Support NeoGAF

[TyrantII]

it is important to know your history.

Or just how government works.

Things would be a lot rosier if people came out and rewarded Obama in the midterms for Saving the economy and passing healthcare. As he says, he can't do it alone.

And for the 2016 election, the next Democratic president is effectively going to be a lame duck with the current crisis in the house. Their chief objective over the next 4 years will be protecting Obama's legacy.

First off, Bernies talent to energize and organize needs to be put elsewhere, to build the party for 2018 and the future. We need progressives at every level, and right now state governments are even more pitiful than the house in DC. Second, Clinton's path to the nomination is much easier and much less based on wishful thinking and maybes. She's a slam dunk.

IMO Clinton is the right choice to preserve the gains Obama did make, and Bernie needs to be running the DNC and building the party apparatus to GOTV on off year elections and contest everything. He's honestly more important than Hillary, and needed elsewhere.

 

[Shake Appeal]

It's thinking like this that will lead the GOP straight to the White House. If not in 2016, then another year. People who think Bernie can easily beat somebody like Rubio are delusional.

And if you continue to pass on this statement, you eventually reach a point where many won't even bother to vote because lolGOP, which in turn, puts them right in the White House.

"The GOP in its current incarnation will struggle to win a national election in our lifetimes" is not the same as "Bernie can easily beat somebody like Rubio." It's also not the same as "The GOP won't win a national election in our lifetimes."

Seriously, though, Democrats need to quit being shook. Time, demographics, millennials, continued urbanization, increasing religious (and irreligious) pluralism, immigration, the media, the electoral college and climate change are all on their side.

The Republican party will become something quite different, or it will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Its current support is, well, insupportable; at least one-fifth of its voting base is dead weight from a political and policy perspective. The party can't get elected with them, and it can't get elected without them.

On the other hand, a lot of statehouses and governors' mansions will stay red for some time to come, which is a shame. But that just helps to heighten the contradictions, I guess!

 

[dabig2]

Republicans have a serious demographic problem. Not to mention that the culture war that brought them great success starting with Nixon and lasting till Obama's term has been lost.

http://observer.com/2015/09/in-2016-gop-faces-daunting-task-of-breaching-the-blue-wall/

Republicans hoping to recapture the White House in 2016 do have one key historical trend in their favor: Since 1948, a party seeking to win more than two consecutive presidential elections has failed on every occasion but one. Adlai Stevenson, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Gerald Ford, Al Gore and John McCain have all fallen victim to the tendency of American voters to give one party or the other enough rope to hang itself, and then set the clock for the incoming party’s turn at the electoral gallows four or eight years hence. Only George H.W. Bush (R) bucked the trend in 1988, handily defeating Michael Dukakis (D) to win a third consecutive term at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for Team Red.

However, there is a countervailing trend that is equally compelling and much more encouraging for supporters of the blue team. Pundits have begun referring to the 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, that Democrats have won for six consecutive presidential elections as “The Blue Wall.” These 19 jurisdictions, at present, account for 242 of the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. That’s just a hair short of 90 percent, and assuming it holds for a seventh consecutive election, it puts the Democrats just one swing state (Florida) away from victory.

[...]

Basically the Republicans have to over-perform and win the national vote by 2-3%. They have to do this with demographics that make even the 2004 election look ancient. It's a very tall order and basically something big externally has to happen for the Republicans to have a shot of stealing the Presidency (something like another massive economic collapse or a giant terrorist attack).

 

[AlphaDump]

Or just how government works.

Things would be a lot rosier if people came out and rewarded Obama in the midterms for Saving the economy and passing healthcare. As he says, he can't do it alone.

And for the 2016 election, the next Democratic president is effectively going to be a lame duck with the current crisis in the house. Their chief objective over the next 4 years will be protecting Obama's legacy.

First off, Bernies talent to energize and organize needs to be put elsewhere, to build the party for 2018 and the future. We need progressives at every level, and right now state governments are even more pitiful than the house in DC. Second, Clinton's path to the nomination is much easier and much less based on wishful thinking and maybes. She's a slam dunk.

IMO Clinton is the right choice to preserve the gains Obama did make, and Bernie needs to be running the DNC and building the party apparatus to GOTV on off year elections and contest everything. He's honestly more important than Hillary, and needed elsewhere.

Well said.

I am happy there is a surging interest in the younger generations, though I worry what happens come midterms, and the ever-present "cut the nose to spite the face" mentality towards Clinton.

It is important to not become disenfranchised by buying into the marketing of not having a voice. Voting is so important, because even if you lose, you are still a tangible and measurable metric for data analytics to roll forward in the next election cycles.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Republicans have a serious demographic problem. Not to mention that the culture war that brought them great success starting with Nixon and lasting till Obama's term has been lost.

http://observer.com/2015/09/in-2016-gop-faces-daunting-task-of-breaching-the-blue-wall/


Basically the Republicans have to over-perform and win the national vote by 2-3%. They have to do this with demographics that make even the 2004 election look ancient. It's a very tall order and basically something big externally has to happen for the Republicans to have a shot of stealing the Presidency (something like another massive economic collapse or a giant terrorist attack).

Pretty much. There are only 6 true swing states left - Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and to a slightly lesser extent, North Carolina and Nevada. The Republicans have to go 5 for 6 to win the presidency; and every year it gets harder because all of those states are trending more Democratic over time (barring Ohio, which is stagnant). This isn't to say the Republicans can't win; just that they are very unlikely to win given the current state of their party.

 

[fantomena]

Sanders has a life history of bashing the Democrats. The party doesn't forget

I need sources on this.

 

[Dude Abides]

Well said.

I am happy there is a surging interest in the younger generations, though I worry what happens come midterms, and the ever-present "cut the nose to spite the face" mentality towards Clinton.

It is important to not become disenfranchised by buying into the marketing of not having a voice. Voting is so important, because even if you lose, you are still a tangible and measurable metric for data analytics to roll forward in the next election cycles.

Hard to see the Sanders folks turning out to vote Bernie in the midterms, given how many of them are college kids and how many of them seem to actively despise the Democratic party and mainstream Democrats.

 

[gutter_trash]

And the national Democratic party has a recent history of getting their asses handed to them and tucking their tails between their legs and telling the far right "we're sorry" for campaigning at all.

Just like McGovern, Humphrey and Dukakis... right?

 

[fantomena]

Sanders is disagreeing with things with the democrats because the democrats is very right-sided in a lot of things and Sanders is left-sided.

Just like McGovern, Humphrey and Dukakis... right?

Hi,

Still waiting on them sources.

Thanks

 

[Moofers]

Isn't Young Turks basically a joke site? I was under the impression that it's the liberal equivalent to places like Breitbart.

Ive heard that sentiment expressed here before, but in that particular video (and the one from two days ago that made rounds) he doesn't say anything that isn't true.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Hard to see the Sanders folks turning out to vote Bernie in the midterms, given how many of them are college kids and how many of them seem to actively despise the Democratic party and mainstream Democrats.

They'll turn out for those candidates willing to support progressive causes. Bernie basically leads the charge in that direction, his own viewpoints are the ones that are reflected by many liberals, and independents.

Ive heard that sentiment expressed here before, but in that particular video (and the one from two days ago that made rounds) he doesn't say anything that isn't true.

Its usually said by people who are not liberal and try to paint liberals as 'extremists' because they(outlets such as TYT and Secular Talk) point out crazy theories like the influencing force of money in politics, or establishment figures trying to hold onto power even though they are not for the people.

Its unfortunate such mindsets get dragged around on here, even by people who should know better

 

[Dude Abides]

They'll turn out for those candidates willing to support progressive causes. Bernie basically leads the charge in that direction, his own viewpoints are the ones that are reflected by many liberals, and independents.

That will be great for keeping Vermont and Massachusetts blue but useless for retaking the House and state legislatures and governorships.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Re: Bernie being needed elsewhere, I agree. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing if Bernie loses IF he keeps a lot of his supporters on his side and galvanizes them to be more politically engaged going forward, the way Ron Paul supporters stuck with him long after even the remotest shred of electoral prospects had fallen away from him.

 

[noshten]

If Hillary is going to continue attacking single payer she has no place on the ticket, and people will desert her in a faster tempo than they did last time around.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

He's honestly more important than Hillary, and needed elsewhere.

Exactly. I wouldn't mind him being staffed under Hillary. It sucks that he can't be the Vice President, but there are many roles where he can be a strong influence in the Democratic party.

 

[Dude Abides]

If Hillary is going to continue attacking single payer she has no place on the ticket, and people will desert her in a faster tempo than they did last time around.

She's attacking his 2013 plan, which was pretty dumb.

 

[fantomena]

She's attacking his 2013 plan, which was pretty dumb.

What's the differences between his 2013 plan and his new one? Haven't read them.

 

[boiled goose]

Ive heard that sentiment expressed here before, but in that particular video (and the one from two days ago that made rounds) he doesn't say anything that isn't true.

I'm actually surprised the hatred tyt gets on GAF. Yes they are very liberal but they are very very transparent about it.

When they do news commentary they try to cite the original sources and it seems they provide honest personal commentary.

Their discussions can be nuanced in a way not seen in the mainstream media.

Of course you can disagree with their conclusions and opinions, but calling them a joke site is definitely inaccurate. Im pretty sure they are the most popular online news channel and I also think they draw more views than present day TV news channels. Also, the superpac they put together has passed resolutions in 4 states to call for a constitutional convention to get money and politics.

Again, disagreement is valid, but dismissing them as a joke means you are uniformed.

 

[onipex]

What's the differences between his 2013 plan and his new one? Haven't read them.

I don't think his current plan is complete.

 

[deadlast]

I don't think he can. I think people will vote against Hillary rather than for him. If that makes sense.

Anyways I'm hoping for a Clinton/Sanders ticket

 

[Dude Abides]

What's the differences between his 2013 plan and his new one? Haven't read them.

It's not clear because he hasn't put out a detailed plan. With respect to Hillary's criticism, he hasn't explained whether he would still want 50 separate single payer systems established and administered by the states.

 

[Inuhanyou]

She's attacking his 2013 plan, which was pretty dumb.

His plan isn't even complete yet. She attacked the notion of universal healthcare, and don't lie about that. By definition, what he has said definitively in his plan is that federal law would supersede state law if those states refused to adhere to the guidelines for the federal plan.

By definition, you are parroting what Hillary claimed which doesnt even have factual basis

 

[Dude Abides]

His plan isn't even complete yet. She attacked the notion of universal healthcare, and don't lie about that. By definition, what he has said definitively in his plan is that federal law would supersede state law if those states refused to adhere to the guidelines for the federal plan.

By definition, you are parroting what Hillary claimed which doesnt even have factual basis

By definition, having 50 separate public health care systems is wasteful and dumb. Don't lie about that. By definition.

 

[TheFatOne]

I'm actually surprised the hatred tyt gets on GAF. Yes they are very liberal but they are very very transparent about it.

When they do news commentary they try to cite the original sources and it seems they provide honest personal commentary.

Their discussions can be nuanced in a way not seen in the mainstream media.

Of course you can disagree with their conclusions and opinions, but calling them a joke site is definitely inaccurate. Im pretty sure they are the most popular online news channel and I also think they draw more views than present day TV news channels. Also, the superpac they put together has passed resolutions in 4 states to call for a constitutional convention to get money and politics.

Again, disagreement is valid, but dismissing them as a joke means you are uniformed.

The Young Turks is fucking garbage. They like to pretend they are better than the other media outlets when they do the same exact shit these other idiots do. Lost all respect for them after Cenk Uygur completely misrepresented Sam Harris, and then went on a smear campaign against him. Don't agree with Harris on a ton of things, but Cenk had no business going on a smear campaign like that. If that's how the liberal media wants to portray itself I want no part of that bullshit. Cenk is a fucking joke, and by extension that makes The Young Turks a joke.

 

[boiled goose]

The Young Turks is fucking garbage. They like to pretend they are better than the other media outlets when they do the same exact shit these other idiots do. Lost all respect for them after Cenk Uygur completely misrepresented Sam Harris, and then went on a smear campaign against him. Don't agree with Harris on a ton of things, but Cenk had no business going on a smear campaign like that. If that's how the liberal media wants to portray itself I want no part of that bullshit. Cenk is a fucking joke, and by extension that makes The Young Turks a joke.

If there is one thing i slightly agree with you on is that Cenk paraprhases too much when quoting people for my taste.

That said, in terms of the substance of the debate topic I actually fall on Cenks side rather than the Harris Maher side.

I do think they are different at least from TV news. Im pretty sure that's almost unarguable really. You are free to hate it. I dont think they are some particular amazing news commentary channel, but i appreciate what seems to come off as honesty. I actually think their interviews are my least favorite, because Cenk "leads the witness" too much and then paraphrase misquotes them.

I agreed with you on a subtle point, yet i disagree with the overall conclusion you reach. We are off topic, so feel free to pm me if you want to discuss further.

 

[JustenP88]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

 

[Funky Papa]

Ooop.

 

[Inuhanyou]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

Hahahahahaha, that's so rich

 

[fantomena]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

Lol, damn.

 

[rjinaz]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

Ether.

Seriously what was the Clinton campaign thinking?

 

[Chariot]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

Holy shit. Now that's some heavy bern.

 

[FredX72]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

 

[Team Alucard]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXvRe49qces

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

Lol this quote greatly exemplifies why I don't think I would ever vote for Clinton

 

[HStallion]

I'll give Bernie some real credit for picking someone great to host his twitter feed. Some real gold comes out there.

 

[Gestahl]

I'll give Bernie credit for holding onto a thank you card for 23 years

 

[shadowfall]

I certainly hope so. I am all for free public education for colleges. Good Luck Bernie.

 

[HStallion]

I'll give Bernie credit for holding onto a thank you card for 23 years

Is it that odd? My parents have stuff like that picture they've saved for 40 to 50 years.

 

[HylianTom]

Lol this quote greatly exemplifies why I don't think I would ever vote for Clinton

Absolutely.

If I don't get my way, I'd be happy to sentence my candidate's vision to death, too. If I can't get 100% of what I want in 2016, then preserving the possibility of success in 2020, 2024, and beyond doesn't really appeal to me.

Making sure that my causes - causes I'm supposedly serious about - live to fight another day? Naaah. No thanks.

 

[noshten]

I agree with Bernie slightly more than Hillary on the issues.

But I'm also convinced that, in these political circumstances, with Congressional gridlock very likely to continue well into the next administration, a Bernie presidency wouldn't look dramatically different from a Hillary presidency or a Biden presidency. We're not electing the President into a vacuum; we're putting him/her into a very specific political scenario, with very specific limitations on what policies are politically achievable.

Given this lack of strong difference, I look at probability to win the general election. And this "fake", this "joke" Hillary is still outperforming Bernie in general election matchups. If that should change such that Bernie begins to outperform Hillary in general election polling consistently, I won't hesitate to change preference in a heartbeat. Any of the major Democratic candidates will do fine policy-wise in this specific situation, so probability to win the general takes precedence in my mind - especially given how close elections have been in the post-Reagan era, where a swing of a few points can alter the outcome.

Seems pretty logical to me.

I enjoy the irony, it's almost as the majority of Clinton supporters are invoking her in every post they make

 

[NeoXChaos]

I enjoy the irony

He's voting for Trump btw.

 

[DR2K]

He could if he was going to win the primary. He most likely isn't.

 

[HylianTom]

I enjoy the irony, it's almost as the majority of Clinton supporters are invoking her in every post they make

How about addressing my original post?

You have no real answer to that, do you?

(Yep. Voting for the opponent. I trust my fellow Dems, and will abide by their pick.)

 

[The Maverick]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

This is the best thing in 2016 so far. Well, after the SOTU address. But still, hot damn. And that video too.

 

[AlphaDump]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312?s=09

you should see what Hillary was trying to implement in 1993. Obamacare isn't a name that materialized out of thin air.


____care

 

[noshten]

How about addressing my original post?

You have no real answer to that, do you?

(Yep. Voting for the opponent. I trust my fellow Dems, and will abide by their pick.)

Why should I address your point, if your opinion changes on a whim. You've said one thing in the summer and another thing as soon as the things I had long held as eventual outcome were starting to come to fruition. You have your views I have mine and obviously neither opinion is going to change - so it's an exercise in futility to repeat the very same thing I've been saying since the summer. If you believe that Hillary is the only person capable of beating Trump, Cruz and shifting focus on the continuation of a progressive agenda by attacking Single Payer repeating my original opinion won't change that.
If you guys purposefully want to rile up people that's your choice, but a lot of people disagree with the electability you keep propping up or that somehow Clinton would accomplished more than Bernie in the White House or would fire up people to show up next election.
If you feel that going negative on Sanders by lying is going to lead to anything but crumbling numbers and support among likely voters you've obviously not learned anything from 08.

 

[digdug2k]

Ether.
Seriously what was the Clinton campaign thinking?

? That she was driving health care reform back then, and Sanders worked with her to do it? I don't think Hillary has come out as anti-single payer. Just anti-Bernie's single payer plan (and also a realist who knows that single payer isn't going to happen in the next 8 years).

I don't think Bernie will do well in the general election. It scares me a bit to see the D's pushing towards him. I wouldn't mind if he won, but I think he's got a far greater shot at losing than Clinton does.

 

[Blader]

I'll give Bernie credit for holding onto a thank you card for 23 years

A thank you card from the then First Lady and since one of the most prominent public officials of the last 20 years.

 

[HylianTom]

If you believe that Hillary is the only person capable of beating Trump, Cruz and shifting focus on the continuation of a progressive agenda by attacking Single Payer repeating my original opinion won't change that.

That is something I don't necessarily believe. Sanders can win against those nominees, indeed. I don't deny that one bit.

I'll let my original point - and your continued inability/refusal to address it - speak for itself. It speaks volumes to your alleged seriousness on those causes you claim to value.

 

[boiled goose]

? That she was driving health care reform back then, and Sanders worked with her to do it? I don't think Hillary has come out as anti-single payer. Just anti-Bernie's single payer plan (and also a realist who knows that single payer isn't going to happen in the next 8 years).

I don't think Bernie will do well in the general election. It scares me a bit to see the D's pushing towards him. I wouldn't mind if he won, but I think he's got a far greater shot at losing than Clinton does.

In head to head matchup polls he does better than Clinton against trump rubio cruz and jeb.

Anti establishment fervor is winning. Why would an establishment as they come candidate from the democrats do better??

Your thoughts Dont match the polling. I dont think Hillary will be able to push back against Donald Trump when he says that she is a corrupt wall street sellout that he has previously bribed and he represents the people? Seriously? What's her answer to that?