• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sad to Bernie lose...hopefully he can turn it around. On the flip side Trump (aka the black swan) is just going to keep gaining steam. More and more people from the sanders, trump or bust camp and even past obama voters are slowly going to listen and seek points of resonance with trump which may sway there vote.

Things are playing out pretty much like I said many months ago...

What I see happening in the next phase, once trump secures the nom, is he'll keep dropping little nuggets that are more center left which hes already doing. With the anti hillary crowd frustrated at it all, on sub conscious level there are going to be longing for someone to fill in the gap that she cant fill. This is going to put their brain in a "seeking" mode looking to fill that gap, because this group is going to highly receptive to "I dont like hillary, I dont like the establishment, I want/like xyz(single issue) they will end up more receptive to hearing things trump unconsciously.

They'll keep finding things they agree with on trump which were seeing already...now this doesnt mean it will translate to votes but it will continue to increase the odds that it will. Obviously with not all demographics but I think folks are going to being for a very rude awakening if hillary takes the nom and something doesnt change in her energy and message.

Basically if things keep moving like they are, Trump is going to be president. If Bernie loses and Hillary cant redefine her self in the eyes of certain groups of voters, shes going to have big problems in GE.

Some folks are going to argue this not possible, blah blah, thats what you guys where saying months ago when I was pointing out Trump is a black swan and were dealing with something different here...
 
excelsiorlef said:
Yeah ya do. Just a different type
Click to expand...

A fair point. Saying Trump and Hillary are both bad is silly reductionism.

I actually think Hillary will do better than Obama. I think Obama is a better campaigner but Hillary is a better politician. Obama tried to play with republicans. Hillary will crush them
 
TheBritishBear said:
Bernie speaks to those kind of people and frankly, Hillary isn't getting it. I mean, it's very likely she will win (unless Bernie pulls out amazing results), but it's going to demoralise the youth voters and that's very concerning for the general election. Hillary needs to connect with the youth voters, so she needs to connect more with their issues and to act like she's genuine instead of flip-flopping on various issues.
Click to expand...

So how does she make inroads to these voters?change position? That's flip flopping.... Stay committed to her core plans (like Bernie) that they don't like? Compromise? (The worst thing anyone can do according to some Sander's supporters) she is in a lose lose here. If she reaches out more, Reddit will call it pandering.
 
HylianTom said:
Explain to me how a "progressive" willingly votes in a manner that cedes the Supreme Court to politicians who would see to it that progressivism dies.

I'll wait patiently.

And I'll note, yet again, that there is no real substantive answer to this argument. "Butt hurt" is emotional fluff language. Give us some substance.
Click to expand...

Because they are anti establishment first and progressive second.
 
boiled goose said:
It is a fair point that the primary will decide the stronger candidate among registered Democrats. I grant that.

You miss two points. Caucuses are small. 80k vs a million in general in Nevada for example.

Second. Bernie does better among independents.

For the record, I'm not a Bernie supporter. I don't vote in primaries. Just call it how i see it.
Click to expand...

The reality is... head to head poling isn't consistently saying one thing or another... and Sanders has yet to face the kind of attacks from the right that Clinton has shown an aptitude for navigating.

Republicans are already actively targeting Clinton with attack ads. Her numbers with independents aren't likely to shift much between now and November. Sander's numbers have a bigger question mark on them.

He might hold up just fine. He might not. We can't say with anything like the same certainty we can with Clinton how he'll hold up when shit gets nasty.
 
boiled goose said:
I actually think it's amazing that folks like you guys dont see the difference that Bernie supporters see. Record is almost identical... but there are differences in areas that people really care about.
Click to expand...

Different enough to demonize Hillary as bad as Republicans.

That sounds believable.
 
ShadowKingpin said:
I never said I was staying home. I'm just not voting Two-Party. Plus, yes, I AM a Progressive to those who claim I am not. Regardless of who wins between Trump and Clinton, we are screwed as a country. I don't give in to fear mongering. So much butt hurt in this thread.
Click to expand...

voting third party is the same as staying home (assuming you're also just writing in random names for every other position on the ballot)

sorry, but it's true. When you know your vote will have no effect because you voting for someone that will have zero influence on the election that is throwing your vote away because of your irrational fears of Clinton. You've let the insane propaganda of the right wing and a section of the Bernie supporters delude you into thinking that somehow Clinton is going to tank the country and literally not follow through on any progressive agenda.

Not voting two party because it's two party is a pretty lame excuse, and I've heard it before from my friends who do the same thing and decide to player the moral hero and vote Green Party.

If there wasn't such a huge gap in ideology between the republicans and democrats you might have an argument for the current need of a third party, however there IS a huge gap where one party is progressive on the vast majority of the issues, and the other party is full of racists who want to bring the country back to the 1950's social ideology and economic setup, which is literally impossible.

I find it hard to believe you're progressive when the first thing on your list of things to do is be apathetic to one of the most important presidential elections of our life in terms of cementing Obama's policy and continuing policies that will slowly get us to where America needs to be in the next 15-20 years.
 
Nipo said:
Because they are anti establishment first and progressive second.
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to accept that answer.

It'd be an admission that actual policy - y'know, the stuff that Bernie is fighting for - takes a back seat to a vague, emotional, ever-changing concept.
 
phanphare said:
you were implying that older democrats would stay home if it was Trump vs. Bernie. I was saying that older democrats are likely used to voting for a less-than-ideal candidate to stop a much worse candidate from getting through and would therefore come out to vote for Bernie.
Click to expand...



No, I was implying older democrats were t going to come out to vote for Bernie. They don't just hold their nose and vote democrat, as you can tell under Mondale, essentially Bernie is Mondale.
 
HylianTom said:
I'd be willing to accept that answer.

It'd be an admission that actual policy - y'know, the stuff that Bernie is fighting for - takes a back seat to a vague, emotional, ever-changing concept.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. lol. When has policy trumped emotion in choosing who to vote for? Stuff is 70% emotional at minimum.
 
Crosseyes said:
It's still unknown how the population would vote come a general. I mean Bernie would be my number one but Hillary will still push for generally progressive policies. I'd hope for a bomb at the coronation ceremony for any candidate after that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think maybe you need to step away from political stuff for a while. That is in no way a rational thought you just expressed there, and has probably flagged you on a few watch lists.
 
boiled goose said:
I actually think it's amazing that folks like you guys dont see the difference that Bernie supporters see. Record is almost identical... but there are differences in areas that people really care about.
Click to expand...
And yet her record is what is continuously being maligned in this thread, so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to move the goal posts and pretend it is Hillary's defenders constantly drawing attention to it. Besides, how a politician actually votes is absolutely one of the most important aspects of any consideration. "Ok yeah she holds almost the exact same stances as Bernie and votes the same way but... but she's evil!" is essentially what you're trying to convey here, and it's silly. Stop.
 
It's the nominee's job to rally the party behind him/her.

If the percentage of Democrats who despise Hillary so much as to refuse to vote for her in the general is really large enough to swing the election (which I very much doubt), that's ultimately on her and her limitations as a candidate, not on the Sanders campaign.
 
boiled goose said:
I actually think it's amazing that folks like you guys dont see the difference that Bernie supporters see. Record is almost identical... but there are differences in areas that people really care about.
Click to expand...

No I get why it might make them choose him over Clinton in the Primary I don't get why it makes some of them say if Clinton wins I'm staying home, she's evil, she's totally corrupt, she's a psychopath etc..., no better than Trump, or Trump is better or whatever it may be
 
Aaronology said:
And yet her record is what is continuously being maligned in this thread, so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to move the goal posts and pretend it is Hillary's defenders constantly drawing attention to it. Besides, how a politician actually votes is absolutely one of the most important aspects of any consideration. "Ok yeah she holds almost the exact same stances as Bernie and votes the same way but... but she's evil!" is essentially what you're trying to convey here, and it's silly. Stop.
Click to expand...

They have voted differently at times and in many of those times i think it's fair to question her reasons. Specially, her votes catering to special interests in the political establishment. This includes iraq war, wall street regulation, trade, etc.
excelsiorlef said:
No I get why it might make them choose him over Clinton in the Primary I don't get why it makes some of them say if Clinton wins I'm staying home, she's evil, she's totally corrupt, she's a psychopath etc..., no better than Trump, or Trump is better or whatever it may be
Click to expand...

Yes. I completely agree with you here.

One small thing though. Hillary does have to work to get people on board as well.
 
boiled goose said:
I actually think it's amazing that folks like you guys dont see the difference that Bernie supporters see. Record is almost identical... but there are differences in areas that people really care about.
Click to expand...
His ideology, which will not likely have any effect on the four - eight years he has in office vs the four - eight years she would.
 
Vigilant Walrus said:
Saying something is okay because "legal reasons" is not a good argument. It is what it is, and you trying to explain it away like it is okay because they abused their power on hysteria and paranoia is wrong. Something, something "terror" something we have to keep americans save from an enemy that doesn't exist.
What is so sad, is that this is a nationalistic knee-jerkreaction to a government going beyond its bounds to control its populace. And it always runs on fear, and keeping the stupid public in the dark, because they are too stupid. You can trace that behavior to many world powers in some form, and they all have nationalists who defend the governments excessive use of force and invasion of privacy be it in the US, China, Russia or elsewhere.

Snowden released the documents to whistleblowers, who exposed illegal and invasive surveillance that were unknown to the public all over the world. Of those, many of violated international law including;
XKeyscore, a program which tags people they spy on with user metrics to flag certain data, such as race, sex, ethnicity, and geolocation; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
Mass Data collection by the NSA and GCHQ (britains SS) under the program called prism; https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
Created malware protocols all over the world with the aim of reducing security having spend billions on it; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?hp&_r=1
And they have infected more than 50,000 computers will malware (possible more); http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/11/23/nsa-infected-50000-computer-networks-with-malicious-software
Engaged in the spying of 35 world leaders including crucial allies; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

For exposing these programs and human rights violations, he has been called a traitor. Summing this up behind the advocacy that "the public doesn't have a right to know" is wrong. NSA engaged in largest and most nafarious data collecting of any government, in secret, and without a clear basis, using the war on terror as an afront on the invasion of privacy.
With regards to the Snowden being put in a black hole, it might have something to do with Bradley Manning, who exposed mass murder of civilians in iraq by apache helicopter, torture of guantanamo detainees, and other international violations.
For his exposure, they tried to pin on him that he aided the enemy, which would have yielded multiple life sentences. For exposing corruption that would have remained hidden in the chain of command.
As a deterrent for others to leak similar information, he is now servign a 35 year sentence- 3½ of which he spend on solitary confinement, which- I hope you know, the UN has condemned as torture ( http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40097 ). A fucked up practice that the US have continued to engage in, and which aptly shows how backwards and fucked up its justice system is.
Nobody will know if Snowden would receive the same punishment, but it is idiotic to sweep aside the idea under "conspiracy theories" that the consequences for what he has done, will not be consequential.
The guy is obviously a hero for uncovering one of the most imperialistic and vile acts of the United States during the 21th century.
And btw, as for the whole "Snowden caused insufferable damage" I challenge you to find anything that has been released from his documents that put US security at risk or its agents at risk. It's hogwash. You're not going to find anything, as have been noted by many political commentators.
The largest thing you have on Snowden besides exposing the government paranoia and desire for control, is some of the cases that does have security concerns, as said by Chomsky; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvwxYb4RCAA

The guy drafted the bill says it was an abuse of power ; http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/02/author-of-original-patriot-act-n2006936

The fact that they were upheld in court shows what a disaster shitshow mainstream American politics is. I don't know how you can have this position of explaining abuse of power- by the NSA, which in MANY instances have violated international law with its spy programs.

NSA Violating international law; http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rnational_law_david_kaye_s_report_to_the.html

NSA Violates human rights standards; https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/...e-how-nsa-violates-international-human-rights

Sanders voted against against the program ( https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289 ) in 2001, and against it at every renwel. AFAIK Hillary voted for it, at every turn.

Again, citing something as constitutional or as "it was within the limits of the law" is not a shield from the morally corrupt actions of those who engaged in it and supported it.
People have a damn good reason to be upset and holla at the politicians who let it get this far.
And let me be clear- I'm not advocating that people do not vote for Hillary Clinton against Trump or Cruz. You absolutely should vote for the candidate who is not going to mass deport or carpet bomb enmass.
But it really irks me to read this historical revisionism, like these things are no big deal and like Hillary, and other democrats who supported this terrible laws, should just be swept under the rug.
It should be remembered, and accurately represented, even if she is the candidate that everyone has to vote for.
In my mind, this is when political affiliation is at its worst. When you will not call out your own party for what it has done. We absolutely should, but I get this urging sense of Hillary apolgatism and everything is leaked emails and benghazi. No, FFS. Look at her voting record.
If anything she should be held up on it, so when she gets to office she will strive to not make the same mistakes and be more like she was, before she was a senator.
Click to expand...

Wow, there is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. And, I think you have no idea what the NSA was actually doing since you throw around a lot of specific words and allegations.

1) The NSA program was and in its new amended form is legal. Whether you agree with these polices is an ethical or political debate not a legal matter. The courts have routinely upheld their use, although before Obama amended it a Circuit split did begin to appear, and so far the S.C. has not ruled on it. United States v. Miller, governs these cases which basically states than an individual has no right to information they convey willingly to a third party. Thus, things like bank records, call records, internet browser history, forum posts, metadata, etc. could be discoverable by the government without the need for a warrant. Of course, Miller was decided in the 70's before the internet and dealt mostly with phone records and bank records. This is why many are eager for the S.C. to hear the issue again. However, they have not and Miller remains good law.

2) The government is under no duty to protect citizens of another country against spying. That is the entire purpose of the intelligence community, to spy on foreign governments and its people. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with intelligence agencies existing in the first place.

3) Bradley Manning violated the law, he was no whistleblower. In many respects he is worse than Snowden since he basically just released a large amount of information regarding U.S. intelligence and foreign relations efforts with and against other countries. He was properly brought to trial and convicted for said actions.

4) International law is not binding upon any nation and that UN report is laughable in its thread bare allegations. If you bothered to read the report it says that it believes the U.S. is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically Article 17 which reads:
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Click to expand...

As stated above, U.S. law supports the notion that no citizen's privacy rights have been violated by the NSA's program. As towards foreign aliens living in other countries, the ICPR cannot possibly support the notion that nations are unable to spy on each other. Again, to support such a notion is to decry that all intelligence agencies are a violation of international law and should be abolished.

So again, whether you agree or not with the NSA's collection practices is a matter of ethical or political discussion not a legal one. The law permits it. And, until Congress passes new legislation or the S.C. issues a new ruling regarding internet/electronic privacy rights it will remain legal.
 
RDreamer said:
No, the reason many of you progressives won't vote for her is because you don't understand how our voting/political system works.



This.

It's funny because I'm pretty certain Sanders himself would vehemently disagree with ShadowKingpin on this issue. He knows how to compromise to get progress and has done it time and time again. I wouldn't be surprised if he came out and tried to rally people to vote for Hillary if/when she wins.
Click to expand...

I don't understand? I can assure you that I do understand how this political system works very well. I'll leave you to your opinion anyway.
 
Aylinato said:
No, they would just stay home. They would not vote for trump
Click to expand...

Counting them eggs before they hatch...only 2 things have to fall in place for Trump to siphon off chunks of these votes...

1. connect with their anti Hillary/establishment touch point to make them receptive listening to him...

(once slightly receptive)

2. connect/frame things on an emotional/energetic level with 1-3 issues they value strongly enough on a certain threshold...(repeatedly do this to drill it in)


and thats its...its not going to get everyone but it will pull more and more into his sphere of influence, especially over time...

A perfect storm is a brewing...
 
ShadowKingpin said:
Correction: Hillary's corruption, lying and being overall dishonest will ruin her chances of winning against the Republicans. The reason why so many of us Progressives won't vote for her is because we aren't playing this 'Lesser of Two Evils' game anymore. It's a lose-lose regardless and we are sick of it.
Click to expand...

You're the only progressive I know who cites Washington Times articles.

People who talk like this are selfish, not progressive. Don't vote. I don't care. But you're not a progressive.

Hillary does a lot of shit wrong, has done a lot of shit wrong, and will continue to get shit wrong. But she gets it right on so much more than anybody else in the Republican field I can't even imagine considering her an evil.
 
ShadowKingpin said:
I don't understand? I can assure you that I do understand how this political system works very well. I'll leave you to your opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

Then you wouldn't be voting third party. End of story.

Or you just like feeling morally superior for some reason rather than actually voting in a way that makes sense with your views.
 
Giant Panda said:
I'd say it's the most important aspect of the Democratic Party. I sincerely hope that third parties become viable so that you far left people have some socialist party to vote for so that you don't taint the Democrat's superior center-left views.
Click to expand...

I would rather far-leftests gain a major voice outside of a reformist party. I don't believe any substantial far-left goals can be achieved within the governmental system. I would be interested to see what you feel makes the center-left better than the far-left.
 
There's plenty of scary shit going on in state and local races, threatening to abstain a vote based on the top of the ticket is moronic.
 
boiled goose said:
They have voted differently at times and in many of those times i think it's fair to question her reasons. Specially, her votes catering to special interests in the political establishment. This includes iraq war, wall street regulation, trade, etc.


Yes. I completely agree with you here.
Click to expand...

Which is fair to criticize her for but both have blemishes on their record (Bernie's is minorities and national security) and these debates hopefully will grow both of them as strong candidates for President to better serve the country. I see no purpose in trying to demonize the other.
 
GnawtyDog said:
Yes it's. Politics and economics are intertwined. You can't break that bond. As long as that bond exist, policy decisions will be made with/for vested (special) interest - that at times align with good policy. The absence of money doesn't eradicate influence from special interest towards some sort of policy aka lobbying. Just because one policy decision (made as a result of lobbying) fails to have a favorable outcome doesn't mean that all of the sudden vested interest are bad for politics - how many have been good and no one bats an eye? Yep. Trade policy is a perfect, easy example to pull. But it's everywhere in some form or another. Somehow you add money into the mix and it changes everything? There is a fine balance to play by the politicians elected for office and the degree to which they value special interests request and/if in their judgement should pursue in policy form. The problem is that lobbying is out of control (due to the amounts of money being poured) and thus policy decisions made with vested interest in mind fail to represent the general populace at large or push any public good in certain visible areas.That's what excessive money in politics can do. So you limit it or take it away but you can be damn sure economic power players will always have a say in policy - in one way or another. And that, is the american way. Now if you're solely referring to Citizens United... we can have a conversation about why it's aggravating the relationship between vested (special) interest and elected representatives and moving that relationship to a dangerous realm.
Click to expand...

What a load of BS
 
foxtrot3d said:
3) Bradley Manning violated the law, he was no whistleblower. In many respects he is worse than Snowden since he basically just released a large amount of information regarding U.S. intelligence and foreign relations efforts with and against other countries. He was properly brought to trial and convicted for said actions.
Click to expand...

Her name is Chelsea. Please don't misgender trans people.
 
Raxus said:
Which is fair to criticize her for but both have blemishes on their record (Bernie's is minorities and national security) and these debates hopefully will grow both of them as strong candidates for President to better serve the country. I see no purpose in trying to demonize the other.
Click to expand...

Umm. Im not sure what the voting record blemishes are for Bernie regarding minorities and national security.

Lack of experience sure... voting wise? Vote for the iraq war should be tbe biggest national security blemish on anyones record.
 
Las7 said:
I see so old people will stay at home if Hillary is not the nominee, sounds like Sanders supporters aren't the only problem in the democratic party.
Click to expand...



No, but good try. Bernie voters say they would rather have trump then Hillary. Hillary supporters actually know Bernie isn't a democrat, and only chose to be in the election to move the electorate to the left, which is good. Unfortunately he isn't understanding the historical implications of he wins the primary and then gets destroyed in the general, meaning two hard conservatives on the Supreme Court, loss of any and all progressive law challenges to the Supreme Court for 20+ years, an even further backslide into the conservative ideology he so wants to battle, and another 8 years of republicans mucking up the country in the presidency.



Let's be honest though, Bernie supporters saying they would vote trump, means they aren't actually progressive nor liberal because trump holds no progressive or liberal stances outside of being the least fucked up republican candidate.
 
Aylinato said:
No, but good try. Bernie voters say they would rather have trump then Hillary. Hillary supporters actually know Bernie isn't a democrat, and only chose to be in the election to move the electorate to the left, which is good. Unfortunately he isn't understanding the historical implications of he wins the primary and then gets destroyed in the general, meaning two hard conservatives on the Supreme Court, loss of any and all progressive law challenges to the Supreme Court for 20+ years, an even further backslide into the conservative ideology he so wants to battle, and another 8 years of republicans mucking up the country in the presidency.



Let's be honest though, Bernie supporters saying they would vote trump, means they aren't actually progressive nor liberal because trump holds no progressive or liberal stances outside of being the least fucked up republican candidate.
Click to expand...

To be fair... the Trump over Hillary voters are probably a tiny minority of the Bernie base.
 
boiled goose said:
Umm. Im not sure what the voting record blemishes are for Bernie regarding minorities and national security.

Lack of experience sure... voting wise? Vote for the iraq war should be tbe biggest national security blemish on anyones record.
Click to expand...
Well, he did vote for the crime bill that lead to the imprisonment of a lot of black folks. His supporters like to remind us that Hillary's husband signed it into law, that that fact tends to get neglected. Or at least shrugged away as a damned if he did, damned if he didn't kind of thing.
 
One concerning thing is that NV Democratic turnout was lower than 2008 while SC Republican was quite a bit higher. Now, it could be because the two states are simply different (and we'll see whether that's the case this week when the states flip to the other party). It could be because in 2008 the Democrats had an electrifying candidate in Obama.

My fear is that the Republican base is highly motivated and the Democratic base, despite having a candidate that seems to be appealing to the highly fickle youth vote, isn't matching that level of enthusiasm. If Bernie loses the nomination (likely but not certain) then Hillary has her work cut out for her swinging the youth vote to her and ensuring they show up on election day. I wouldn't count on fear of Trump (or Cruz or Rubio) to be enough. She'll really, really need to work hard to bring them on board and continue heading left even through the general election to bring them on board.

Also anyone planning to sit out the vote for President please, please, please go and vote on the other positions! I know in NC I've got lots of work to do and I'd never let whatever happens in the general election keep me from showing up and voting.
 
At this point, I am convinced that people who protest that they won't vote or will vote for Trump are mostly proclaiming it for the attention (or aren't progressives).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Monarch: Legacy of Monsters | Season 2 Official Teaser | Feb 27
4
274
AJUMP23 replied
South Park: Season 27 Teaser
2 3 4 5
235
7K
kevboard replied
The Artful Dodger | S2 Official Trailer | Hulu | Feb 10
3
245
mitch1971 replied
Real life Resident Evil Scenario (secret foreign run bio-labs found in CA 2023 and Nevada 2026)
25
552
jason10mm replied
ROSE OF NEVADA | Official Trailer | A Lost Ship Returns to a Fading Fishing Village
3
151
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom