Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

Like Rick Perry being a bit of an idiot then he can't remember the name of the third government department he'd eliminate.

Yeah, that's who I meant. I always mix those two up.

Why not?

I can't predict the future but nothing I say seems to be out of line, based on past experience.

What guarantee do you have that Bernie's revolution will fall flat on its face just like Obama's once it is clear that he cannot get any legislation passed? Will he be able to continue to make the Democratic party a stronger institution despite not being able to deliver, knowing that a more charismatic, younger, and more motivational person has not been able to accomplish even one tenth of what your fantasy is?

Guarantees in Politics are impossible. But you can ask for plans.
So far he has not showed a plan other then some vague "I worked with Republicans before" BS.

 

[BoboBrazil]

I feel like this primary cycle is exposing fractures in the Democratic Party which may have long term implication going forward.

The way I see it, the Dems have four core groups:
- young liberals
- educated, middle-upper class professionals
- racial minorities
- older blue collar workers

The various groups have disparate goals, but have generally been able to unite over a common dislike of the GOP. With this cycle, the glue keeping everyone together is being undone.

Young liberals support Sanders in overwhelming numbers. This has already been well documented and I have little to add.

Educated professionals are less polarised, but edge Clinton. People with a masters degree and above in particular are more likely to side with Clinton. Sanders constant attacks on industries a lot of these people work in probably isn't helping. Anecdotally, I fall into this group, and have never hid the fact I think a Sanders nomination is one step away from gift wrapping the White House before handing it to the GOP.

Racial minorities currently are strongly Clinton, but while I do not believe Sanders can win them this cycle, I do believe a Sanders-like candidate can do so in the future. This is probably the most interesting group as while the Dems have historically treated minorities as a single bloc, communities like the African Americans, Hispanics and Asians are all culturally and socially different, and it will be interesting to watch those differences play out in future.

Finally, we have the older, blue collar workers of a bygone Democratic era. While still a force today, their importance is diminishing with each cycle. I personally am most interested to see if the young liberals will eventually age into a bloc similar to this one, or something else entirely.

Ultimately, I think Dems should be concerned as to whether their various groups will be able to hold together or if they are heading towards a fate similar to today's fractured GOP

Those young voters don't actually go out to vote though, so we are safe. People under 30 make up somewhere around 15-16% of total voters. We won't have to worry about Bernie losing in the general and giving the white house to the republicans. Hilary will go on to the general after Super Tuesday.

 

[atr0cious]

Absolute bullshit. Hillary is completely loathed by everyone who isn't a firm Democrat. Conservatives think shes pure evil and independents dont believe a single word she says.

I'm not talking about popularity,I'm taking about as a politician. Jebs main donor threatening to go to her if trump gets the nod is proof of that.

 

[Dragmire]

I'm just viewing it like this: I prefer Bernie's policies despite pragmatically supporting Hillary as the more likely to win GE candidate, and his supporters are good Democrats and Americans. But I simultaneously hope that this entire primary season functions as a very tough lesson for these same idealists, because idealism really doesn't get you much. Even on the occasion a perfect storm brews and that idealism sweeps someone into office (not gonna happen here), you have to figure out how to pass legislation. You have to compromise your values somewhere to get something passed, first. Second, before that even happens, you have to fix the gerrymandered system, something that can't even begin to happen until after 2020 earliest. Then we're back to the illusion of these political figures and if any of them could actually even be the transformational figures these campaigns keep claiming.

American politics for many many many many generations has been the story of slow, incremental change adding up to big things, and seizing on opportunities when they arise to best advance your agenda. Now was the wrong time for Bernie for numerous reasons. But it's a good time for people to understand that merely hoping for something isn't likely to make it occur. You also need to understand how to work the system in your favor.

I agree that things tend to happen in baby steps, but I don't agree that they only have to happen that way. Why would they only have to happen that way? Is there some kind of evidence that drastic change in the US is only achievable slowly? This sounds like more of a defeatist outlook to me.

When you are trying to improve things, don't you set a high goal whether it is likely to be met or not? I get your point that change is usually slow, but the philosophy that idealists will get a taste of reality seems to suggest that you think idealists are unable to be realistic. Isn't that a fallacious distinction?

 

[diablos991]

Sanders VS Trump 2016.

Such a fantastic year if it plays out this way.

 

[googleplex]

Seeing Bernie get a big win over Hillary makes me feel so good.

I hope this trend continues.

It won't

 

[Suikoguy]

I agree that things tend to happen in baby steps, but I don't agree that they only have to happen that way. Why would they only have to happen that way? Is there some kind of evidence that drastic change in the US is only achievable slowly? This sounds like more of a defeatist outlook to me.

When you are trying to improve things, don't you set a high goal whether it is likely to be met or not? I get your point that change is usually slow, but the philosophy that idealists will get a taste of reality seems to suggest that you think idealists are unable to be realistic. Isn't that a fallacious distinction?

Typically it takes some external event to have radical change. Like the great depression. Some event so profound and changing that it has both parties passing law together. Sometimes that is used for good, like with "The New Deal" and bad like "The Patriot Act".

 

[nib95]

What is the goal, first? To simply elect a so-called Democratic socialist candidate only to never pass a single bit of legislation, thus disillusioning millions of new young voters who realize the system doesn't work the way they want?

No, the goal hopefully is something more concrete than having a conversation. It's to pass something meaningful to improve the lives of Americans. It's to actually make the country meaningfully more progressive, not elect an empty symbol which sours everyone on the idea for decades more with their ineffectiveness.

So, you need to fix the system. You need Democrats to participate in the 2020 US Census. You need then Democrats to win and either re-gerrymander districts in their favor or eliminate the gerrymandering system altogether. Then, you need to pass legislation with a Democratic House and Senate. And a filibuster proof majority would be ideal - blue dog Democrats sabotage bills even when Dems have huge majorities.

We will eventually have a socialist president (a real socialist, mind you), but now is not the right time, and honestly it's unlikely one would have a real shot even in the next decade. Maybe twenty years.

I get what you are saying, but personally I get the feeling there could be another economic crash looming in the next 4 or so years, and I feel like Bernie could weather it better than Hillary, purely because he could turn around and continue to heavily criticise everyone else (GOP, banks etc) for not working with him, where Hillary would just get blamed for being just like them, and do long term damage to the democratic party. In a way the Dems were lucky the last economic crash happened under Bush, but another one is almost inevitable at some point down the line. Just remains to be seen who's in power at the time.

 

[elfboy]

It won't

Incredible prophesying. Are you a licensed fortune teller?

 

[Elfforkusu]

I get what you are saying, but personally I get the feeling there could be another economic crash looming in the next 4 or so years, and I feel like Bernie could weather it better than Hillary, purely because he could turn around and continue to heavily criticise everyone else (GOP, banks etc) for not working with him, where Hillary would just get blamed for being just like them, and do long term damage to the democratic party. In a way the Dems were lucky the last economic crash happened under Bush, but another one is almost inevitable at some point down the line. Just remains to be seen who's in power at the time.

Might be this year.

 

[Ogrekiller]

I agree that things tend to happen in baby steps, but I don't agree that they only have to happen that way. Why would they only have to happen that way? Is there some kind of evidence that drastic change in the US is only achievable slowly? This sounds like more of a defeatist outlook to me.

When you are trying to improve things, don't you set a high goal whether it is likely to be met or not? I get your point that change is usually slow, but the philosophy that idealists will get a taste of reality seems to suggest that you think idealists are unable to be realistic. Isn't that a fallacious distinction?

The system is set up so that change is achievable by holding all three branches of the federal government. If not then you have to work with the other side, and it is completely by design.

For Sanders political revolution to happen he would have to motivate the Democrat side to such an extent that the gerrymandered house would be flipped. That's really, really fucking hard, to the point where even Clinton vs Trump achieving that with the Democrat machine in full force and the RNC in full disarray is slim. Very slim.

 

[Matt]

I get what you are saying, but personally I get the feeling there could be another economic crash looming in the next 4 or so years, and I feel like Bernie could weather it better than Hillary, purely because he could turn around and continue to heavily criticise everyone else (GOP, banks etc) for not working with him, where Hillary would just get blamed for being just like them, and do long term damage to the democratic party. In a way the Dems were lucky the last economic crash happened under Bush, but another one is almost inevitable at some point down the line. Just remains to be seen who's in power at the time.

Well I mean you just said yourself, if Bernie was in charge when a crash happened, he would be blamed.

 

[B-Dubs]

The system is set up so that change is achievable by holding all three branches of the federal government. If not then you have to work with the other side, and it is completely by design.

For Sanders political revolution to happen he would have to motivate the Democrat side to such an extent that the gerrymandered house would be flipped. That's really, really fucking hard, to the point where even Clinton vs Trump achieving that with the Democrat machine in full force and the RNC in full disarray is slim. Very slim.

We should remember that OBAMA couldn't pull it off and Bernie hasn't even been able to match his turn out numbers from 08, so that's just not gonna happen.

 

[Father_Brain]

Why not?

I can't predict the future but nothing I say seems to be out of line, based on past experience.

What guarantee do you have that Bernie's revolution will fall flat on its face just like Obama's once it is clear that he cannot get any legislation passed? Will he be able to continue to make the Democratic party a stronger institution despite not being able to deliver, knowing that a more charismatic, younger, and more motivational person has not been able to accomplish even one tenth of what your fantasy is?

But Sanders' revolution isn't "just like Obama's." Not in that it'll be easily achieved in the current political climate, I'm not naive, but in that his revolution is almost entirely a means to liberal policy ends. The main fallacy of Obama's '08 campaign was in treating post-partisanship - by no means entirely, but certainly in large part - as a goal in and of itself, and Sanders has thankfully not fallen prey to that.

Again, that doesn't invalidate critiques of his revolution as unrealistic, but it does make it substantively different from what Obama promised to do in DC.

 

[nib95]

Well I mean you just said yourself, if Bernie was in charge when a crash happened, he would be blamed.

I think he'd be far better at deflecting blame than any of the other candidates, and better at using it as a platform to force greater change.

 

[royalan]

I agree that things tend to happen in baby steps, but I don't agree that they only have to happen that way. Why would they only have to happen that way? Is there some kind of evidence that drastic change in the US is only achievable slowly? This sounds like more of a defeatist outlook to me.

When you are trying to improve things, don't you set a high goal whether it is likely to be met or not? I get your point that change is usually slow, but the philosophy that idealists will get a taste of reality seems to suggest that you think idealists are unable to be realistic. Isn't that a fallacious distinction?

The evidence is Obama's presidency. Obama ran an iconic campaign that dwarfs even Sanders' in the amount of support it garnered, and he went into office with damn near a Democrat supermajority, and still republican obstruction kept him from getting most of campaign promises through.

For me to believe in quick drastic change from Sanders I'd need to see an actual political revolution. A uprising of support for his ideals at all levels of government, and not just surrounding his own candidacy.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Those young voters don't actually go out to vote though, so we are safe. People under 30 make up somewhere around 15-16% of total voters. We won't have to worry about Bernie losing in the general and giving the white house to the republicans. Hilary will go on to the general after Super Tuesday.

I wouldn't discount the young vote so easily. Remember, this is what they said would happen to Obama in 08 and 12, and we all saw how that worked out.

 

[Crocodile]

I am not sure you are making the same point now. This current post seems to imply that Ron Paul supporters are unlikely to be African American.

This makes sense to me, because I feel as if Ron Paul's positions are innately detrimental to that community. Obviously they won't be likely to receive his messages as well.

What wouldn't make sense to me is not supporting him because someone got their feelings hurt on twitter. I don't feel like your post addressed this at all, and I feel like I am missing what you intended.

Ok let me try again, this is all related but perhaps I'm not coming across clear enough - the supporters a candidates gets are a function of their message. The fact that some Sanders supporters are dismissive or even occasionally antagonistic towards voters of color means his message is appealing to people don't occupy the same political space or don't have the same primary political concerns as many AA voters.

An example that has been mentioned several times in this thread is the issue of economy vs race - how they interact but also how they are separate issues. Even as Sanders has added racial inequality issues to his platform he STILL allows pivots to economics in his speeches and conversations. It's clear that economic inequality is at the forefront of his campaign. That's very appealing to young white voters but its not as appealing to AA voters because different issues are more important.

It's also clear from interactions with a lot of Sanders supporters (be it being dismissive of how well Black voters are informed, engaging in coded/if not explicit problematic language, handling critique poorly, etc.) that race (and everything it entails) is not an issue that's particularly important to them. If you look around and see a non-insignificant people who are energized by a candidate but these people don't believe in the same issues as you (or have different priorities than you), are hostile enough to you that its become a pattern even the media has commented on, or seem not to listen to you irregardless of how many times you speak up, is it really surprising if you don't become particularly enthused? The supporters for a candidate are the people on the lower level that should be selling their candidate and make other people want to hop aboard. If some number of them are failing spectacularly at doing that do you not think that's a problem? This isn't just a "someone said something mean to me online", its emblematic of a greater underlying issue.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I like how earlier in the evening, MSNBC's Chris Hayes accidentally called Sanders "Bernie Sandwiches."

Christopher Hayes ‏@chrislhayes 4h4 hours ago
In my defense I was literally watching people being served dinner when I said #BernieSandwiches

 

[Chmpocalypse]

She also lost these states in 08 right? Like Bernie bros say, she's pretty much a Republican compared to bernie who currently isn't helping anyone but himself run. Southern seats are gonna get flipped with bernie on the ticket, as his "extremism" gets paired to them, especially in gerrymandered areas. Hillary can appeal to both sides for better or worse and isn't known for fighting against their own party until it suits them. Which helps when we try to get the country working together; instead of treating corporations like enemies, and probably getting nowhere, we can have some one they know to try to get them to push on issues.

Capitulation to corporate interests? Pass.

 

[Ogrekiller]

But Sanders' revolution isn't "just like Obama's." Not in that it'll be easily achieved in the current political climate, I'm not naive, but in that his revolution is almost entirely a means to liberal policy ends. The main fallacy of Obama's '08 campaign was in treating post-partisanship - by no means entirely, but certainly in large part - as a goal in and of itself, and Sanders has thankfully not fallen prey to that.

Again, that doesn't invalidate critiques of his revolution as unrealistic, but it does make it substantively different from what Obama promised to do in DC.

Well then where's the down ballot support? The Senate can be flipped this year, and gains can be made in the House. Where is the support there from Bernie, either to support candidates favorable to him or to the Democratic Party?

Where is the revolution at the federal level 10 months ago when he announced his run? So far it's been just about him. Clinton can at least claim 5 million raised for candidates. Where's his plan for getting people elected?

 

[BoboBrazil]

I wouldn't discount the young vote so easily. Remember, this is what they said would happen to Obama in 08 and 12, and we all saw how that worked out.

Bernie isn't Obama. Obama had support of democratic party. He was well liked and he also got black vote. He had a ton of charisma and was an amazing speaker. It isn't even close to the same.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

So because we can't be entirely sure what will happen, but we can with Hillary (for some reason), let's not try to take the clearly better candidate? Hmm, seems strange, but okay.

Clearly better to whom? He's wrong on the minimum wage, he's wrong on foreign policy because he knows nothing about it, he's wrong on big banks and glass-steagall because neither caused the financial crisis, he's wrong on healthcare because a single payer system has no chance of passing even a Democratic congress (a public option didn't in 2009, why would Socialist medicine?), he's wrong on college because cost-reform needs to happen first, not last, he's wrong on trade because he knows nothing about economics, and he's wrong on capital gains.

Hillary Clinton is a policy genius. She's informed. She has worldwide reputation. Kissinger said she ran the State Department better than he did. She secured the pivot to Asia (yes, it happened). She was the one who fought for HillaryCare after over a decade of Bush and Reagan slashed government spending on health. She is the finest steel that has been hardened by political fire over 42 years in politics (yes, I am including all the years since '74). She has cultivated relationships with the movers and shakers of the country, which, yes, includes the big banks, big pharma, manufacturing, but also silicon valley, the Latino dreamers, education reformers, unions, etc.

Hillary Clinton is probably among the most qualified people to run for president in decades. Now tell me why a hard-left uncompromising senator out of touch with average American political values and bereft of a functioning understanding of the American economy is obviously better than her.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bernie isn't Obama. Obama had support of democratic party. He was well liked and he also got black vote. He had a ton of charisma and was an amazing speaker. It isn't even close to the same.

Obama also had the most legendary campaign staff of the last few decades.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

The fact that some Sanders supporters are dismissive or even occasionally antagonistic towards voters of color means his message is appealing to people don't occupy the same political space or don't have the same primary political concerns as many AA voters.

An example that has been mentioned several times in this thread is the issue of economy vs race - how they interact but also how they are separate issues. Even as Sanders has added racial inequality issues to his platform he STILL allows pivots to economics in his speeches and conversations.

Is there any evidence that these issues are affecting minority voters in primaries? Like, are there any issue polls out of the South that show that Sanders' stance on tackling racial inequality or that his supporters' dismissiveness is turning off AA voters there? If not, this is just your best guess as based on a few blog posts and Twitter accounts. That is not compelling evidence.

 

[Talka]

The system is set up so that change is achievable by holding all three branches of the federal government. If not then you have to work with the other side, and it is completely by design.

For Sanders political revolution to happen he would have to motivate the Democrat side to such an extent that the gerrymandered house would be flipped. That's really, really fucking hard, to the point where even Clinton vs Trump achieving that with the Democrat machine in full force and the RNC in full disarray is slim. Very slim.

Don't forget the filibuster-proof senate, too. And the unfailing loyalty of moderate Democrats, which even Obama couldn't get.

Do people even remember 2007-2009? That was a once-in-a-generation opportunity and even that was only enough for incremental change.

 

[pigeon]

I agree that things tend to happen in baby steps, but I don't agree that they only have to happen that way. Why would they only have to happen that way? Is there some kind of evidence that drastic change in the US is only achievable slowly? This sounds like more of a defeatist outlook to me.

I mean, there's two hundred years of evidence that drastic change happens very slowly in the United States, plus the fact that the US government was explicitly designed by its founders to make it hard to implement drastic changes. What are you looking for, exactly?

 

[ibyea]

The evidence is Obama's presidency. Obama ran an iconic campaign that dwarfs even Sanders' in the amount of support it garnered, and he went into office with damn near a Democrat supermajority, and still republican obstruction kept him from getting most of campaign promises through.

For me to believe in quick drastic change from Sanders I'd need to see an actual political revolution. A uprising of support for his ideals at all levels of government, and not just surrounding his own candidacy.

I still remember the social security chained cpi debacle. Obama wasn't that much of a progressive.

 

[Crocodile]

I mean one thing is being obstructed, I certainly don't blame Obama for that. But then another thing is when Obama did things like offering to cut social security to appease the republicans. And people like you wonder why young people are apathetic. And not to say I think becoming apathetic is the right response, I don't think it is. But c'mon, saying young voters just quit because they didn't get what they wanted is simplistic as heck.

I agree that in hindsight Obama trying to be an adult and compromise when he had a congressional supermajoirty was a mistake (I think even Clinton called him out on this oddly enough during the primaries). I don't believe for a second though that when Bernie doesn't achieve his lofty goals if he wins the Presidency that young voters will go "well he tried his best so we should try harder too!". Since so many of the core tenants of Sanders campaign requires Congress to be cooperative, I feel he'll come off even less accomplished than Obama during mid-terms and 2020.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I agree that things tend to happen in baby steps, but I don't agree that they only have to happen that way. Why would they only have to happen that way? Is there some kind of evidence that drastic change in the US is only achievable slowly? This sounds like more of a defeatist outlook to me.

When you are trying to improve things, don't you set a high goal whether it is likely to be met or not? I get your point that change is usually slow, but the philosophy that idealists will get a taste of reality seems to suggest that you think idealists are unable to be realistic. Isn't that a fallacious distinction?

Because as frustrating as slow change is, it prevents people from making terrible, short sighted mistakes. It also allows institutions time to adapt to a changing climate.

A few years ago, I worked as part of a team that advised the Malaysian government on the implementation of GST. Malaysia has traditionally been a low tax country, and the sudden implementation of GST was fucking disaster. The tax authorities had neither the systems nor the expertise to handle it, and businesses and people were unprepared for the sudden spike in costs of living and business.

And that was for a fairly simple GST system in a country of 20 million. Now imagine something on the scale of single payer healthcare in a country as gigantic as the US

 

[Darryl]

at this point i want bernie to win just to watch the doomsday scenario people here predict - that no one will work with him. just look at that fucking guy.

he will kick and scream if he can't get anything he promised through congress. he will point fingers, and people will listen because he's the president. obama has always been shy about that stuff, never inspiring hope to rally people up for the local politics game. bernie is the president we need for change, regardless of whether you think anyone else will work with him towards that change.

 

[Basileus777]

I mean, there's two hundred years of evidence that drastic change happens very slowly in the United States, plus the fact that the US government was explicitly designed by its founders to make it hard to implement drastic changes. What are you looking for, exactly?

Hey, we just need a congress that looks like 1866, 1936, or 1964. That'll be easy for Bernie.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Because as frustrating as slow change is, it prevents people from making terrible, short sighted mistakes. It also allows institutions time to adapt to a changing climate.

A few years ago, I worked as part of a team that advised the Malaysian government on the implementation of GST. Malaysia has traditionally been a low tax country, and the sudden implementation of GST was fucking disaster. The tax authorities had neither the systems nor the expertise to handle it, and businesses and people were unprepared for the sudden spike in costs of living and business.

And that was for a fairly simple GST system in a country of 20 million. Now imagine something on the scale of single payer healthcare in a country as gigantic as the US

Oh shit you were part of that team? Goddamn I have family that would love to string your guts over over a fence right now. No offence.

at this point i want bernie to win just to watch the doomsday scenario people here predict - that no one will work with him. just look at that fucking guy.

he will kick and scream if he can't get anything he promised through congress. he will point fingers, and people will listen because he's the president. obama has always been shy about that stuff, never inspiring hope to rally people up for the local politics game. bernie is the president we need for change, regardless of whether you think anyone else will work with him towards that change.

Yea, somehow I doubt kicking and screaming would work. If he wanted to last a term maybe.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Clearly better to whom? He's wrong on the minimum wage, he's wrong on foreign policy because he knows nothing about it, he's wrong on big banks and glass-steagall because neither caused the financial crisis, he's wrong on healthcare because a single payer system has no chance of passing even a Democratic congress (a public option didn't in 2009, why would Socialist medicine?), he's wrong on college because cost-reform needs to happen first, not last, he's wrong on trade because he knows nothing about economics, and he's wrong on capital gains.

Hillary Clinton is a policy genius. She's informed. She has worldwide reputation. Kissinger said she ran the State Department better than he did. She secured the pivot to Asia (yes, it happened). She was the one who fought for HillaryCare after over a decade of Bush and Reagan slashed government spending on health. She is the finest steel that has been hardened by political fire over 42 years in politics (yes, I am including all the years since '74). She has cultivated relationships with the movers and shakers of the country, which, yes, includes the big banks, big pharma, manufacturing, but also silicon valley, the Latino dreamers, education reformers, unions, etc.

Hillary Clinton is probably among the most qualified people to run for president in decades. Now tell me why a hard-left uncompromising senator out of touch with average American political values and bereft of a functioning understanding of the American economy is obviously better than her.

This doesn't help your point. Kissinger is a war criminal and Hillary's neo-liberal foreign policy is garbage. It's shit. It's the same shit that we've done since our post WW2 forays into Asian, Middle Eastern, and South and Central American countries, and it gets people killed. She is such an interventionist that the hardcore conservatives at Cato have her as the most interventionist candidate still in the race (and only second to Lindsey Graham overall).

Her only saving grace in that regard is that except for Rand Paul, everyone else is generally nearly as bad as she is.

Your point about her fighting for HillaryCare would be great except that she botched it and set back a significant advance in health care policy in this country for over fifteen years.

Let's not pretend that she's an all-star candidate. She's going to keep us quagmired in stupid proxy wars and she's not some brilliant negotiator. She's smart and she's going to govern to the left of her inclinations, but your post is massively overblown in its praise for her, IMO.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I mean, there's two hundred years of evidence that drastic change happens very slowly in the United States, plus the fact that the US government was explicitly designed by its founders to make it hard to implement drastic changes. What are you looking for, exactly?

Are you making exceptions for Eisenhower's interstate system, FDR's social security, Nixon's opening of trade with China, Jackson's genocide of Native Americans, and many other events that happened relatively suddenly but dramatically changed the course of the country's history?

 

[perfectchaos007]

Rubio has shot up to 11% with Bush. If Rubio could steal 4th place the night won't be a total loss for him

 

[BoboBrazil]

at this point i want bernie to win just to watch the doomsday scenario people here predict - that no one will work with him. just look at that fucking guy.

he will kick and scream if he can't get anything he promised through congress. he will point fingers, and people will listen because he's the president. obama has always been shy about that stuff, never inspiring hope to rally people up for the local politics game. bernie is the president we need for change, regardless of whether you think anyone else will work with him towards that change.

You won't have to worry. He would be dominated in a general and the government would be handed to the republicans to set us back decades.

 

[Father_Brain]

Well then where's the down ballot support? The Senate can be flipped this year, and gains can be made in the House. Where is the support there from Bernie, either to support candidates favorable to him or to the Democratic Party?

Where is the revolution at the federal level 10 months ago when he announced his run? So far it's been just about him. Clinton can at least claim 5 million raised for candidates. Where's his plan for getting people elected?

It's fair to say that he has significant limitations as a candidate. For now, it's enough for me simply that he stay in the race as long as possible to keep his policy ideas in the national political conversation.

I don't think a serious downballot effort is possible without some degree of backing from the Democratic establishment, and Sanders influencing the conversation is at least a step towards moving the party to where it can get behind a candidate closer to his views.

 

[nib95]

Might be this year.

That is my fear too, and the reason I'm holding off buying a house for the moment. FTSE stop gap the last 6 months or so was 5900ish, last few weeks it's finally dropped below that, twice. I believe it hit a 3 year low yesterday. Plus you have the Chinese market in turmoil, the oil prices and everything else. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but imo it ain't looking good. If a crash happened under Obama, Bernie could potentially pick up even more support, especially from Hilary. Or it could really damage the Dems overall and work in Republican favour, who really knows.

 

[B-Dubs]

at this point i want bernie to win just to watch the doomsday scenario people here predict - that no one will work with him. just look at that fucking guy.

he will kick and scream if he can't get anything he promised through congress. he will point fingers, and people will listen because he's the president. obama has always been shy about that stuff, never inspiring hope to rally people up for the local politics game. bernie is the president we need for change, regardless of whether you think anyone else will work with him towards that change.

Have you paid any attention to Obama? He's been doing exactly that on gun control since an entire classroom of pre-K kids got shot up and nothing has happened. He's been pointing fingers, calling people out, shaming them, pleading with them, he was damn near in tears the last time he had to give a speech after a mass shooting. If he couldn't get Congress to back laws that over 75% of Americans agree with and that would save the lives of small children in the future, what the hell hope does Bernie have of getting his more decisive agenda done?

Are you making exceptions for Eisenhower's interstate system, FDR's social security, Nixon's opening of trade with China, Jackson's genocide of Native Americans, and many other events that happened relatively suddenly but dramatically changed the course of the country's history?

You're also ignoring the fact that health care reform has literally been the white whale of progressivism since FDR. People have tried and tried and tried again and no one could do it.

Also, social security didn't come out fully formed. It was much more limited when it was originally passed, but it was slowly improved upon over time.

 

[Tingle]

Ok let me try again, this is all related but perhaps I'm not coming across clear enough - the supporters a candidates gets are a function of their message. The fact that some Sanders supporters are dismissive or even occasionally antagonistic towards voters of color means his message is appealing to people don't occupy the same political space or don't have the same primary political concerns as many AA voters.

An example that has been mentioned several times in this thread is the issue of economy vs race - how they interact but also how they are separate issues. Even as Sanders has added racial inequality issues to his platform he STILL allows pivots to economics in his speeches and conversations. It's clear that economic inequality is at the forefront of his campaign. That's very appealing to young white voters but its not as appealing to AA voters because different issues are more important.

It's also clear from interactions with a lot of Sanders supporters (be it being dismissive of how well Black voters are informed, engaging in coded/if not explicit problematic language, handling critique poorly, etc.) that race (and everything it entails) is not an issue that's particularly important to them. If you look around and see a non-insignificant people who are energized by a candidate but these people don't believe in the same issues as you (or have different priorities than you), are hostile enough to you that its become a pattern even the media has commented on, or seem not to listen to you irregardless of how many times you speak up, is it really surprising if you don't become particularly enthused? The supporters for a candidate are the people on the lower level that should be selling their candidate and make other people want to hop aboard. If some number of them are failing spectacularly at doing that do you not think that's a problem? This isn't just a "someone said something mean to me online", its emblematic of a greater underlying issue.

Again, I feel like this is still missing the point you were initially making. You were arguing that the loudmouths voting for a candidate should rightfully scare off voters due to their aggressiveness.

What you are arguing in this post, is that the position of the loudmouths should sway voters away if they don't agree with that opinion. But that's obvious, if you don't agree with a position, then you shouldn't vote for that candidate. The vocal supporters are deliberately being vocal to get out that very point- if you don't agree with what they find to be a core message of Sanders, then yes, you should take that into consideration.

Same thing with your point about Bernie turtling behind economics; that has nothing to do with his aggressive voters. If you dislike that he is largely economically focused, then you shouldn't vote for him. But that still has nothing to do with his voters being overly aggressive.

You end with some points about Sanders avoiding the issue, but again, I don't see the relevance there in whether or not aggressive twitter users should effect your vote. That again, seems to just be taking issue with the candidate's position, and everyone should take that into account personally.

 

[Father_Brain]

The more depressing, but increasingly plausible, conclusion is that our system of government is completely incapable of dealing with an environment where one party votes as though they're in a parliamentary system, and that we need full-on constitutional reform.

 

[Ogrekiller]

It's fair to say that he has significant limitations as a candidate. For now, it's enough for me simply that he stay in the race as long as possible to keep his policy ideas in the national political conversation.

I don't think a serious downballot effort is possible without some degree of backing from the Democratic establishment, and Sanders influencing the conversation is at least a step towards moving the party to where it can get behind a candidate closer to his views.

I dunno, I feel he is splitting the party to an extent that it would take a while to recover unless the party really makes an effort to unify following the nomination. It's really doubtful to me that both sides would accept each other to vote for the nominee given the ideological divide that being perpetrated.

 

[brainchild]

I speak for "black voters" inasmuch as I'm a black voter, and I know lots of black voters. But I make no argument that I'm the voice of black voters here. Hell, there are black voters on this site that I engage with. You're one of them.

I know a lot of informed black voters who are turned off by his "they don't know me yet" rhetoric. I think he stands to gain more by turning it way down and potentially getting those voters to reconsider him than he does by simply staying the course which, considering the polling data we DO have, doesn't seem like it'll pan out for him in the end.

I understand. I just wanted to go on record to balance the perspective a bit, because I know many black Bernie and Hillary supporters, as well as many black 'low information' voters. The black community is quite diverse in their political opinions and I just wanted to clarify that they aren't all following your line of reasoning.

Not the best argument to make since I think she still does have the lead over blacks, and just because she had a overwhelming lead with them does not mean a small portion won't vote for Bernie. Lastly, in IW Hillary got 58% of the no-white vote judging by the exit polls in IW.

And I respect your opinion but my argument has more to do with the votes that Bernie 'stole' from Hillary in New Hampshire. Bernie was already expected to get the young white male vote. Based on polling data, he was NOT expected to earn the majority of the women vote (overall, not just young women) OR nearly tie for the non-white vote, but that's exactly what happened according to the NH exit polls.

Another point of data from the NH exit polls seem to suggest that the NH voters' #1 reason for voting for Bernie was because of his perceived honesty and trustworthiness and not so much his liberal views or electability, which is very interesting and something to pay attention to going into the upcoming primaries/caucuses.

 

[Darryl]

Have you paid any attention to Obama? He's been doing exactly that on gun control since an entire classroom of pre-K kids got shot up and nothing has happened. He's been pointing fingers, calling people out, shaming them, pleading with them, he was damn near in tears the last time he had to give a speech after a mass shooting. If he couldn't get Congress to back laws that over 75% of Americans agree with and that would save the lives of small children in the future, what the hell hope does Bernie have of getting his more decisive agenda done?

he missed his chance to be the angry change-inspiring president long ago. his mission for change ended when he got the presidency

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Oh shit you were part of that team? Goddamn I have family that would love to string your guts over over a fence right now. No offence.

Lol, none taken. If it'll make them feel any better, while I believed Malaysia would eventually need some form of GST, never in my wildest dreams did I expect the government would set it at 6%. That blew past all our internal estimations, though it did basically serve as confirmation to our suspicions that the Federal Government was dangerously short on cash.

God, I remember the vitriol aimed at my boss when she was giving speeches in favour of GST. Shit was intense.

 

[maxcriden]

Hey there are at least 14,000 black people and nearly 29,000 Asians here. Those are not that far away from six though, considering...

I hear ya. But having not moved from VT terribly too long ago, it really feels like six people of color are in NH and maybe two up in Vermont.

 

[Father_Brain]

I dunno, I feel he is splitting the party to an extent that it would take a while to recover unless the party really makes an effort to unify following the nomination. It's really doubtful to me that both sides would accept each other to vote for the nominee given the ideological divide that being perpetrated.

I suspect you're exaggerating the extent of the ideological schism, especially if Trump or Cruz is the GOP nominee. Bernie has already all but confirmed that he'll endorse Clinton if she wins the nomination, and whatever animosity exists between the two is nothing compared to what we're seeing on the GOP side.

 

[Indicate]

CNN still has a live coverage on the primary. I'm guessing they're sticking until maybe 30mins after all the votes are in

 

[Battersea Power Station]

You're also ignoring the fact that health care reform has literally been the white whale of progressivism since FDR. People have tried and tried and tried again and no one could do it.

Also, social security didn't come out fully formed. It was much more limited when it was originally passed, but it was slowly improved upon over time.

In fact, I'm not ignoring that fact. But let's dispel the fiction that meaningful change in US history has not been dramatic. It has often been dramatic!