theignoramus
Member
I forgot Bill made a point of personally overseeing the execution of a mentally ill black man. Seems worse than any of his acts of infidelity minus the sex assault allegations.
The New Hampshire Primary |Feb 9|: Live Free or Die
- Thread starter A Human Becoming
- Start date
- Status
Interesting theory, but it won't make a lick of difference. In fact global polarization against Trump might push more Americans to vote for him. Most people hate outside influences. Also as it was pointed out before by another poster, they can't vote in America and it should've worked against Bush, who was possibly the most loathe President outside of Americas borders.
I don't know if you have noticed recently either, but Globalism is starting to increasingly get a bad name. Certainly in Europe it is, with the rise of far-right nationalist parties and far left isolationist/protectionist parties (in every european country). The migrant crisis this year will show how weak the idea of globalism is within Europe. Far East Asian countries also have strong nationalist roots and only practice globalism as far as trade goes. Homogenous nationalism is still the name of the game domestically.
The new political paradigm ultimately is no longer left and right. But Globalism vs Nationalism.
Tesseract
Banned
social security takes a long time to engage and finalize, success is 30% unless you lawyer up
smarten up and launch the ssa into modern social orbit (the internet), throw the dli into the center of our galaxy
Voysa Reezun
Banned
Says it better than I ever could. The facts not only do not line up with the perception re: the Clintons and black America. They are in direct opposition.
Man, I hate Bill Clinton almost as much as I hate Ronald Reagan.
Orbis Tabula
Member
My biggest concern with a Bernie win would be that it encourages Bloomberg to run. If he won just one elector, it could be enough to prevent anyone from getting 270, which would mean the Republican controlled house of Representatives would get to pick the President.
I just hope that people apologize, a lot of people brushed off reparations because virtually all mainstream candidates don't address this issue. This is a legitimate problem the Black community can have with Sanders and I understand them if they don't vote for him because of it. I completely understand Coates, not going for Jill for example for practical reasons but i sincerely hope that Bernie's campaign do treat this topic very seriously. There needs to be a fast track to racial justice and the shit minority voters go through every single day. If you are fighting for the little guy, there is no community more impacted by the last two decades of middle class recession and upward mobility than the African American community. The financial meltdown and housing collapse disproportionately effected minorities, the loan sharks like a real predator targeted minorities and were successful in bankrupting whole communities, while leaving families out on the street.
Without address this fundamental fact and focusing on those who were ruined by the last financial collapse Sander's coalition will never be inclusive to all creeds and races.
It's not really political, but I don't know here to ask this. What happened to Bill Cinton?
Veritigo_X
Member
My concern as well. Bloomberg has thrown a wrench into the race by suggesting he'd run if Bernie wins. This would all but guarantee a republican win.
That 30% number is based on how Romney got 59% of the white vote to Obama's 39. And mind you, that was an improvement for the GOP, who hadn't gotten that much of the white vote since 1998. Romney still got trounced, and the demographics haven't improved for Republicans since then.
Prodigal Son
Member
Something worth considering also, you're right.
---
Donald Trump couldn't beat Bernie Sanders. The very thought is hilarious to me.
Tesseract
Banned
that's the face of a hopeless man
Here's an unrealistic promise - that we will be able to support every American with our population growing and the job market requiring higher education and machines replacing manual labor.
The future is Universal Basic Income. It's inevitable, it's just a matter of when we get there. The future is socialism. Capitalism has a predetermined end point, and we're seeing it already. All of the wealth accumulates at the top and is hoarded there, while the middle class shrinks and the lower class grows. Small businesses suffer because people won't have enough money to actually shop around and make use of a free market. You will have essentially two markets - one market for wealthy individuals, and a peasant's market where some money flows upwards.
What we do need isn't just a redistribution of wealth being hoarded at the top, but we need a redistribution of how government funds are allocated - we spend over half of all of our discretionary spending on our military. Re-allocating even a small chunk of that over the course of ten years would re-employ hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans due to injecting money into infrastructure, essentially kickstarting the economy.
Younger people see this, they know this, they spent K-12 learning about what our government has done right and what it's done wrong, and they're ready to positively change this. If it doesn't happen this election, it will undoubtedly happen in the next as another generation ages into the voting bracket and older generations kick the bucket. Lift up your feet and float into a new age.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I still dont get your point..
Actually, i would argue that under the current system foreign opinion DOES matter. Money rules. Anyone can donate.
QUOTE=gutter_trash;194806151]Yes I do. Civil Rights Act was not passed by popular referendum, it was passed by LBJ intimidating congress and swaying them to vote for it. Without LBJ's ruggedness, it would not have passed that year
The US overall, is a Right Wing nation[/QUOTE]
Wrong here actually. Issue by issue the American population now is center left. Usa being conservative is a big myth and marketing win by the gop.
Father_Brain
Banned
I'm a bit tired of Sanders/Clinton analyses that frame "winning" or "losing" solely in the binary terms of who gets the nomination. Simply by making the race competitive, Bernie is broadening our national political conversation to include ideas that the media and party elites had previously refused to take seriously, and is driving Hillary to run a more progressive campaign. That obviously won't bring about a political sea change overnight, but it's an important step in the right direction.
Similarly, many are presenting an overly rigid dichotomy between top-down and grassroots models of change; yes, a "political revolution" is unrealistic without a grassroots movement to elect more left-wing Democrats to state and local office, but it's also unrealistic to expect such a movement to materialize without anyone on the national stage giving voice to the voters who feel left behind by Democratic establishment politics. And who's stepping up to the plate?
Similarly, many are presenting an overly rigid dichotomy between top-down and grassroots models of change; yes, a "political revolution" is unrealistic without a grassroots movement to elect more left-wing Democrats to state and local office, but it's also unrealistic to expect such a movement to materialize without anyone on the national stage giving voice to the voters who feel left behind by Democratic establishment politics. And who's stepping up to the plate?
Future PhaZe
Member
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Hillary will be the nominee, that's simply the reality of the situation.
In terms of the conversation on whether she "deserves" the black vote that's up to black people to decide. There's no question that Clinton policies hurt many black people in the 90s. On the other hand black income increased due to the economic boom of the 90s, and black (and all) poverty decreased quite a bit.
To me the bigger tell on Clinton and black people: they'll sell you down the river if it's politically expedient. This doesn't just apply to black people, it applies to every issue. Obama took a stand on gay marriage before re-election. Hillary waited until after Obama won to take that position. If crime was rising today as it did in the 90s she and many other politicians would not be so sympathetic to criminal justice reforms. That 90s crime problem is what resulted in President Clinton and other democrats passing draconian crime laws. It was politicially expedient.
Yes crime needed to be addressed, yes harsh punishments for violent crimes are fine, however the drug punishments were devastating and unfair. And if I was black I'd look at the recent concern over white people dying of heroin and be disgusted. The empathy shown to small city whites dealing with drugs was nowhere to be seen when black people had the same struggle in the 80s and 90s.
So there's nothing wrong with supporting Sanders, who opposed those draconian laws and has supported criminal justice reform for decades. My only point is simple: Hillary will be the nominee. And you better vote in November because the alternative is far worse. You see what's happening to the Supreme Court, you see what's happening in the south with the rejection of Medicaid expansions and voter rights. A republican administration would be far worse for black people (and working class people in general) than a Clinton administration that ultimately will simply be protecting Obama era advances.
In terms of the conversation on whether she "deserves" the black vote that's up to black people to decide. There's no question that Clinton policies hurt many black people in the 90s. On the other hand black income increased due to the economic boom of the 90s, and black (and all) poverty decreased quite a bit.
To me the bigger tell on Clinton and black people: they'll sell you down the river if it's politically expedient. This doesn't just apply to black people, it applies to every issue. Obama took a stand on gay marriage before re-election. Hillary waited until after Obama won to take that position. If crime was rising today as it did in the 90s she and many other politicians would not be so sympathetic to criminal justice reforms. That 90s crime problem is what resulted in President Clinton and other democrats passing draconian crime laws. It was politicially expedient.
Yes crime needed to be addressed, yes harsh punishments for violent crimes are fine, however the drug punishments were devastating and unfair. And if I was black I'd look at the recent concern over white people dying of heroin and be disgusted. The empathy shown to small city whites dealing with drugs was nowhere to be seen when black people had the same struggle in the 80s and 90s.
So there's nothing wrong with supporting Sanders, who opposed those draconian laws and has supported criminal justice reform for decades. My only point is simple: Hillary will be the nominee. And you better vote in November because the alternative is far worse. You see what's happening to the Supreme Court, you see what's happening in the south with the rejection of Medicaid expansions and voter rights. A republican administration would be far worse for black people (and working class people in general) than a Clinton administration that ultimately will simply be protecting Obama era advances.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Finally found the results from my small town: Bernie won by 33 points. The caveat is 69% of voters took the Republican ticket. More people voted for Trump and Christie than Hillary and Bernie.
also I found that income poll interesting in this regard
I always see Bernie's support being hand waved as made up of people who have the luxury to afford a risk like Bernie. that sentiment seems to fly in the face of those numbers though, as Bernie's support goes up as income goes down. Hillary only beats Bernie in the income range of $200,000+
just something I found interesting because it directly contradicts a common talking point I see on here
I always see Bernie's support being hand waved as made up of people who have the luxury to afford a risk like Bernie. that sentiment seems to fly in the face of those numbers though, as Bernie's support goes up as income goes down. Hillary only beats Bernie in the income range of $200,000+
just something I found interesting because it directly contradicts a common talking point I see on here
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
There's that...but then there's also this chart:
Bernie supporters in NH think he's less electable in November. That says "not as worried about him losing the general" to me
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-hampshire-primary/56ba40a4981b92a22d052760/
PeskyToaster
Member
Christie did MASSIVE DAMAGE to Rubio's weak spot.
That critical strike.
The Lamonster
Member
edit: ^ ha, great minds
Damn. It's almost like Christie changed the course of history in that debate, although I'm sure Rubio would've fucked up at some later point instead. From the beginning, I always bet on Rubio winning the nom, but it looks like Christie administered a critical hit to his campaign.
Christie did MASSIVE DAMAGE to Rubio's weak spot.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Christie did MASSIVE DAMAGE to Rubio's weak spot.
Maybe Christie shorted Rubio?
Yeah; now I wish Rubio had saved the massive fuckup for the General
You're getting a bit ahead of things. Once some of the primaries in more diverse states, such as South Carolina, occur then we'll have a better picture. Right now it's a pretty competitive race.
I agree with your other bit I quoted though. Regardless of which Democrat gets the nomination it is very important to go out and vote.
hydragonwarrior
Member
But by doing so you risk a republican presidency. It means you're willing to unravel the past 8 years that were accomplished by Obama and it's what those candidates are campaigning on.
There's that...but then there's also this chart:
Bernie supporters in NH think he's less electable in November. That says "not as worried about him losing the general" to me
I think you're not reading the chart correctly.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-democrat-poll.html?_r=0
Can win in November
12% of voters
Of the 12% of voters that said the reason they chose the candidate they did is electability in November 79% voted Clinton. It's a very different story from his supporters believe he's not electable.
boiled goose
good with gravy
What those too polls together says is that people are so fucked they want to take a chance.
It's not luxury to risk it. It's desperation for change.
I find the income numbers to be much more relevant to that point though. electability has become such a nothing word as of recent, reflecting more on things like poise and demeanor. imo, of course.
also yikes at those honest numbers. in an election where the integrity of politicians is as big of an issue as it is that should be very worrying for her going forward.
yeah this was my point. there was a narrative that those being negatively affected most by the issues in our country can't afford radical change, that incremental change was the safer and more beneficial choice. it seems that narrative was not grounded in reality.
Macho Madness
Member
I hate to say it but some of these 20-somethings don't remember or were not politically active when Bush was president. They don't remember what that was like as an adult. Obama came in promising change, and we've had a huge amount of change under him. But that's not enough, and Obama is not leftist enough because they don't know how things used to be.
Black Republican
Member
I just hope that people apologize, a lot of people brushed off reparations because virtually all mainstream candidates don't address this issue. This is a legitimate problem the Black community can have with Sanders and I understand them if they don't vote for him because of it. I completely understand Coates, not going for Jill for example for practical reasons but i sincerely hope that Bernie's campaign do treat this topic very seriously. There needs to be a fast track to racial justice and the shit minority voters go through every single day. If you are fighting for the little guy, there is no community more impacted by the last two decades of middle class recession and upward mobility than the African American community. The financial meltdown and housing collapse disproportionately effected minorities, the loan sharks like a real predator targeted minorities and were successful in bankrupting whole communities, while leaving families out on the street.
Without address this fundamental fact and focusing on those who were ruined by the last financial collapse Sander's coalition will never be inclusive to all creeds and races.
heh, i was expecting him to stay on the sidelines, hope he doesnt get shit for his decision
Macho Madness
Member
It's what the democratic party instituted years and years ago to stop extremist candidates like Bernie getting the nomination.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You've not read that chart right. It's the proportion of the vote each candidate took amongst voters who considered electability their main concern. Sander's support actually thinks he is more likely than Clinton to be electable, iirc, but they just don't think it's as important an issue anyway. Similarly, 94% of people don't think Clinton is dishonest, it's just that Sanders won 94% of people who thought honesty was the most important thing - only 61% of Americans think Clinton is dishonest/untrustworthy, which is obviously no way near 94%.
Same point as my earlier post applies here
Honest and trustworthy
34% of voters
Of the 34% of voters that chose on the basis of honestly only 5% chose Hillary. This doesn't mean that the rest doesn't believe she's not honest, it only means that they had a different priority.
Democracy Now just uploaded their interview, for anyone interested:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/10/ta_nehisi_coates_is_voting_for
ChronotriggerJM
Member
I love that Bernie is an extremist lol. He and Hillary are almost running an identical campaign. Not saying she isn't more electable mind you
Yeah, this directly reflects the reality that he speaks to. When even the middle class feels the squeeze, you know you'll be seeing a political shift.
Yeah, he is done. Here is the report from Politico...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ected-to-suspend-presidential-campaign-219074
Are there any examples of folks suspending their campaign, then making a comeback later on down the road in the same election season?
boiled goose
good with gravy
I still want to see a poll that shows how one of his proposed policies is unpopular and therefore extreme.
Macho Madness
Member
If he gets the nomination and loses badly, that could be devastating to the democratic party. General election optics are much different than the primary ones.
yeah after reading crab's post I realized I misread that poll
Bummer I wanted to see him destroy more people.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Not disagreeing. I'm just laughing at the term "extreme candidate" lol.
Colbert will give him a proper sendoff. I wonder what District he'll hail from...
Duxxy3
Member
There's no better way to get people to stop voting than to take away their voting power. It SHOULD be a virtual tie right now between Sanders and Clinton.
Macho Madness
Member
I know, extreme was probably too much. More a candidate they feel isn't going to be best for the party.
shoplifter
Member
I cannot in good conscience vote for her. Just like I did not vote for Obama in 2012.
- Status