Support NeoGAF

[nitekrawlwer]

Fair enough. A lot of Clinton supporters have made a pretty ardent effort to minimize Sanders' radical nature, so comments like the above bother me.



Neither Sanders or Clinton can repeal Citizens' United. Clinton's plans for financial reform can be best described as half-assed.

Their plan is to put in place supreme court justices that will. I know they can't repeal it directly themselves.

It's not dishonest. He literally sidesteps questions to rattle on more about that one. I've been watching the debates.

 

[Agent_Carnage]

I live in a blue state that as far as I'm aware isn't at risk of turning purple or red anytime soon. If you have any links that suggest me voting for Hillary is more important than I think, I'm interested (not being sarcastic). I see the value in voting for a Democratic president in a place like Texas, but I don't think my circumstances fit the hissy fit description you're using against me.

You are a spoiled child. If I don't get the nomination I want I am going home and screw everyone else. You may think your state wont go red but enough spoiled brats get their way it might turn red. You are not a true progressive then if someone from the Democratic Ticket doesnt get the nom you wont vote at all. You do realize there are down the ticket ballets right?

Its also important to give Clinton a Democratic Controlled House and Senate. Do you want to keep the GOP to continue to gerrymander districts that give them an unfavorable advantage during midterms?

In 08 I was for Clinton sure I was sad she dident win the Nomination. But I quickly put that behind me and elect a progressive into office even thought at the time I was not fully sold on him.

Lets say Roles were changed and Clinton is out going president and Obama is trying again. Would you not vote for him eather?

 

[Prodigal Son]

You have no idea how this works and you're not even bothering to read. The donations in question are coming from individuals who work at these institutions, not directly from a corporate bank account.

And you're hopelessly gullible and too easily swayed by your Candidate's word. We can play the "you're just ___" game all day.

Individuals at the head of a businesses aren't less likely to look after the interest of their livelihood.They absolutely are going to show support for a Candidate who they believe will keep their money flowing, and of course they'll issue semi-credible excuses should their candidate of choice come under fire for being corrupt.

This is one of the biggest problems facing the country and you're downplaying its significance. If I'm right, what do you think they'd say? What would be their go-to excuse should people question why they donate as they do?

It'd be exactly the excuses they're making.

 

[The Technomancer]

Neither Sanders or Clinton can repeal Citizens' United.

Clinton's plans for financial reform can be best described as half-assed. And speaking of "lies about the other candidates", suggesting that Sanders focuses exclusively on income inequality is absurdly dishonest.

I mean we literally have watched him on the debate stage pivot just about any non-FP issue to Wall Street, so he's certainly giving a good impression of someone who focuses solely on income inequality

 

[Cerium]

And you're hopelessly gullible and too easily swayed by your Candidate's word. We can play the "you're just ___" game all day.

Actually it's more that I live in New York and have friends who actually work on Wall Street who I grew up with and know are liberal to their core.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Actually it's more that I live in New York and have friends who actually work on Wall Street who I grew up with and know are liberal to their core.

Ah. So you're an insider are you? At least it makes sense now that you're coming from a position of bias.

 

[Muzy72]

So, PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.

 

[B-Dubs]

Actually it's more that I live in New York and have friends who actually work on Wall Street who I grew up with and know are liberal to their core.

It's very easy to demonize people you've never spoken to. There are some true assholes, I've met them, but most of them are just doing a job.

Ah. So you're an insider are you? At least it makes sense now that you're coming from a position of bias.

And there we go.

 

[Cerium]

Ah. So you're an insider are you?

No, I'm in the liberal arts. I just think that people tend to be more complicated than their job description.

 

[ivysaur12]

So, PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.

Vote Trump.

 

[Link]

Ah. So you're an insider are you? At least it makes sense now that you're coming from a position of bias.

You should just bow out now.

 

[Valhelm]

I mean we literally have watched him on the debate stage pivot just about any non-FP issue to Wall Street, so he's certainly giving a good impression of someone who focuses solely on income inequality

Well, no, we really haven't. His debate comments about Black Lives Matter, gender pay inequality, climate change, and criminal justice reform have often been more committal than Clinton's. Your attention is selective.

 

[sphagnum]

So, PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.

Hillary is going to get the nomination, she doesn't really need any more votes. Vote Trump to screw over the GOP for the general.

I wonder how close we'll come to flipping Texas blue this year...

 

[Prodigal Son]

No, I'm in the liberal arts. I just think that people tend to be more complicated than their job description.

I am less inclined to consider people as all that 'complicated.'

We're greedy fucks and most of us are self-serving.

I'm sorry if I call bullshit on people on Wall-Street feeling more compassion for the American people than their own Bank account.

You should just bow out now.

I'm good. Eventually this issue will be solved (maybe not even in my lifetime) and inevitably discussions like this will be looked at with contempt by our descendants.

Support for a corrupt system won't be looked at favorably.

Apology accepted.

You're welcome.

 

[Kangi]

So, PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.

On the one hand, Texas is delegate-rich and running up her margins could be a boon.

On the other, she's going to win Texas either way. Taking Texas from Cruz would be far more delicious.

 

[Valhelm]

So, PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.

Vote Cruz. A Trump candidacy is too dangerous.

 

[Cerium]

I'm sorry if I call bullshit on people on Wall-Street feeling more compassion for the American people than their own Bank account.

Apology accepted.

 

[gutter_trash]

Vote Cruz. A Trump candidacy is too dangerous.

don't listen to him!

You don't want Rubio to squeez by at the GE

vote for Trump! give Hillary the Free win

 

[Mecha]

I feel like we will be seeing a repeat of this discussion until the next president is voted in.

 

[Damaniel]

It will most definitely be Hilary's fault if it comes to that. It is her job as the nominee to convince people to support her. It this not the voters' obligation to support any candidate, even if that candidate is from the same party.

If Hilary cannot get some Bernie voters to support her and it cost her the election, however unlikely that scenario is, it is because Hilary is a flawed candidate.

I really hope you don't call yourself a progressive then, because you're absolutely not - you're just buying into the Bernie cult of personality. There's nothing more regressive then taking your ball and going home because the nominee is only a little to the right of your candidate, ending up causing legitimately evil people to take power.

Stay home if you want, but don't brag about it - you'll be doing far more harm than you think you are.

 

[Valhelm]

don't listen to him!

You don't want Rubio to squeez by at the GE

vote for Trump! give Hillary the Free win

Trump's not an easy win. He's a very powerful candidate that fits like a puzzle-piece into every Clinton fault, at least in the eyes of voters.

 

[Hige]

You are a spoiled child. If I don't get the nomination I want I am going home and screw everyone else. You may think your state wont go red but enough spoiled brats get their way it might turn red. You are not a true progressive then if someone from the Democratic Ticket doesnt get the nom you wont vote at all. You do realize there are down the ticket ballets right?

Its also important to give Clinton a Democratic Controlled House and Senate. Do you want to keep the GOP to continue to gerrymander districts that give them an unfavorable advantage during midterms?

Hey, I've already posted like 3 times about how I vote in every election and vote for Democrats in down ticket races. Instead of calling me a spoiled child and putting words in my mouth by suggesting that I said I would stay home and not vote at all, you could try responding to something I actually did write. Thanks.

 

[gutter_trash]

Trump's not an easy win. He's a very powerful candidate that fits like a puzzle-piece into every Clinton fault, at least in the eyes of voters.

Trump has pissed off ALL Hispanics. = easy win for Dems.

Rubio.... not so much, he has flipped flopped like pancakes on immigration but he has not completely pissed them all off like Trump. = more difficult for the Dems

 

[Valhelm]

Trump has pissed off ALL Hispanics. = easy win for Dems.

Rubio.... not so much, he has flipped flopped like pancakes on immigration but he has not completely pissed them all off like Trump. = more difficult for the Dems

White voters outnumber Hispanic voters by more than a 3:1 margin. Obama only won 43% of the white vote, and Trump's adherence to identity politics will likely ensure greater performance with whites than Romney.

 

[Averon]

I really hope you don't call yourself a progressive then, because you're absolutely not - you're just buying into the Bernie cult of personality. There's nothing more regressive then taking your ball and going home because the nominee is only a little to the right of your candidate, ending up causing legitimately evil people to take power.

Stay home if you want, but don't brag about it - you'll be doing far more harm than you think you are.

Hey, I didn't say people should stay home and not vote. I'm just saying it is Hilary's job to bring the party together. This is one of the basic requirements of every viable contender. It should be no different for Hilary. If a few Bernie handouts is enough to sink her, then she was a flawed candidate to begin with.

 

[Link]

I'm good. Eventually this issue will be solved (maybe not even in my lifetime) and inevitably discussions like this will be looked at with contempt by our descendants.

Support for a corrupt system won't be looked at favorably.

You just completely dismissed somebody and called him an insider because they're friends with people on Wall Street.

Your purity is no better than the boogeyman you're demonizing.

 

[ivysaur12]

White voters outnumber Hispanic voters by more than a 3:1 margin. Obama only won 43% of the white vote, and Trump's adherence to identity politics will likely ensure greater performance with whites than Romney.

Increased white vote share is a white whale for Republican presidential candidates and would have diminishing returns in most swing states.

 

[gutter_trash]

White voters outnumber Hispanic voters by more than a 3:1 margin. Obama only won 43% of the white vote, and Trump's adherence to identity politics will likely ensure greater performance with whites than Romney.

women voters outnumber men

 

[GoldenEye 007]

IIRC in Texas, it's semi-open, right? Part of me wants to vote for Trump or Rubio, but you have to keep with the same party down the ballot once you pick one? I kind of like one of the democratic US House candidates in my district.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Hillary is going to get the nomination, she doesn't really need any more votes. Vote Trump to screw over the GOP for the general.

I wonder how close we'll come to flipping Texas blue this year...

Not going to happen with all the little redneck towns there are that only get Fox News. Most of the big cities are already blue.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

White voters outnumber Hispanic voters by more than a 3:1 margin. Obama only won 43% of the white vote, and Trump's adherence to identity politics will likely ensure greater performance with whites than Romney.

You're ignoring that there are a large number of upper-middle class whites who benefit from immigration and free trade and aren't comfortable with white nationalism. Trump has to keep them while attracting working class voters who normally don't vote.

 

[Prodigal Son]

You just completely dismissed somebody and called him an insider because they're friends with people on Wall Street.

Your purity is no better than the boogeyman you're demonizing.

People who willfully donate massive sums of money to candidates for the sake of pushing their own political agenda don't need me to demonize them. Whether they support good policy or not, they're using unethical and corrupt means to achieve their goals. Sander's surge, even if it was too little too late, is evidence enough that a sizable number of people know the system in place is corrupt.

 

[Valhelm]

Increased white vote share is a white whale for Republican presidential candidates and would have diminishing returns in most swing states.

Trump's campaign is not Romeny's campaign, and it's not Bush's campaign. Since 2000, every Republican candidate has made a big push for Hispanic voters (Romney actually landed over a quarter of the Hispanic electorate). With this push gone, Trump will allocate his resources on a Southern Strategy 2.0 that's intensive rather than extensive.

Trump's strategy for white turnout might backfire, but his appeal is growing so massive that it could certainly work.

You're ignoring that there are a large number of upper-middle class whites who benefit from immigration and free trade and aren't comfortable with white nationalism. Trump has to keep them while attracting working class voters who normally don't vote.

This is a really valid point, but you need to consider the importance of partisanship. Golf course Republicans will still support their boy against a Democrat, even if their boy happens to disagree with some of their key views.

 

[JesseEwiak]

People who willfully donate massive sums of money to candidates for the sake of pushing their own political agenda don't need me to demonize them. Whether they support good policy or not, they're using unethical and corrupt means to achieve their goals. Sander's surge, even if it was too little too late, is evidence enough that a sizable number of people know the system in place is corrupt.

I agree. That's why I believe in Paycheck Protection, so that people don't have to give money to corrupt Union that distort the Free Market that has made America great!

Trump's campaign is not Romeny's campaign, and it's not Bush's campaign. Since 2000, every Republican candidate has made a big push for Hispanic voters (Romney actually landed over a quarter of the Hispanic electorate). With this push gone, Trump will allocate his resources on a Southern Strategy 2.0 that's intensive rather than extensive.

Trump's strategy for white turnout might backfire, but his appeal is growing so massive that it could certainly work.

Except, the truth is, outside of a percent point or two, the number of people who don't like non-white people, but haven't been kicked into voting by the Black Muslim Socialist becoming President isn't that large.

 

[ivysaur12]

Trump's campaign is not Romeny's campaign, and it's not Bush's campaign. Since 2000, every Republican candidate has made a big push for Hispanic voters (Romney actually landed over a quarter of the Hispanic electorate). With this push gone, Trump will allocate his resources on a Southern Strategy 2.0 that's intensive rather than extensive.

Trump's strategy for white turnout might backfire, but his appeal is growing so massive that it could certainly work.

It could work, or it also won't work the same way that it hasn't worked for Bush, McCain, or Romney. I get that they're different campaigns, but politics is so polarized in 2016 that he's searching for voters that either don't exist or probably won't vote.

It's more likely that he causes moderate to somewhat moderate Republicans just not to vote because he's so off putting and his unfavorables are so high.

 

[danm999]

Trump's campaign is not Romeny's campaign, and it's not Bush's campaign. Since 2000, every Republican candidate has made a big push for Hispanic voters (Romney actually landed over a quarter of the Hispanic electorate). With this push gone, Trump will allocate his resources on a Southern Strategy 2.0 that's intensive rather than extensive.

Trump's strategy for white turnout might backfire, but his appeal is growing so massive that it could certainly work.

Might backfire? Might?

If Trump goes for a "intensive rather than extensive" Southern Strategy 2.0, all that's going to happen is that he runs up huge margins with White voters in safe Red States that get him precisely nowhere in the Electoral College.

There's a reason every GOP post-mortem of 2012 screamed they had to stop alienating women, minorities, the LGBT community and the young, and it wasn't because they doubted they had the ability to go any more regressive in four years.

 

[Cerium]

I think Trump will actually pivot in the general and go after black voters and gay voters. I've read articles that suggest he could have some success there.

 

[Valhelm]

My fear is with independents. Issues matter a lot less than personality for middle-of-the-road voters, and swing states tend to be purple due to their large number of independents.

Cruz cannot win Colorado or Florida. Trump can.

 

[Prodigal Son]

I think Trump will actually pivot in the general and go after black voters and gay voters. I've read articles that suggest he could have some success there.

Once he has the nom there's less incentive for him to be as heavy handed in his right-wing pandering. There's a good chance this might be the case (though I doubt he'll find much success).

 

[ivysaur12]

My fear is with independents. Issues matter a lot less than personality for middle-of-the-road voters, and swing states tend to be purple due to their large number of independents.

Cruz cannot win Colorado or Florida. Trump can.

How is Trump supposed to win Colorado and Florida with their big Hispanic/Latino voter bases? There aren't enough working class whites to make up the moderate voters he'd lose.

 

[Nipo]

People who willfully donate massive sums of money to candidates for the sake of pushing their own political agenda don't need me to demonize them. Whether they support good policy or not, they're using unethical and corrupt means to achieve their goals. Sander's surge, even if it was too little too late, is evidence enough that a sizable number of people know the system in place is corrupt.

Candidates who accept massive sums of money in change for helping get elected are the worst and should never be supported.

 

[danm999]

Trump has an unfavourability rating with independents worse than anybody running.

Not that it totally matters anyway. Romney also won Independents in 2012. By 10 points in Ohio. Didn't matter.

Because relying solely on the white vote to win an election is a bad strategy in the electoral college.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

This is a really valid point, but you need to consider the importance of partisanship. Golf course Republicans will still support their boy against a Democrat, even if their boy happens to disagree with some of their key views.

There will be some of that sure, but people in that group already have a history of voting for the Clintons. If they didn't Bill wouldn't have won twice in the 90's.

 

[SneakersSO]

No, many of them don't, and it's an insight into how little experience with America's political system this particular subset of his fans have and also how utterly they lack empathy for those of us in certain demographics who have seen and fought for progress in inches over years, not months. Women, minorities and LGBTQ have been playing the game of settling since day 1. Welcome to the damn party. No, you can't always get exactly what you want. Yes, sometimes you have to settle. No, that doesn't mean you quit. However, if you are so fragile that Bernie not being President is enough to break your spirit you were never going to be any use to him if he had won anyway.

But real talk won't do for them, though. Oh no. "What do you mean? I can't have my perfect candidate? What sort of election is this?!" And they turn their nose up at a Clinton, who has practically identical a voting record and shares the vast majority of her politics with Sanders. This entire sentiment reeks of privilege and I'm so sick of it, the selfishness that is behind it, the shortsightedness that empowers it and this whole primary that I'm almost to the point of abandoning cordiality.


They're the Veruca Salts of this election. They're throwing their hands up, huffing and puffing. They're threatening to throw temper tantrums, to stay home, to vote for one of the most openly bigoted Presidential candidates most of us have ever seen. This, from the same people who think they are the champions of Progressivism! It's really nothing but a fad for them.



"Politics as usual" is just another way of saying "both parties are the same" without immediately drawing the ire that ridiculous stance deserves, especially after Scalia's death has drawn even more attention to the USSC and raised the stakes. "Politics as usual" under Clinton would definitely not be "politics as usual" under any of the GOP and suggesting as such is fear-mongering and/or plain ignorance. Ironically, for all this talk of "not settling" and holding firm, what exactly do you think Bernie himself would end up doing once elected but settle? And settle? And settle? And settle?

Thankfully, most of Bernie's supporters aren't the rabid type I've grown so frustrated with. But the sort who are stumping their feet and pledging support for Donald freakin' Trump?

I mean, there are always gonna be people who throw tantrums cause their candidate isn't being elected. It happens on both sides of the aisle. Personally, I just don't care for politics at all outside of finding a candidate I can get behind, and showing my support. There are a few politicians that I do get behind and support whenever I can, and its the only reason i'll go & vote. Cause the political system has failed, and continues to fail, and be undermined, at every turn.

I'm not throwing a temper tantrum. I'm not making threats. I'm just making a statement - the moment Bernie is out of the presidential race, i'm done caring about it. I'll wake up the day after the election, look at a headline and be like "Oh, so-&-so is gonna be the new President? Good for them" & go back to my current everyday life. If Elizabeth Warren decides to run in 4/8 years, i'll probably get behind her & give her my full support as well.

 

[hawk2025]

I just wanted to add that, as a minority and legal immigrant, the discussion on the second half of page 58 is blood-chilling, disappointing, and scary.

I can't force anyone to vote in the generals -- but be sure to know the impact you may have. Sacrifice your apathy for others, be a strategic voter, or don't, but know that you can and will have an impact on the outcome of the country, whether you like it or not.

Abstaining does not abstain you from this responsibility.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Clinton's plans for financial reform can be best described as half-assed.

I'm just going to point out here that her plan is probably better than his plan. Although neither is probably MECE in terms of addressing the problems in the financial industry. So, I guess if you want both are half-assed.

The reply to this is likely to be about Glass-Steagall style separation of commercial and investment banking, which, while it has some merits, isn't actually going to address a lot of the problems.

 

[Baron Aloha]

I don't think Hillary supporters are attacking anyone.

No, but you and others in this and other threads are incredibly smug at times.

Case in point....

No, many of them don't, and it's an insight into how little experience with America's political system this particular subset of his fans have and also how utterly they lack empathy for those of us in certain demographics who have seen and fought for progress in inches over years, not months...

This post is full of generalizations. I've been a voter for over 20 years. I've participated in every election (and primary) since I have been eligible to vote. I'm all too familiar with America's political system which is precisely why I support Bernie over Hillary right now. You claim folks lack experience and don't want to settle when they have been doing precisely that for their entire lives. As a matter of fact, some of them have been settling for longer than you've been drawing breath on this Earth. For them, Bernie is the first person they have seen where they feel like they don't have to settle.

So yeah, I can understand why they would be upset when folks such as yourself are backing someone they see as corrupt and dishonest because you believe she is more electable (especially since they've been around long enough to remember plenty of other 'electable' people go on to tank in the general). I don't share their view that voting for Trump is the best course of action...but I can certainly understand their wanting to lash out because they finally see a chance for someone who they feel is genuine/decent to be elected to the highest office in the land and it is slipping away. "Let it all burn" is their knee jerk reaction. Give them time and they will cool off.

Or you can keep calling them spoiled brats and don't be surprised if they stay home or follow through with their threats later. Hillary isn't nearly as electable as you think she is. She is the single most divisive political figure in this country over the past 25 years. Trust me, if you want her to win you are going to need their support. She's going to need every vote she can get.

 

[Valhelm]

How is Trump supposed to win Colorado and Florida with their big Hispanic/Latino voter bases? There aren't enough working class whites to make up the moderate voters he'd lose.

Florida is 65% white, with a whiter voter base. A huge proportion of Hispanic voters in Florida (~40%) lean Republican.

I'm just going to point out here that her plan is probably better than his plan. Although neither is probably MECE in terms of addressing the problems in the financial industry. So, I guess if you want both are half-assed.

The reply to this is likely to be about Glass-Steagall style separation of commercial and investment banking, which, while it has some merits, isn't actually going to address a lot of the problems.

I'd honestly rather that the banks be fully expropriated, to limit the power of profiteers in our political landscape. But I admit that I don't know as much about finance as I should. Why would a return to Glass-Steagall be bad?

 

[Christine]

inevitably discussions like this will be looked at with contempt by our descendants.

Oh, inevitably.

In the mean time I thank you for thread whining on behalf of our inheritors, however remote your imagination dictates they should be.

A more immediate concern is derailment of discussion into petty personal sniping. I don't care whether it's "dear" or "spoiled child" or whatever. It's all tedious.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I think Trump will actually pivot in the general and go after black voters and gay voters. I've read articles that suggest he could have some success there.

Articles say all sorts of things. Trump is not winning more than 20% with any sizable minority group. No way in hell does he win the presidency. The only concerning factor in 2016 is how strong the "anti-establishment" appeal will be because Trump isn't winning the presidency on the white nationalism angle, but he can use his Washington outsider status effectively against Hillary.

Spoiler

An issue we could subvert by backing Bernie, but I digress.