Sanders in that regard. I'm not saying that the Democrats wouldn't work for him, but it's also not true that just having a De behind your name immediately makes you agree with the sitting President who also has a D behind his/her name. Hillary can scare them with the party, as Pelosi often did in 2009/10. Does Sanders have that power?

 

[Wall]

I think you're not picturing the situation adam387 is illustrating properly.

What he states is that Bernie will likely not win the nomination because he doesn't have the party machinery that is used to get votes. This is a factor that Bernie supporters, who likely have never participated in the actual act of grassroots get out the vote, overlook when it comes to evaluating Bernie's prospects. The reason the invisible primary is important is due to the value of local known officials—governors, senators, representatives, and so on—to the local population. These same people, because they have to get elected in their area, can also offer the tools essential to campaigning in a particular area: databases, information on local issues and concerns, local staff, etc. Because Hillary is in the Democratic party, she can benefit from this additional support offered by years of infrastructure built by the party. Because Bernie had never suffered being a Democrat and now is running in the Democratic nomination, he is unlikely to receive this vital support.

Of course, if through some miraculous event, Bernie does win the nomination, the Democratic party will support him. The problem is, because he is not raising as much money as Hillary and also doesn't want to raise money from certain sources, the Democratic party will have to expend extra resources on supporting him as opposed to a more self-sufficient Hillary campaign. Those extra resources could go to supporting local candidates, but because of Bernie's principles, they are instead allocated to him.

adam387 did not, in any way, state that Hillary supporters will take their ball and go home. Read carefully. It's disappointing that you're so quick to jump to a counter accusation, Wall. I thought you were a better poster than that.


It was Cheebo.

I'll let adam387 speak for himself. I was more responding to him saying that he would canvass for Hillary and not for Bernie. Of course that is his choice, but I've worked to get Democrats elected since before I could even vote, regardless of whether I agreed with who was the nominee or not. Bernie and Hillary aren't even that far in rhetoric or their stated positions in most areas; Bernie is just laying out a more comprehensive agenda whereas Hillary is trying to split the distance between the left of the Democratic party and where her advisers believe the moderate center to be.

What you are saying about the fundraising implications of a Sanders versus a Clinton candidacy makes a certain amount of sense in terms of the financial resources available to Democratic candidates downticket, but I didn't get any of that from adam387's post. If I misread I apologize.

Frankly, I would take your point a little more seriously if the Democrats hadn't been getting their asses handed to them at the state and local level ever since 2010. Hillary can raise all the money she wants, Obama was just as good of a fundraiser, but it doesn't seem to be making a difference in non-presidential years. People keep saying that Hillary can bring people to the polls like Obama was able to, but so far she is the same wooden campaigner that she proved to be in 2008. I want her to be better, I really do, but I can't magically make her into something that she is not. I'm just not convinced she is going to be the shoe-in general election candidate her supporters say she will be. Even if she manages to win in 2016, is she going to be able to win again in 2020? How often has any political party won the White House 4 times in a row without something shaking things up?

If Sanders weren't running, the only things we would be talking about right now would be Hillary Clinton's e-mails and Donald Trump. We would be back to the late 90's, when the Democratic party was a hollowed out shell that existed only to defend the president or presidential candidate from the latest scandal the Republicans in the congress dredged up.

 

[zero shift]

Who said this?

Well when someone says that person X will make a good choice and that person Y will not make a good choice, I assume that means that they think person Y will make a bad choice.

 

[LegendofJoe]

So we have gone from "Bernie will lose a general election" to "Bernie will elect bad supreme court appointees" to "Bernie lacks experience at that level".

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in 2008. Was that a mistake?

It's a huge assumption that Hillary would have ended up winning in both 2008 and 2012. It was an amazing primary that Obama won fair and square, so I'd say no even though I feel Hillary would have accomplished more legislatively.

 

[Maledict]

The same wooden campaigner - who got *more* votes than Obama in one of the hardest fought primaries ever, against a once in a generation politician.

Seriously, were people asleep during 2008 or something?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Would you look at that. Hillary got most of the white vote. How did Obama win? That's right. Not through the white vote.

Guess who has nothing but young white voters right now? Bernie Sanders.

It doesn't matter if Hillary doesn't have your white vote specifically. But thanks for confirming that you're a white guy looking down on the importance of the minority vote in Democratic primaries.

I think I gave someone this challenge before, but since you're so good at Googling, maybe you can do it. Just try and build a winning delegate amount without the assistance of minority vote. Keep in mind, even against Obama, Hillary received the majority of the delegates from most of the populous states (NY, CA, FL, MA, PA, etc.). So you can't count on those to deliver delegates to Bernie, particularly not NY.

I'm not sure thats possible, primary demographics are not available for every state, and even where they are they are based on shaky exit polls. Hard to predict exactly how many minorities are going to vote in the primary. On top of that all the democratic primary process is so convoluted I'm not sure how you can account for caucuses, super delegates, winer take all vs. proportional... thats a lot of work for free

My contention is that primary turnout is going to be lower this election that with Obama on the ticket. Clinton has their support right now, but is losing everyone else. I believe they will come around.

Bernie sanders supposed weakness is actually a Hillary weakness. She turns off white males. We could see a huge turnout from women though, the dynamics of this race are different than Obama vs. Clinton. I think the biggest issue is establishment vs. outsider. You can clearly see this on the R side. Many people voted for Obama hoping for real change. We got some but the far left was mostly disappointed.

Its going to be an interesting race for sure, people calling it over already are smoking something IMHO.

 

[Mercury Fred]

What's wrong with Sanders supreme court appointments?

Nothing aside from the fact that they would never leave the cocktail napkin they're scribbled on after he loses the national election.

How awfully democratic of you

Wait, what?

POP POLI GAF

Popli-GAF?

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'll let adam387 speak for himself. I was more responding to him saying that he would canvass for Hillary and not for Bernie. Of course that is his choice, but I've worked to get Democrats elected since before I could even vote, regardless of whether I agreed with who was the nominee or not. Bernie and Hillary aren't even that far in rhetoric or their stated positions in most areas; Bernie is just laying out a more comprehensive agenda whereas Hillary is trying to split the distance between the left of the Democratic party and where her advisers believe the moderate center to be.

What you are saying about the fundraising implications of a Sanders versus a Clinton candidacy makes a certain amount of sense in terms of the financial resources available to Democratic candidates downticket, but I didn't get any of that from adam387's post. If I misread I apologize.

Frankly, I would take your point a little more seriously if the Democrats hadn't been getting their asses handed to them at the state and local level ever since 2010. Hillary can raise all the money she wants, Obama was just as good of a fundraiser, but it doesn't seem to be making a difference in non-presidential years. People keep saying that Hillary can bring people to the polls like Obama was able to, but so far she is the same wooden campaigner that she proved to be in 2008. I want her to be better, I really do, but I can't magically make her into something that she is not. I'm just not convinced she is going to be the shoe-in general election candidate her supporters say she will be. Even if she manages to win in 2016, is she going to be able to win again in 2020? How often has any political party won the White House 4 times in a row without something shaking things up?

If Sanders weren't running, the only things we would be talking about right now would be Hillary Clinton's e-mails and Donald Trump. We would be back to the late 90's, when the Democratic party was a hollowed out shell that existed only to defend the president or presidential candidate from the latest scandal the Republicans in the congress dredged up.

From PoliGAF:

Sure it's expected for the President's party to lose seats, but that doesn't usually mean they lose all of congress by a ton. Even going by this interpretation, the only bright spot for democrats here is that he only lost 13 seats in the house for his second term, which isn't exactly a bright spot at all when that's only because the huge republican gains of 2010 never really went away in 2012 thanks to gerrymandering.

This problem clearly goes beyond the usual incumbent midterm disadvantage.

First term
Average House: -32
Obama House: -63
Average Senate: -0
Obama Senate: -6

Second term
Average House: -29
Obama House: -13
Average Senate: -5
Obama Senate: -9

Most lost seats for president's party in midterms since FDR:

House
2010 Obama: -63
1992 Clinton: -52
1958 Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford(Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30

Senate
1958 Eisenhower: -13
1946 Truman: -12
2014 Obama: -9
1992 Clinton: -8
1986 Reagan: -8
2010 Obama: -6
2006 Bush: -6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/12/03/the-myth-of-the-six-year-itch/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php

Midterm elections almost always go poorly for the president’s party. After the GOP’s 2014 midterm victories, which added 13 seats to the party’s already impressive House majority, the president’s party has now lost ground in the House in 36 of 39 midterm elections dating back to the Civil War. Unusual circumstances were at play in all three exceptions: 1934 (Franklin Roosevelt’s first midterm against the discredited Republicans), 1998 (Bill Clinton’s second midterm, when his party benefited from a great economy and GOP overreach on impeaching the popular incumbent president), and 2002 (George W. Bush’s first midterm, conducted under the shadow of 9/11). The presidential party’s gains in all three of these years were in the single digits.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-clinton/

I don't think we can blame Obama for that nor a hypothetical Hillary or Bernie. Sadly it just happens and I don't know how we can fix it.

 

[Grexeno]

I pegged you for a troll until the Kucinich stuff was dug up. Now it's clear you're an actual crazy person.

I'm of the opinion he might be some sort of campaign astroturfer for hire.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm of the opinion he might be some sort of campaign astroturfer for hire.

Yes, because people are really keen to hire the successful astroturfing team behind the astounding Kucinich presidency run.

Really?

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Well when someone says that person X will make a good choice and that person Y will not make a good choice, I assume that means that they think person Y will make a bad choice.

I agree if someone said that but I can't find who exactly did. If you're talking about this post, then I think you misread him. He's not saying Sanders would make poor SC assignments as president, he's saying he won't even get the chance to do so after he hypothetically loses the general. Or at least that's how I read the post.

Edit: And there we have confirmation from the poster himself.

 

[JustenP88]

If Sanders weren't running, the only things we would be talking about right now would be Hillary Clinton's e-mails and Donald Trump. We would be back to the late 90's, when the Democratic party was a hollowed out shell that existed only to defend the president or presidential candidate from the latest scandal the Republicans in the congress dredged up.

This this this is my fear. I don't know if I can get on board with the strategy of "just keep your mouths shut, let the Republicans dance around crazily and trust that Hillary's political capital will take care of us." The pendulum is going to swing the other way for some reason.

What happens in the event of something crazy happening in the next four years that leaves Hillary in danger of losing reelection in 2020? Who do we have that fills the void? Maybe I'm thinking too far ahead. Maybe I'm being paranoid. It just seems like the Democratic party is extremely stagnant right now.

 

[zero shift]

Stuff.

That is a good point and does make sense. That said I believe at one point you do have to elect candidates that will push your party in a general direction if the public isn't satisfied. Sometimes you have to pick between party unity or dysfunction but change.

Is this the right time for such a candidate? Maybe not. But I feel that it isnt as outlandish as some are stating.

Nothing aside from the fact that they would never leave the cocktail napkin they're scribbled on after he loses the national election.

Bernie would lose a hypothetical national election?

 

[Mercury Fred]

Bernie would lose a hypothetical national election?

Yes, of course.

 

[zero shift]

Yes, of course.

He seems to be ahead of all Republican nominees in the polls. Why would you say he'd lose a general election? Or have you said so a few pages back?

 

[Wall]

The same wooden campaigner - who got *more* votes than Obama in one of the hardest fought primaries ever, against a once in a generation politician.

Seriously, were people asleep during 2008 or something?

I remember it quite well. I remember her running up her totals in states that had primaries held after it became mathematically impossible for her to win. I remember the dispute regarding whether or not to count the votes from states like Michigan that were being penalized by the DNC, which complicates totaling the popular vote from that primary. I also remember her losing ultimately losing the primary despite having a large initial lead, heavy early support, and unmatched name recognition.

Look, Hillary would still be my second choice in the primary, and I obviously would work to get her elected in the general. I just can't ignore the stuff I'm seeing. The e-mail thing wasn't illegal, but it was stupid. It was an "unforced error" that didn't have to happen. She started out strong with her campaign themes and rollout, but since then, where is she? Her website looks like it hasn't been updated in months. She barely holds any public events. I keep hearing this stuff about how much money she has raised and her awesome ground game, but I'll be damned if I can find any evidence of it. And then last night she decided to hold a speech that reminded everyone of why she probably lost in 2008, her Iraq war vote, when she gave a speech that made it sound like she wants to move away from Obama's policies in the mideast to something closer to Bush's. I saw even some of her supporters this time around get pissed about that.

Will she probably win the primary? I would still say yes. I'm just dreading not only the coming general election with her at the top of the ticket, but the elections in 2018 and 2020 as well.

 

[GetLucky]

The same wooden campaigner - who got *more* votes than Obama in one of the hardest fought primaries ever, against a once in a generation politician.

Seriously, were people asleep during 2008 or something?

Pro-tip: A lot of Bernie supporters were around 12 years old in 2008. We are old.

 

[User 463088]

I'll let adam387 speak for himself. I was more responding to him saying that he would canvass for Hillary and not for Bernie. Of course that is his choice, but I've worked to get Democrats elected since before I could even vote, regardless of whether I agreed with who was the nominee or not. Bernie and Hillary aren't even that far in rhetoric or their stated positions in most areas; Bernie is just laying out a more comprehensive agenda whereas Hillary is trying to split the distance between the left of the Democratic party and where her advisers believe the moderate center to be.

What you are saying about the fundraising implications of a Sanders versus a Clinton candidacy makes a certain amount of sense in terms of the financial resources available to Democratic candidates downticket, but I didn't get any of that from adam387's post. If I misread I apologize.

Ya'll can just call me Adam.

I said I didn't think I would campaign for Sanders (meaning through his campaign). I didn't say I wouldn't campaign for Democrats. In fact, I made it clear that I would do everything within my power to help down ballot candidates. I'll canvass like I did in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 even if I know the entire thing is pointless. Because I"m a Democrat, and I love a losing battle, apparently.

There were several points I was trying to get across. The DNC won't be able to help Sanders if he is the nominee. First, I don't think the party backers are going to throw money his way. I really don't. Secondly, Sanders will be zero help to anyone down ballot. Debbie W-S will have to mitigate losses as much as she can, in my opinion. They'll be less of the pie to go around, and the DNC can't spend all of its energy doing things that a well funded campaign should be able to do on their own. Part of my argument against him is definitely financial.

The other part is the invisible primary aspect. Put simply, Sanders has absolutely no one. This is just my opinion, but I can't think of any candidate who won their party's nomination with literally zero support within its elected members. If Sanders were to somehow get the nomination, I just don't see him getting anything other than the token support usually given to candidates we know are going to lose. (Dukakis, Mondale, etc.)

I'm sorry if I'm not faking excitement to the extent I should. A Sanders' candidacy does not make me hopeful or excited. I could be totally wrong. Maybe every electoral trend in the history of the nation will suddenly be reversed because Sanders says its so. I've met the volunteers Sanders has in my area. No way in hell will I work with them. (That's strictly personal.) There are other things I can and will do. Usually our DNC Headquarters is good about putting people on issues/candidates that are a good fit for them.

 

[dramatis]

Frankly, I would take your point a little more seriously if the Democrats hadn't been getting their asses handed to them at the state and local level ever since 2010. Hillary can raise all the money she wants, Obama was just as good of a fundraiser, but it doesn't seem to be making a difference in non-presidential years. People keep saying that Hillary can bring people to the polls like Obama was able to, but so far she is the same wooden campaigner that she proved to be in 2008. I want her to be better, I really do, but I can't magically make her into something that she is not. I'm just not convinced she is going to be the shoe-in general election candidate her supporters say she will be. Even if she manages to win in 2016, is she going to be able to win again in 2020? How often has any political party won the White House 4 times in a row without something shaking things up?

If Sanders weren't running, the only things we would be talking about right now would be Hillary Clinton's e-mails and Donald Trump. We would be back to the late 90's, when the Democratic party was a hollowed out shell that existed only to defend the president or presidential candidate from the latest scandal the Republicans in the congress dredged up.

I'm not looking at it from the perspective that Hillary is going to help the downticket (there will be an effect, but of course, it's questionable how sizable of an effect). I primarily considered the resources from a financial standpoint.

However, I don't think the financial support should be conflated with the viability of local candidates. In the hypothetical situation of Bernie winning the nomination, it can only hurt local candidates to receive less support because the Democratic party has to shuffle their resources to accommodate Bernie. Democrats losing in previous non-presidential years does not change that.

The political environment of the US and the strength of local candidates are ultimately the greatest factors in whether or not Democrats can get elected at the state and local levels. Change in this area takes time and it takes dedication. I don't think even with a highly popular candidate at the top can the local elections be fixed so permanently.

Your last point is why I think if this was really a conspiracy by Bill Clinton then he is some 5th dimensional chess player. If Sanders weren't running, Trump would still be crowding the airwaves, taking time and attention away from Hillary's emails. If both of them weren't running, the networks would be Emailgate nonstop. Yet here we are; Erasure called it the summer of Bernie, but in reality, it was the summer of Trump.

I don't think the party is a hollowed out shell defending the president/next candidate. The Senate smoking the Republicans on the Iran deal, Obama dominating with his second term policies, the Supreme Court gay marriage decision—I think politics are as vibrant as ever, as the parties are also adapting to the ever changing environment. Perhaps you feel like the party is a shell; frankly, I think that discredits the individual efforts of the party members and officials to fight in their own ways.

 

[Wall]

Ya'll can just call me Adam.

I said I didn't think I would campaign for Sanders (meaning through his campaign). I didn't say I wouldn't campaign for Democrats. In fact, I made it clear that I would do everything within my power to help down ballot candidates. I'll canvass like I did in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 even if I know the entire thing is pointless. Because I"m a Democrat, and I love a losing battle, apparently.

There were several points I was trying to get across. The DNC won't be able to help Sanders if he is the nominee. First, I don't think the party backers are going to throw money his way. I really don't. Secondly, Sanders will be zero help to anyone down ballot. Debbie W-S will have to mitigate losses as much as she can, in my opinion. They'll be less of the pie to go around, and the DNC can't spend all of its energy doing things that a well funded campaign should be able to do on their own. Part of my argument against him is definitely financial.

The other part is the invisible primary aspect. Put simply, Sanders has absolutely no one. This is just my opinion, but I can't think of any candidate who won their party's nomination with literally zero support within its elected members. If Sanders were to somehow get the nomination, I just don't see him getting anything other than the token support usually given to candidates we know are going to lose. (Dukakis, Mondale, etc.)

I'm sorry if I'm not faking excitement to the extent I should. A Sanders' candidacy does not make me hopeful or excited. I could be totally wrong. Maybe every electoral trend in the history of the nation will suddenly be reversed because Sanders says its so. I've met the volunteers Sanders has in my area. No way in hell will I work with them. (That's strictly personal.) There are other things I can and will do. Usually our DNC Headquarters is good about putting people on issues/candidates that are a good fit for them.

Well, that isn't exactly making me feel better regarding people taking their ball and going home. I'm well aware of the McGovern scenario. I also saw it play out on a smaller scale in Jersey when it seemed like half the party got behind Christie and left their gubernatorial candidate to twist in the wind. She was an establishment Democrat as well, certainly no outsider. That is part of the reason why I don't exactly look kindly on people claiming to speak for the Democratic establishment anymore lecturing about loyalty and fealty to Democratic party leaders.

I didn't and don't mean to single you out though, and I apologize for not completely getting where you were coming from.

From PoliGAF:






http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-clinton/

I don't think we can blame Obama for that nor a hypothetical Hillary or Bernie. Sadly it just happens and I don't know how we can fix it.

I don't claim to know the answer to this question either, but I don't see how insulting people for supporting the wrong candidate in the primary is going to help situation. The rhetoric against people who are not "real democrats" - and I understand that most are arguing the more practical aspects Sander's independent status, but it still sounds exclusionary- certainly is not going to help matters. The democrats need to attract voters, not appear as if they are some exclusive club. I get that some Bernie supporters are just as if not more insulting, but the Clinton people are supposed to be the grownups who care about things like electability and the good of the party.

Edit: (to Dramatis): The Republicans control both houses of congress and something like 33 out of 50 state governments. If everything goes right, the Democrats should be able to retake the Senate this time around, but will they be able to hold it in 2018? The Democrats control the executive branch, but considering congress makes the laws and we have a federal form of government that reserves large powers to the states, that severely restricts what the party is able to accomplish domestically. Certainly the Iran Deal, if it passes, would be a huge accomplishment, and the executive actions the Obama administration has taken on climate change and to support labor are commendable, but they are ultimately small in scope because of the limitations of the authority of the executive branch. In terms of the state of the political debate in this country, it feels like we are going to return to the late 90's when the Democrats are basically the "not Republican" party. That is what I mean by hollowed out.

 

[User 463088]

Well, that isn't exactly making me feel better regarding people taking their ball and going home. I'm well aware of the McGovern scenario. I also saw it play out on a smaller scale in Jersey when it seemed like half the party got behind Christie and left their gubernatorial candidate to twist in the wind. She was an establishment Democrat as well, certainly no outsider. That is part of the reason why I don't exactly look kindly on people claiming to speak for the Democratic establishment anymore lecturing about loyalty and fealty to Democratic party leaders.

I didn't and don't mean to single you out though, and I apologize for not completely getting where you were coming from.
.

No worries. I didn't feel like you were singling me out. My post wasn't insanely well written. I was in the middle of trying to mitigate one of our managers PR disasters. I can write one thing at a time moderately well. Two....not so much.

I'm not claiming that the DNC would willingly take their ball and go home. I, obviously, cannot (and should not) attempt to speak for anyone other than myself. I think, after a certain point, it's just reality, really. The DNC can't afford to run Sander's campaign for him while doing everything needed down ballot.

I am in no way saying it's Hillary or bust for me. I admit, willingly, to being a pragmatist. I feel Hillary is our best shot. If Biden gets the nomination, then I'm right there with him too. I worked my ass off for Hillary in 2008, then after a long hard primary season, I happily worked my ass of (what little help I could give financially and with canvassing) for President Obama. I'm just being honest...I don't see myself doing that for Sanders. It's an amalgamation of issues, none of which probably are applicable to anyone other than myself. If, however, Sanders is who our party nominates, then that's who we've nominated.

I live in a part of Ohio that tends to be very red. We measure success in only losing by 20% instead of 30%. So it's not like I'm giving up on something I see as unrealistic. I just don't feel the Bern. Not going to, so far as I know either.

Anyway, this is probably no longer on topic. At least it illustrates, hopefully, where I was trying to come from. Again, I apologize for my less than clear rhetoric.

 

[rex]

Anybody know how old Hillarys gonna be in 2024?

 

[dehydratedbabies]

No worries. I didn't feel like you were singling me out. My post wasn't insanely well written. I was in the middle of trying to mitigate one of our managers PR disasters. I can write one thing at a time moderately well. Two....not so much.

I'm not claiming that the DNC would willingly take their ball and go home. I, obviously, cannot (and should not) attempt to speak for anyone other than myself. I think, after a certain point, it's just reality, really. The DNC can't afford to run Sander's campaign for him while doing everything needed down ballot.

I am in no way saying it's Hillary or bust for me. I admit, willingly, to being a pragmatist. I feel Hillary is our best shot. If Biden gets the nomination, then I'm right there with him too. I worked my ass off for Hillary in 2008, then after a long hard primary season, I happily worked my ass of (what little help I could give financially and with canvassing) for President Obama. I'm just being honest...I don't see myself doing that for Sanders. It's an amalgamation of issues, none of which probably are applicable to anyone other than myself. If, however, Sanders is who our party nominates, then that's who we've nominated.

I live in a part of Ohio that tends to be very red. We measure success in only losing by 20% instead of 30%. So it's not like I'm giving up on something I see as unrealistic. I just don't feel the Bern. Not going to, so far as I know either.

Anyway, this is probably no longer on topic. At least it illustrates, hopefully, where I was trying to come from. Again, I apologize for my less than clear rhetoric.

I'm interested to know why you initially worked for Hillary over Obama in 2008, and why you're not sold on Sanders yet (pragmatism aside).

In fact, I'm interested to know why all of the hardcore Hillary supporters on this board (and by "hardcore" I mean "the ten people that show up in every Bernie thread to declare him inconsequential vs President Hillary Clinton") prefer Hillary, again aside from pragmatism.

 

[JustenP88]

Anybody know how old Hillarys gonna be in 2024?

76ish. And Bernie is a few years older. Would be nice to see some younger blood. I guess we're just expecting it to show up when needed.

 

[rex]

I'm interested to know why you initially worked for Hillary over Obama in 2008, and why you're not sold on Sanders yet (pragmatism aside).

In fact, I'm interested to know why all of the hardcore Hillary supporters on this board (and by "hardcore" I mean "the ten people that show up in every Bernie thread to declare him inconsequential vs President Hillary Clinton") prefer Hillary, again aside from pragmatism.

Pragmatism is pretty much it.

Which begs the question, whats the rationale for voting for Hillary once shes no longer inevitable?

There isnt any, as far as i can tell.

 

[User 463088]

I'm interested to know why you initially worked for Hillary over Obama in 2008, and why you're not sold on Sanders yet (pragmatism aside).

In fact, I'm interested to know why all of the hardcore Hillary supporters on this board (and by "hardcore" I mean "the ten people that show up in every Bernie thread to declare him inconsequential vs President Hillary Clinton") prefer Hillary, again aside from pragmatism.

It's not just pragmatism, for the record.

I genuinely like Hillary and Bill Clinton. I mean, I guess that's the start of it. Of course, personal affinity is not the sole reason I volunteered for Hillary in 2008. As I said, I met her at a meet and greet twice. She's actually incredibly warm. I admit she doesn't always come off great on television. I have a very deep personal respect for the shit she dealt with during Bill's time in the White House. She's a fighter, and I respect that. Her work on behalf of women and children is exemplary. Yes, Hillarycare didn't make it, but she was willing to tackle an issue that had little to no movement since Nixon. Her work on behalf of women, of course, speaks for itself. Her speech in China is one of the greatest pieces of American rhetoric on the rights and dignity of women anywhere. There is no one with the resume she has running for President--Lawyer, First Lady, two term Senator from a diverse state, Secretary of State after the hell of the Bush years. We also agree on most issues, although she's a bit more hawkish than I am.

Also, and I mentioned this before, Hillary's been a Democrat when the shits hit the fan. She's been there when we've been up and when we've been down. I respect that greatly. My dad voted Democratic in every election since he was old enough to vote (1944. I was born when he was 65.) I honestly believe the Democratic party, while not perfect, is the best hope we have of actual progressive change.

Then we can add the pragmatism part if you should like.

That's why I support Hillary. In 2008 it was, quite literally, one of the hardest decisions I had to make. A lot of my fellow Democrats had a hard freaking time trying to decide which candidate to support.

As to why I don't support Bernie, I'll ignore my pragmatic reasons since apparently it's bad to be a realist. I've mentioned the fact that I don't like the way he's using the party when its convenient, and ignores it when it suits his needs.

I disagree with him entirely on guns. I don't care what his rationale is. He's wrong. He's completely, 100% wrong. That is a hot button issue for me. His answers on Israel and Palestine are nearly impossible to follow. I do not agree with his views on trade. He also has precious little to show for all of his lofty ambitions. This means he's either entirely naive about how the system works (which I doubt) or he's telling people what they want to hear. I've also been personally yelled at by some of his supporters, which while not his fault, still left a bad taste in my mouth. I take issue with how he handled the BLM thing. Finally, he is only comfortable when he can talk about income and economic inequality. As a gay man, there's a fuckton more issues that do not relate strictly to income. Outside that comfort zone? He's not great. I am also willing to guarantee you, should he somehow get the nomination, his supporters will immediately abandon him the moment he has to compromise on something. Again, not his fault, but I feel that would be even more detrimental to down ballot candidates in the midterms.

Pragmatism is pretty much it.

Which begs the question, whats the rationale for voting for Hillary once shes no longer inevitable?

There isnt any, as far as i can tell.

Oh, you're right. Thank you for telling me what I believe and why I believe it. I appreciate it.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

People still cling to the idea that Bush will win the nomination?

Are you willing to bet money that he won't?

 

[NeoXChaos]

It's not just pragmatism, for the record.

I genuinely like Hillary and Bill Clinton. I mean, I guess that's the start of it. Of course, personal affinity is not the sole reason I volunteered for Hillary in 2008. As I said, I met her at a meet and greet twice. She's actually incredibly warm. I admit she doesn't always come off great on television. I have a very deep personal respect for the shit she dealt with during Bill's time in the White House. She's a fighter, and I respect that. Her work on behalf of women and children is exemplary. Yes, Hillarycare didn't make it, but she was willing to tackle an issue that had little to no movement since Nixon. Her work on behalf of women, of course, speaks for itself. Her speech in China is one of the greatest pieces of American rhetoric on the rights and dignity of women anywhere. There is no one with the resume she has running for President--Lawyer, First Lady, two term Senator from a diverse state, Secretary of State after the hell of the Bush years. We also agree on most issues, although she's a bit more hawkish than I am.

Also, and I mentioned this before, Hillary's been a Democrat when the shits hit the fan. She's been there when we've been up and when we've been down. I respect that greatly. My dad voted Democratic in every election since he was old enough to vote (1944. I was born when he was 65.) I honestly believe the Democratic party, while not perfect, is the best hope we have of actual progressive change.

Then we can add the pragmatism part if you should like.

That's why I support Hillary. In 2008 it was, quite literally, one of the hardest decisions I had to make. A lot of my fellow Democrats had a hard freaking time trying to decide which candidate to support.

As to why I don't support Bernie, I'll ignore my pragmatic reasons since apparently it's bad to be a realist. I've mentioned the fact that I don't like the way he's using the party when its convenient, and ignores it when it suits his needs.

I disagree with him entirely on guns. I don't care what his rationale is. He's wrong. He's completely, 100% wrong. That is a hot button issue for me. His answers on Israel and Palestine are nearly impossible to follow. I do not agree with his views on trade. He also has precious little to show for all of his lofty ambitions. This means he's either entirely naive about how the system works (which I doubt) or he's telling people what they want to hear. I've also been personally yelled at by some of his supporters, which while not his fault, still left a bad taste in my mouth. I take issue with how he handled the BLM thing. Finally, he is only comfortable when he can talk about income and economic inequality. As a gay man, there's a fuckton more issues that do not relate strictly to income. Outside that comfort zone? He's not great. I am also willing to guarantee you, should he somehow get the nomination, his supporters will immediately abandon him the moment he has to compromise on something. Again, not his fault, but I feel that would be even more detrimental to down ballot candidates in the midterms.



Oh, you're right. Thank you for telling me what I believe and why I believe it. I appreciate it.

.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm kind of curious, in the hypothetical that Sanders did win the Primary, do people expect he'd then be willing to accept large dollar hard money donations, help the DNC raise large dollar donations, and accept the support of and help the fundraising of a super PAC, the most likely being I guess Priorities Action USA that supported Obama and is now supporting Hillary.

Would people be okay with that if he did?

Do people think he would still be competitive if he didn't?

On a related note, it's probably worth noting that Clinton is for all intents and purposes already running against both her own contenders as well as the entire Republican field, Republican establishment, Congress and media who regularly attack her by name. In the hypothetical that Sanders were to win the primary, that attention would turn to him. How would he fare under that scrutiny? How well would his favourables hold?

E) Electability is more important for the minorities. White voters can afford to go "all or nothing" because if Bernie loses the outcome won't be as bad for them. That's why you see some Standers say they would rather vote Republican or not vote at all if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. For Black people and other minorities, a Republican victory (at least from the pool of candidates we have) would be a doomsday scenario. They feel they can't afford to lose at any cost so rather than go all "pie in the sky" they are more pragmatically focused and are more interested in who they think can win and bring some progress than someone who might bring more progress but has a harder chance of winning. Rather aim high and win than aim for the stars and get nothing or slide backwards (again assuming Bernie represents all that is good and pure in politics ).

This is a sentiment I expressed before.

The white, straight, relatively affluent, college-educated suburban male who drives around in a Volvo can ostensibly care about issues that affect gays, blacks, hispanics, women and the poor.

Those latter groups actually have to live with the consequences though, which is why, perception or reality, the candidate's electability is likely more important to those demographics.

I'm not saying he can, just that concern about him being unelectable in the general due to lack of minority support shouldn't be a valid reason to worry about voting for him in the primary.

He'd likely gain the black vote were he the nominee. Obama stumping would surely help see to that. Hispanic vote is harder to call if it's someone like Jeb! I think.

But it's a catch-22, as I don't think electability as a qualifying factor for minorities is based on their own intent but rather their view on how the wider electorate would go.

??? They are tiny in the grand scheme of things and are going vote D anyway.

Minorities make up a substantial block of the Democratic primary vote. Women and minorities are also typically the key voter blocks to general electorate wins. Taking them for granted seems like absolute folly.

 

[Merc_]

I'm curious as to why Sanders supporters are so certain that hearing him speak at the debates will somehow turn the minority vote around on him completely. It's not like he's Obama or something. Do you guys really think that Hillary is just going to sit there quietly and let him say whatever?

 

[rex]

O right. Guns. So much for pragmatism

 

[User 463088]

O right. Guns. So much for pragmatism

Seriously? I laid out several other issues I have with Sanders other than gun control. However, the things Sanders opposes are not extreme left wing policies. Hell, he supported PLCAA. Had Hillary voted for it, we'd have never heard the freaking end of it.

And this isn't directed at you specifically, but this type of flippant attitude towards anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Bernie is going to be a problem for Sanders at some point should he get the nomination. But, I suppose this, like the ground game, polls, the decades long negative stigma of socialism, the fact that there's no one in the party that supports him, and voter demographics will magically solve themselves.

I'm curious as to why Sanders supporters are so certain that hearing him speak at the debates will somehow turn the minority vote around on him completely. It's not like he's Obama or something. Do you guys really think that Hillary is just going to sit there quietly and let him say whatever?

Confirmation bias. They love Sanders, so obviously everyone has to love Sanders. If you don't, you just don't understand. You're stupid. Or you're not important. Or you just don't know what you really need. Or you're not a real progressive. You're part of an empty husk of a party. You're wrong. All of the above? Did I miss any?

 

[Valhelm]

Yes, of course.

I'm not so sure. His competition will be against Trump, against Jeb Bush, or against both of them.

In the first two scenarios, Bernie Sanders has a solid chance of winning. The "culture war" aspect between Sanders versus Trump would likely lead to a higher Democratic turnout than in most elections. Sanders versus Bush isn't easy to predict, but I'm not sure how electable Jeb Bush is. His finances are a massive advantage, but his underperformance is pretty discouraging. Could he mobilize more voters than Sanders?

Should the Conservative vote be split between the two, Sanders wins. Because still not sure that Donald Trump really plans to be president, we really can't take that possibility off the table.

Adam387, how do you feel about Hillary Clinton's gay marriage turn-around? Apologies if that's inappropriate.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm kind of curious, in the hypothetical that Sanders did win the Primary, do people expect he'd then be willing to accept large dollar hard money donations, help the DNC raise large dollar donations, and accept the support of and help the fundraising of a super PAC, the most likely being I guess Priorities Action USA that supported Obama and is now supporting Hillary.

Would people be okay with that if he did?

Do people think he would still be competitive if he didn't?

On a related note, it's probably worth noting that Clinton is for all intents and purposes already running against both her own contenders as well as the entire Republican field, Republican establishment, Congress and media who regularly attack her by name. In the hypothetical that Sanders were to win the primary, that attention would turn to him. How would he fare under that scrutiny? How well would his favourables hold?

This is a sentiment I expressed before.

The white, straight, relatively affluent, college-educated suburban male who drives around in a Volvo can ostensibly care about issues that affect gays, blacks, hispanics, women and the poor.

Those latter groups actually have to live with the consequences though, which is why, perception or reality, the candidate's electability is likely more important to those demographics.He'd likely gain the black vote were he the nominee. Obama stumping would surely help see to that. Hispanic vote is harder to call if it's someone like Jeb! I think.

But it's a catch-22, as I don't think electability as a qualifying factor for minorities is based on their own intent but rather their view on how the wider electorate would go.
Minorities make up a substantial block of the Democratic primary vote. Women and minorities are also typically the key voter blocks to general electorate wins. Taking them for granted seems like absolute folly.

If he is as principled as I believe he is then no, idk, and definitely no. As to your second point I frightfully believe it would not end well. I don't know what is in his closet. I doubt any of the democratic candidates as well as the Republicans have done any serious opposition research on him for obvious reasons. That would change should he be the nominee.

 

[Merc_]

Confirmation bias. They love Sanders, so obviously everyone has to love Sanders. If you don't, you just don't understand. You're stupid. Or you're not important. Or you just don't know what you really need. Or you're not a real progressive. You're part of an empty husk of a party. You're wrong. All of the above? Did I miss any?

That does seem to be it. Here, look at this thread from the Bernie Sanders subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...llary_clinton_is_on_the_ellen_show_right_now/

All because Ellen had the nerve to support Hillary. It's just a long stream of condescending bullshit and people questioning her integrity.

 

[User 463088]

I'm not so sure. His competition will be against Trump, against Jeb Bush, or against both of them.

In the first two scenarios, Bernie Sanders has a solid chance of winning. The "culture war" aspect between Sanders versus Trump would likely lead to a higher Democratic turnout than in most elections. Sanders versus Bush isn't easy to predict, but I'm not sure how electable Jeb Bush is. His finances are a massive advantage, but his underperformance is pretty discouraging. Could he mobilize more voters than Sanders?

Should the Conservative vote be split between the two, Sanders wins. Because still not sure that Donald Trump really plans to be president, we really can't take that possibility off the table.

Adam387, how do you feel about Hillary Clinton's gay marriage turn-around? Apologies if that's inappropriate.

I think Sanders and Bush have opposite electability problems. Sanders has an easier chance in the primary than he would in the General. Bush is probably more acceptable to the general electorate than to the GOP primary voters.

As to Hillary's stance on gay marriage, while I didn't like it then, I have to look at the situation in context. If I held against every Democrat (or American) who was wrong on this issue, I'd have to go live in a commune somewhere. Hillary was opposed to a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Had that passed, we would have been right and proper fucked. (And not in a positive, live affirming way, either.) Should Hillary (and Obama, Clinton, Carter, the entire Dem caucus) been for marriage equality from the beginning. Absolutely. However, even as a gay man as little as a decade ago, I wasn't sure we'd see a change. It was quite dark in 2004 for a young gay boy. While Sanders may have supported marriage earlier than Clinton (there are articles that show he actually supported civil unions in 2000 just as Clinton did), the fact is they're both where they need to be on the issue now. I won't hold that against them, just as I didn't hold it against Obama or Biden. They were wrong. They had their come to Jesus moment.

I will judge Hillary on what she did for LGBT people. Her tenure at State was very LGBT friendly. In her announcement video, she actually had real life romantically linked gay people. We weren't hidden. She agrees with the Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality. I'm disappointed that she was wrong for so long, but I'm glad she's in the right place now.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

That does seem to be it. Here, look at this thread from the Bernie Sanders subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...llary_clinton_is_on_the_ellen_show_right_now/

All because Ellen had the nerve to support Hillary. It's just a long stream of condescending bullshit and people questioning her integrity.

It's kind of crappy of Ellen to say Hillary is the only one for equality, but, yeah, questioning her integrity makes me think of "it's about ethics in daytime talk shows."

 

[JesseEwiak]

I remember 2000. I remember Al Gore, frankly, the most boring policy wonky guy in the world, especially compared to Bill Clinton, being turned into an egotistical liar who "created the Internet" and was "the inspiration for Love Story" according to the 'liberal' media off a couple out of context sentences.

In '08, they really couldn't go after Obama too much without looking like racists (even though they tried - remember when Obama being a celebrity and well loved across the world was a bad thing?), but I doubt the Washington Press Corp will have no problems highlighting all the kind of silly things Bernie has put out there over the years.

And sure, we'll know it's bullshit. But, the 37 year old Mom in the Virginia suburbs who likes gay people, but is worried about her taxes being too high? She won't.

 

[rex]

adam387:

I think youre seriously overestimating just how much of an impact the supposed bad attitude of sanders supporters will have. First i doubt that this extends beyond internet forums, and second i dont think people are going to be that sensitive.

The tact youve taken is of course a common one clinton supporters have been employing to try tamp down on the passion that bernie has inspired. Which would help hillary a whole lot since bernies campaign thrives on the idealism at its heart and idealism makes people say things in a way that perhaps, at times, will offend people who look at him with skepticism.

The fact that hillary went full war hawk yesterday, thats what bothers me. Her tone doesnt really enter into the equation.
And thats really what your statement boils down to. You dont like the tone of the supporters of a candidate you're opposed to. Well thats convenient. Your concern just isnt serious.

 

[Inuhanyou]

BERNIEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah, There certainly many Bernie Sanders fans that are very volatile and defensive. And its unfortunate that the major talk comes from people complaining about them than discussing the actual issues he talks about.

With that being said, if you thought you were shouting in a room where no one wanted to listen, its only natural that people become horrible when they are desperate for a reaction.

I'm tired of hearing people dismiss Bernie's allure because Hillary is "more electable".

There are plenty of people who are against Hillary and for Bernie for a number of reasons.

 

[dabig2]

Weird for Hillary supporters to be going on about Bernie Sanders supporters. Is 2007-2008 already so long ago that we forgot about HilaryIs44 and all the other racist blue dog democrats that were vital to her cause? The birther movement really got started there as well...

In other words, don't let some internet assholes define the candidate. They're in the extreme minority but just very loud.

 

[rex]

More bad news for the inevitable one. Cnns new poll has her lead down to 10 nationally.

 

[docbon]

This?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/10/demsclinton.pdf

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

More bad news for the inevitable one. Cnns new poll has her lead down to 10 nationally.

Two other polls released today show her at 48 and 51 percent support. Why not include them as well?

Seems like we're arguing over semantics at this point. A lot of the polling is showing trouble for any Democrat who runs right now. Biden seems to do best in the general but even he would lose to Carson according to that one poll.

 

[rex]

Two other polls released today show her at 48 and 51 percent support. Why not include them as well?

Ok

 

[Wall]

This?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/10/demsclinton.pdf

Biden looks like he's taking a chunk of Hillary supporters in that poll. National polling is useless at this stage anyway.

 

[User 463088]

adam387:

I think youre seriously overestimating just how much of an impact the supposed bad attitude of sanders supporters will have. First i doubt that this extends beyond internet forums, and second i dont think people are going to be that sensitive.

The tact youve taken is of course a common one clinton supporters have been employing to try tamp down on the passion that bernie has inspired. Which would help hillary a whole lot since bernies campaign thrives on the idealism at its heart and idealism makes people say things in a way that perhaps, at times, will offend people who look at him with skepticism.

The fact that hillary went full war hawk yesterday, thats what bothers me. Her tone doesnt really enter into the equation.
And thats really what your statement boils down to. You dont like the tone of the supporters of a candidate you're opposed to. Well thats convenient. Your concern just isnt serious.

I've mentioned in a few other post that I've met these vocal Sander supporters whilst canvassing. One gentlemen decided to lecture us on how we were part of the problem. Again, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

If you read what I posted, I did not say that Sanders supporters were a contributing factor to my not supporting him. Nor do I think that his out there supporters will have a huge detrimental effect on him should he go into the general. I think they may cause a problem with the establishment who runs the party. That's just my opinion, though. Perhaps the bundlers and party insiders don't mind being insulted by some of Sander's supporters. They are, I believe, a symptom of the larger problem. I'm not saying this'll lose him the election, but it is not going to help him.

If one does not agree with Sanders, the position should be to figure out why and attempt to change their minds. Instead, we've seen time and time again people in this very thread just attack the person who disagrees. I have no qualms with having a debate on an issue. I have problem with being told that, since I don't support Sanders' point of view on an issue, I just don't get it, I don't understand, I'm not a real liberal, etc. It is possible to form an opinion contrary to the one Bernie Sanders claims to hold.

When I outlined the reasons I don't support Sanders, his supporters were only on the list in that I'm afraid they'll pull an Obama for America the minute Sanders has to actually govern. The moment he has to compromise on something, they'll fly off the handle (again, not saying all.)

I have no problem with people being vocal and passionate. However, that passion should be realistic and properly directed should one want to actually make a difference/change. That doesn't mean I think they should give up, but they should educate themselves about how you win elections. Insulting, yelling, blundering and, literally, writing off a core section of the Democratic party? That's not how you do it. I wonder how many of these (and I'm not saying people posting here) keyboard warriors actually have agreed to volunteer?

Also, I'm apparently not allowed to not support Sanders if my reasons are: pragmatism, electability, party operations, gun control, some of his crazy supporters, his demographic problems, his inevitable funding problems, or the decades long American qualm with socialism. Perhaps it would save time if I was provided with a list of acceptable reasons why I'm allowed to not support Sanders?

 

[Wall]

There has got to be a British message board somewhere where Labor supporters are having similar arguments about Jeremy Corbyn; although I think the election ends today. I think the results of that election will be released on Saturday.

 

[JesseEwiak]

There has got to be a British message board somewhere where Labor supporters are having similar arguments about Jeremy Corbyn; although I think the election ends today. I think the results of that election will be released on Saturday.

Nah, you straight up have members of Parliament and former Prime Minister's saying the Labour party is doomed if Corbyn is elected leader.

 

[norm9]

Sanders won't win. Its a fun choice if you're progressive and want to feel like you're gonna make a change. But as far as regular schmoes, its either go with a big name like Clinton, go with the establishment, or Trump god. Our system won't allow someone making real change to get elected. Too dangerous. American politics is an iceberg.