Aaronrules380
Member
Perception is far more important than reality in elections. And calling yourself a "socialist" anything is political suicide in a US general election
April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Perception is far more important than reality in elections. And calling yourself a "socialist" anything is political suicide in a US general election
Why?
Bernie Sanders argues for public financing of all elections. That would inherently require some deviation from the logic that if tax payers foot the bill they all get a vote (otherwise why can't I vote in both primaries? Why can't I vote for congressional districts I don't live in if my tax dollars pay for their ballots? I could go on).
The system is established so that recognized "major parties" get funding for their primaries and major campaigns. The two parties happen to have a lock on what constitutes a "major party" but largely because the citizenry of the U.S. has willingly played along with the binary system the entire time. That isn't the fault of the two parties. If a third party was to rise to significant national prominence it would receive the same funding.
I say this as an independent who fully accepts that if I was to ever live in a closed primary state I would not be able to vote in the primary of the respective parties.
Historical data on this front is inherently flawed when assessing the current cycle because by mid-April we have typically seen both parties pretty well set on their nominee and move to opposing party messaging. Not only are we not at that point yet but the GOP has their single biggest boogiewoman opposite them versus a self-identified social "democrat". They know that if Sanders somehow gets the nomination even at the convention they can flood highly effective anti-Sanders messaging for three months and completely destroy him.
balladofwindfishes
Member
+ 1 Queen
It took 5 minutes. No lines. Some poor lady mad she was a Republican but had nobody to vote for was the only highlight of the day.
I was disappointed I didn't get to take an exit poll. I wanted to troll the results by being a first time voter millennial who voted for Hillary.
It was nice my dad was going out anyway, so we just swung over and I voted real fast. Had NY had same day registration, he probably would have voted as well, oh well.
Dash_Riprock
Member
boiled goose
good with gravy
The implementation hurdles and logistics are definitely a concern. As Obamacare showed. Not only in implementation but legal challenges.
Not disagreeing here. As I said I dont actually care much about Healthcare policy and the difference between the candidates.
Single payer is the ultimate longterm goal, Which Hillary supported over obama in 08.
MHWilliams
Member
It's in New York. Easy access. They're a phone call away.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It really is hilarious how disconnected people are from this simple point. It's like you can't imagine the difference between being accused of something and actually admitting to being something?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Has Bernie admitted to being a socialist?
Thequietone
Member
66% of his supporters don't want a tax increase on their income. It's okay if the 1% pay for it but not if they have skin in the game. Seriously, this country is filled with people that suffer from the mentality of "screw you I got mine".
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution
Does this indicate that he may do worse than excepted in NY tonight(Like Under 40%)? I don't think the black vote being up in NY is good for sanders.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yes, i know that. Which is why I asked if everything went perfectly, which people would actually see an increase in what they pay for taxes + healthcare?
Bernie s plans have challenges to put it mildly but he is not out to fuck the average American
It may cancel out with the youth vote being a bit higher than expexted. I still fully expect Clinton to win by 10-15%. The exit poll does nothing to change that, as there us noting too extreme pointing to one candidate doing vastly better than the next.
I think its usually more like "I already paid you a shitload, and now you want more?"
boiled goose
good with gravy
More worrying for Sanders is the old vote. Outside of the South he did better (relatively) with young black voters. Old people still go Hillary.
Im pretty sure that in single payer utopia You would end up paying less overall. Unless you are extremely wealthy.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Went eariler today was in and out took about 5 minutes.
maabus1999
Member
AntraxSuicide
Banned
That's not quite the problem. What Bernie is asking the public to do is get shot in the chest (higher taxes, for a lot of people REALLY high taxes), but he'll give you a great bullet-proof vest to wear first (cost-savings). The thing is, he's absolutely terrible at giving tangible proof of these savings. And if you can't give someone tangible proof that your vest works 100% of the time, no one is going to put it on and let you shoot them. People (especially after a national VA health care related ad campaign!) aren't going to trust you on those savings at all. I believe it's actually possible to work it out, but hell, even I have zero trust in Sanders to do it. His bad answers to the nitty-gritty of policy give me no confidence in him.
There's a reason that Obama has denied being a socialist every single time he's called that. Every single time. Because it's poison in this country. The word 'progressive' is now poison here for the average voter, let alone socialist. And Bernie doesn't get to say he isn't one. He's on tape saying he is, he's got his Castro blunder, and he took his honeymoon in the USSR. That's a Republican wet dream right there, and it's not even half of what they could blast him with.
Now, against Trump or Cruz, I think he'd still win. But turnout would scare the hell out of me. Sanders' camp makes a fuss about independents (who didn't matter to Obama), but the flipside of that are large groups of the Democratic coalition who don't seem to care for Sanders at all. Certainly aren't excited about him. If a Dem candidate can't excite minority voters, then that scares me.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Well there it is.gif
It's a bit better than '08, but only 1-2%, looking at past records.
Except according to this article the majority are alright with the proposed Tax increases proposed by Sanders
Where is this from?
Glad to see that we're doing the right thing in NY- Either way it shakes out.
Steve kornacki twitter
Aaronrules380
Member
Except according to this article the majority are alright with the proposed Tax increases proposed by Sanders
The majority are alright with what they think the increases entail, rather than what they would actually have to pay
Isn't Sanders pushing a 2% tax increase for everyone? Saving implies that you get money back somewhere that's more than 2% of your income.
But I was more referring to the "screw you" comments. I get the feeling a lot of people won't be happy until we are actually socialist. i.e. You're an asshole if you make anything more than <insert whatever I make> and don't give it to the poor.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
New York gets overly represented because they're a media hub.
Also they like ratings and wanna make it seem like this is the most important day ever. Until the next most important day ever.
The increase is 2.2% income tax and 6.2% payroll tax which replaces insurance.
Unless you think that employers would cut wages while paying less for healthcare - it seems 2.2% increase won't exactly be outside of the realms of what people are willing to pay.
If Bernie loses tonight, and I expect he will, I am officially off the Bernie train. I really don't like the way he has taken things, allowing things to get ugly when it's been obvious for a while he hasn't had much of a chance. He could have used his platform for good, spreading a good message and maybe pushing for a movement, but instead chose to attack Clinton and constantly complain about being treated unfairly. All he can do at this point if further damage any good he has done.
My thinking is he needs to drop out if he loses, and I know he won't, so I'm out. The hosts on MSNBC used to be positive towards Sanders but watching them tonight it is so obvious even they think Sanders has lost it.
My thinking is he needs to drop out if he loses, and I know he won't, so I'm out. The hosts on MSNBC used to be positive towards Sanders but watching them tonight it is so obvious even they think Sanders has lost it.
Which is nice and all but the general public can't tell the difference between a communist and a socialist. Just the fact the word socialist is there is enough.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
People don't usually mind message candidates, but they have to stay on message. His campaign (and as much as I now don't care for him, I doubt it was really Sanders' decision as much as it was Weaver/Devine's) going negative has been a bad thing for him. His favorables took a decent hit, and now less people are giving him the same time of day they used to be.
He can stay in until the convention, but a loss today and a blow-out next week would make it hard to stay positive
gutter_trash
Banned
Bernie recruited Tad Devine; expect him to get Dukakissed if he ever becomes the nominee
Yes, he calls himself a democratic socialist. He owns it. He prefaces it by explaining what that means, but when the label fits into a 5 second attack ad, the 2 minute explanation isn't going to matter.
In theory I would be ok with him staying in until the convention if he used the time to try and reach people and energize people. But like you said, if anything I can see his campaign being more negative. I don't want that. I believe in Bernie's message. I'm starting to believe less and less in the man.
Wow, why is that? I'm really surprised
Fenderputty
Banned
The majority of American's couldn't tell you the difference between communism, socialism or Social Democrat. They're all one in the same.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yes to the "majority". But let's stick to the facts on NeoGAF.
He has not admitted to nor owned the socialist label.
shinra-bansho
Member
He calls himself a democratic socialist.
Which is not a social democrat.
Which is not a socialist Democrat, which is just two words juxtaposed.
Aaron Strife
Banned
What's the point? Youre not discussing how NeoGAF would vote, you're discussing how the American people would vote. If the average American doesn't draw a distinction between "socialist" and "socialist Democrat/Democratic socialist" then Bernie using any of those terms to describe himself amounts to the same thing.
I voted for Bernie and would support the shit out of him in a general but I know this would be an attack and I know it would be more lethal than it was against Obama.
Hot sauce.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Perception is reality in politics.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Whoops! Democratic socialist. My bad!
Hectic day at work and on my phone.
Actually upon further reading both terms are interchangeable.
I agree perceptions matter.
I do think he should have much better answers to these questions. (Something along the lines of Im also a capitalist just not crony capitalism yadi yada)
Look at my posts. I agree perceptions do matter. I do question to what degree these accusations will stick. General election polling still good in mid april.
My objection was to the posters saying he has owned the label or is a socialist, when in interviews he has denied that and he is a democratic socialist. They were not saying the differences will be irrelevant , they were making incorrect claims.
shinra-bansho
Member
Which still implies government ownership of the means of production. Adding democratic as an adjective doesn't actually change the part that the US electorate would reject.
Even though his policies don't really reflect this.
Being a "Democratic Socialist" means you're a socialist. Democratic describes what kind of socialist you are.
Aaronrules380
Member
Being a captalist and being any kind of socialist is kind of mutually exclusive
boiled goose
good with gravy
Fair. Though the voodoo socialist label is not really applicable to the modern day version existing in Europe today, which is what Bernie (IMO in some ways mistakenly) identifies with. When he uses it he basically clarifies that his views apply to things like social security, healthcare, and education, which is basically what we see in Europe. He hasn't really pushed for any nationalization, as you point out.
I disagree here, since no person or country is going to go completely one way or another. You might for example be a socialist when it comes to healthcare, due to its somewhat inelastic demand + moral reasons, but you might be a capitalist when it comes to the entertainment industry or w.e.
shinra-bansho
Member
There is no modern day version in Europe. There are for the most part capitalist economies that have been tempered by social democrat governments. Contrary to this weird belief on here, sometimes by Europeans themselves inexplicably, Europe is not under socialist rule.
Fenderputty
Banned
Sure, but what's the point when the topic is national electability?
He has called himself a democratic socialist though, which is all the ammo you would need for a hundred attack ads.
- Status