Support NeoGAF

[Zornack]

But we're talking about Henry Kissinger, as I said he's the man responsible for the bombing of Cambodia and revolution in Chile.

He's guilty of war crimes.

But we're not talking about Clinton holding up Kissinger as the defacto best secretary of all time who everyone should try to imitate.

Two past Secreties were nice to one another. There's nothing more here.

 

[rjinaz]

I am not "lost", I'm clearly understanding the obstacles that we must overcome in order to get policies like Bernie's in place. Because someone who has only ideology but no clear plan to implement that ideology is essentially worthless as a candidate. He's basically Ron Paul at that point.

Yes, we can change the constitution and we can change our representatives. But you are still not understanding why that's not going to happen right now. That's the important part: it's not happening right now or the next four years when the Presidential (whoever that is) is elected. And it's not because we think it's impossible to ever happen, but because certain things have to first occur for that change to be possible.

a.) Democrats have to get control of redistricting from the GOP
b.) In order to do that, they have to have people participate in the census and the results of that census must be favorable to Democrats.
c.) But the next census is not until 2020.

The alternative is that they'd need to win some insanely unlikely mandate during mid-term elections, winning something like 56% of the vote in order to outpace just how much GOP have gerrymandered the election cycle and gain most seats (and that's just the first hurdle: then we'd have to hope the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" aren't a big constituency of that new election class, gumming up the works at every turn as they did on Health Care reform). That's simply not going to happen once again if you understand our political system of the moment, and no amount of conversations are going to be able to change that within the next three years which is what would be required to get in under the next mid-terms.

To me, it seems like you have a great misunderstanding of American politics:



You're misunderstanding the nuance of my position based on this. Because it's not impossible, it's just not possible at the moment. That's why I was talking about the right time and place sort of thing. And that's decidedly American: even Boehner understood that the history of American politics is the history of incremental change. People compromise and get little victories, until eventually it adds up to a huge victory.

What Bernie supporters want is some massive change overnight, which is what many Obama supporters unrealistically wanted from him as well. But the reality is that's not how our system is set up. It is very rare when the conditions are right for a candidate to put that big of an imprint on our system (say, like FDR did due to WWII and the Depression).

Right now the reality is that were Bernie to beat the slim odds and get elected, none of his policies would get passed. And that's not giving in to anything, that's understanding how our system works. Eventually the country will be in a place where a candidate like Bernie can be elected and have his policies put into place. It's just not now, and won't be for at least another decade or two.

No not really, at least not this Bernie supporter. I like it that people are talking about his policies and even opening their minds to them. I like it that the word socialism is being used as though it's not a dirty word. I think you underestimate how big of an effect Bernie's campaign will have in the long run even after he loses. Because there is a lot of support and his campaign is successful for what it is. How successful it will ultimately be and whether it will start some type of grass movement is unknown for now, but we'll have a clearer picture after the election.

I am so tired of seeing people bring up that internet poll about not voting for a socialist president. The same people will go an about about how online polls are absolutely pointless as long as it is a poll in favor of Bernie Sanders.

 

[Veritigo_X]

In the first example, Hillary Clinton comes out of nowhere with this lie about her courage under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was utterly fabricated, and this kind of gaffe could normally be career ending. Hillary Clinton conceded that she misspoke, nothing more. I think her motive to lie about the sniper attack is open to interpretation and none of it leads me to anything encouraging.

Henry Kissinger is that fellow responsible for bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam war, as well as an attempted revolution in Chile. Hillary was shilling for his new book in 2014.

You haven't dismissed my point. Why did Hillary Clinton go to his wedding? Donald Trump admits to giving all of this money to politicians. Donald Trump is a terrible, disgusting person.

Hillary really gets along with neocons. You could say they're in bed together.

By her own admission, she said she thought Trump's wedding would be fun. Reading about it, it actually sounded like it would've been fun. Like I said, it was a large NYC event with many prominent locals attending.

The happy couple and their guests, including Today show hosts Katie Couric and Matt Lauer, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, and television personalities Star Jones, Barbara Walters, Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa, then celebrated with an extravagant reception inside a 17,000-sq.-ft. ballroom built at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Palm Beach, Fla. resort. Guests dined on steamed shrimp salad, beef tenderloin, caviar, lobster rolls, Grand Marnier chocolate truffle cake and Cristal champagne.

At the end of the meal, singer Billy Joel serenaded the crowd with "Just the Way You Are" – and made up lyrics about Trump to the tune of, "The Lady is a Tramp."

Asked what he thought of the lavish wedding, American Idol judge Simon Cowell, told PEOPLE at the reception: "I give it a nine."

It's a wedding, not a political rally.

Your Kissinger argument doesn't really point to corruption either. He said she's a better SoS her ("less chaotic"), she wrote a review for his book. Did you actually read it? She says she disagrees with him but the book is good.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

She embarrassed the Republicans after like a zillion hours of withering attacks to her face over Benghazi. That's not the issue we have to worry about.

1 dodged attack to 20 critical hits does not a good candidate make.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Sure. But that was delivered by Obama - precisely because Clinton couldn't cut it by herself.

Ignoring the fact that Obama was the actual President, and not just the First Lady, Obama wouldn't have gotten the ACA through the 1993 Congress either, and Hillary would've got the ACA through the 2009 Congress. It's not their abilities, it's the Congresses that were elected with them.

CNN/ORC - 42% find trustworthy to 57% do not.
Quinnipac - 35% to 61%
Fox - 35% to 59%

'murica don't trust Clinton.

Not saying this is my view, I think she's as trustworthy as she needs to be; but I'm saying that frankly Clinton has been pisspoor at actually managing to avoid Republican attacks. Hardly makes me think she'll handle in office negotiations well when she gets painted into a corner so easily.

...considering the GOP and most of the media and even a portion of the Left has spent the last twenty years painting Hillary as the most evil bitch in American history, these are good numbers. A lesser person would've been already destroyed politically instead of the odds on favorite to be inaugurated in 14 months.

I definitely understand it. I don't think you understand my perspective.

John Doe is a person in a district that due to gerrymandering ensures that the house is filled with Republicans. You need to change the people in these districts.

It's OK to say you don't think Bernie Sanders can do it, but that's the only way you're going to influence real change by changing John Doe. And Hillary is not even targeting these people. Bernie is at least trying to change the thoughts and priorities of everyone by making the issues political items.

Nah, you don't change Doe, especially after decades. You wait for Doe to die off, for the most part. Actual political science shows that people don't change their spots - once they've voted the same way three or four times, they almost never change their disposition. Again - facts, not dreams.

 

[AlphaDump]

Sure. But that was delivered by Obama - precisely because Clinton couldn't cut it by herself.



CNN/ORC - 42% find trustworthy to 57% do not.
Quinnipac - 35% to 61%
Fox - 35% to 59%

'murica don't trust Clinton.

Not saying this is my view, I think she's as trustworthy as she needs to be; but I'm saying that frankly Clinton has been pisspoor at actually managing to avoid Republican attacks. Hardly makes me think she'll handle in office negotiations well when she gets painted into a corner so easily.

Shes been under the most scrutinty. Id argue she has been by far the most tranparent as well. The media needs a horse race. Blaming the amount of attacks on hilary and not the ones attacking sure is odd.

 

[dramatis]

Pretty poorly, to be honest. Her only major initiative Hillarycare went nowhere, and she's now believed to be dishonest, untrustworthy and out of touch by more than half of American voters. That hardly speaks for her political adroitness.

She was someone who tried, and is now hated for it.

Ironically, Bernie has done nothing big despite his long career and had sacrificed nothing, and he is now praised for it.

She handled them for twenty years? We invaded Iraq in 2003. Hillary voted for it for some reason. She voted for the patriot act too.

Why yes, she's handled Republicans for 20 years. Have you met someone else who has been vilified for as long and graced the spite of the Republicans as well as she has?

If she chose to vote for Iraq or the patriot act, what does that have to do with handling Republicans? Unless you can make a case for her buckling to Republican pressure at the time to vote for those two things, I don't see how it's relevant.

I also don't see how attending a wedding a proof of character. Ruth Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia are known for being great friends. Does that mean Ginsberg is a filthy liar, untrustworthy, and a sellout if she went on vacation with Scalia and dared to enjoy his company?

 

[Amir0x]

1 dodged attack to 20 critical hits does not a good candidate make.

A critical hit means she would be, ya know, critically damaged.

She is leading in the poll averages against every candidate. She is the massive frontrunner in the Democratic primary still. And when the attacks were to her face by the Republicans people think she's going to have problems dealing with, she embarrassed them. Rather than those times they lobbed weak attacks at her from a distance and she basically just ignored them to her poll numbers went back up. All this on top of the fact that 95% of all Republican attacks have been against Hillary for YEARS now since they assumed she'd be the nominee. Bernie is still hardly attacked compared to Hillary by the establishment candidates. He doesn't even know what a presidential campaign would look like once he is actually on the defensive being attacked 24/7. The few times he has been have been truly troubling to say the least.

So, seems she's still weavin'.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ignoring the fact that Obama was the actual President, and not just the First Lady, Obama wouldn't have gotten the ACA through the 1993 Congress either, and Hillary would've got the ACA through the 2009 Congress. It's not their abilities, it's the Congresses that were elected with them.

...the 1993 Congress where the Democrats had a majority in both the Senate and the Congress? No, that's some revisionist bullshit. Hillarycare failed because of the Republican "Harry and Louise" attack ads, which Clinton proved utterly incapable of responding to or doing anything about it, which made Blue Dog Democrats worried about their seats. Bill Clinton *actively* campaigned on getting healthcare reform, and the 1993 Democrats were overwhelmingly in favour of it because Bill was so popular he'd carried half of them into office with him; it failed precisely because Hillary wasn't able to cut the mustard in terms of presenting a compelling political image and just let the Republicans savage it.

...considering the GOP and most of the media and even a portion of the Left has spent the last twenty years painting Hillary as the most evil bitch in American history, these are good numbers. A lesser person would've been already destroyed politically instead of the odds on favorite to be inaugurated in 14 months.

So your response to "nobody actually seems to think very highly of your candidate", is "it's okay, they've not thought strongly about her for a really long time!".

ok.gif

 

[PhoenixDark]

Then you do think less of Americans.

As you should, given Americans are largely ignorant and apathetic. This isn't some idealistic game, it's reality. A republican congressman in a conservative district is going to mirror what the majority of his district wants, and what national interest groups want. If his district becomes more liberal he could be ousted by a democrat. But that takes a lot of work on the grassroots, and even that might not work if the district is gerrymandered well enough.

Change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. Which is what new liberal activists - be they Sanders supporters or BLM supporters - don't get. You have to start on the local and state level. The Sanders "revolution" is entirely focused on one man. Even Obama's 2008 campaign wasn't this insular.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

But we're not talking about Clinton holding up Kissinger as the defacto best secretary of all time who everyone should try to imitate.

Two past Secreties were nice to one another. There's nothing more here.

You're talking about Clinton being nice to someone guilty of crimes against humanity as if it's something I should be ashamed of mentioning.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

By her own admission, she said she thought Trump's wedding would be fun. Reading about it, it actually sounded like it would've been fun. Like I said, it was a large NYC event with many prominent locals attending.



It's a wedding, not a political rally.

Your Kissinger argument doesn't really point to corruption either. He said she's a better SoS her ("less chaotic"), she wrote a review for his book. Did you actually read it? She says she disagrees with him but the book is good.

Trump is about as fun as being punched in the face by Trump. The fun is only just getting started with the 2016 race though.

She says she disagrees with him but the book is good?? That is discomforting... Kissinger was into bombing innocent women and children.

Why yes, she's handled Republicans for 20 years. Have you met someone else who has been vilified for as long and graced the spite of the Republicans as well as she has?

If she chose to vote for Iraq or the patriot act, what does that have to do with handling Republicans? Unless you can make a case for her buckling to Republican pressure at the time to vote for those two things, I don't see how it's relevant.

You answered this yourself because the fact that she helped the neocons make the US an altogether more repressive place is absolutely relevant now that she wishes to be the next President too.

 

[Tabris]

Nah, you don't change Doe, especially after decades. You wait for Doe to die off, for the most part. Actual political science shows that people don't change their spots - once they've voted the same way three or four times, they almost never change their disposition. Again - facts, not dreams.

This thinking is why America is gridlocked politically and will be for decades to come.

Each side thinks they can't change each other.

This doesn't happen in most other modern democratic nations. They go through large shifts in the political spectrum as each individual voter evaluates the political platform of each party against their own priorities. Canada went from a conservative majority to a liberal majority just this fall.

EDIT - I have talked to a lot of Americans from close to half of your states over the last decade due to business travel, and most Republicans I've met, while being ignorant on a lot of things (I find this an American thing in general), are not that extreme and just really care about fiscal conservatism and their individual taxes more then anything else. These aren't old white people unable to change, they are people my age.

 

[KingK]

I'm saying that Sanders would be entirely ineffective in passing legislation versus a more pragmatic approach that a Clinton presidency will have.



Read above, a Sanders presidency will pass jack and negatively impact the entire ticket. But you seem to be an expert on the minority experience in America, especially how policy affects Hispanics in the Southern US, so surely you can understand how that would affect us.

What makes you think Clinton will be able to magically pass shit that Bernie can't, or that Bernie is not pragmatic? Neither of them are winning the House, but this narrative of Bernie being an ideologue unwilling to compromise is just not true.

He says what his ideals are but doesn't let perfect be the enemy of good, and is willing to compromise to get the closest thing to his ideal as possible in the current system. He's been involved in plenty of bipartisan legislation, possibly even more than Clinton. Most recently a veterans bill with McCain, afaik.

It's just odd that two of the most frequent criticisms of Bernie/his supporters i see here are "he'll never be able to pass anything he says! At least Hillary will do something," and "Hilary and Bernie have the same positions on virtually everything anyway! " which seem contradictory. If they supposedly share the same ideas, why would one have an easier time passing it than the other?

Anyone with a D behind his/her name is going to be stonewalled by the Rs in Congress. Let's not pretend otherwise. In this era, the only way progessive policy will get through is by sheer force of numbers.

Basically, yep.

 

[Amir0x]

This thinking is why America is gridlocked politically and will be for decades to come.

No, that's not why America is gridlocked politically and not why it will be for decades. Christ. That's not even a factor that ranks compared to the actual hurdles that must be overcome. You know, real world hurdles for which no amount of fairy tales about how totally rad other political systems are and how America should be more like them is going to change?

 

[Foffy]

Pretty poorly, to be honest. Her only major initiative Hillarycare went nowhere, and she's now believed to be dishonest, untrustworthy and out of touch by more than half of American voters. That hardly speaks for her political adroitness.

I don't mind her trying. I do mind she's very much the Wall Street candidate and even seems to fall out of line for even some of Obama's endgame goals, like single payer.

I feel she is mainly a significantly lesser of the evils in terms of candidate and directions, but not one I can consider good and meaningful in and of itself. Bernie would be the same, but more for the climate he'd be inheriting, not the slime around shady associations.

Gotta muck through filth for the time being.

 

[johnny956]

I definitely understand it. I don't think you understand my perspective.

John Doe is a person in a district that due to gerrymandering ensures that the house is filled with Republicans. You need to change the people in these districts.

It's OK to say you don't think Bernie Sanders can do it, but that's the only way you're going to influence real change by changing John Doe. And Hillary is not even targeting these people. Bernie is at least trying to change the thoughts and priorities of everyone by making the issues political items.

You clearly don't understand how Gerrymandering works. My state lost a house seat after the 2010 census. Guess what they did. They combined the 2 democrats districts into one super majority democratic district and even moved the other conservative districts around so they are even stronger for them. Some of these districts are up to 90% for one party and democrats won't even run in some districts. Overnight change isn't happening in the House for sure and Bernie isn't going to change that. I'll be voting for Bernie for sure but doubt he's going to win the nomination.

 

[Tabris]

You clearly don't understand how Gerrymandering works. My state lost a house seat after the 2010 census. Guess what they did. They combined the 2 democrats districts into one super majority democratic district and even moved the other conservative districts around so they are even stronger for them. Some of these districts are up to 90% for one party and democrats won't even run in some districts. Overnight change isn't happening in the House for sure and Bernie isn't going to absolutely nothing to change that. I'll be voting for Bernie for sure but doubt he's going to win the nomination.

I understand what gerrymandering is (it's not a hard concept to get ). I am saying if you can change the individuals. If you can change the people in that 90% in those districts. Then it doesn't matter where the district map is or how it's changed for political benefit of one party.

Sure, Republicans stay in power in the house, but that 90% you speak about has some new priorities that the party needs to address. You need to give new political priorities to that 90%. Getting them to ask their representatives about how they afford to send their kids to school, why their wage in their new job is lower, and how they can pay their medical bills isn't an impossible task. Issue is outside of Bernie Sanders, no one is trying to change them.

EDIT - Please confirm you read edit.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I don't mind her trying. I do mind she's very much the Wall Street candidate and even seems to fall out of line for even some of Obama's endgame goals, like single payer.

I feel she is mainly a significantly lesser of the evils in terms of candidate and directions, but not one I can consider good and meaningful in and of itself. Bernie would be the same, but more for the climate he'd be inheriting, not the slime around shady associations.

Gotta muck through filth for the time being.

She's the Wall Street candidate, except for the part where every other Republican candidate wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, the law that she supports (which I realize isn't a perfect law).

But yes, a Senator from a state is friendly to an industry that helps that states economy. Joe Biden is a great guy, but he fucked over lots of people with the bankruptcy bill because every credit card company is located in his state. My Senator would personally shiv somebody to help out Boeing. Every politician in Iowa loves corn. Bernie is less pro-gun control than Hillary because he lives in a state with no people in it. That doesn't make any of them horrible people, it means they're politicians and have to balance their personal beliefs with the needs of their state.

 

[Volimar]

I'll be for Bernie right up until he bows out and then I'll be for Hillary.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I understand what gerrymandering is (it's not a hard concept to get ). I am saying if you can change the individuals. If you can change the people in that 90% in those districts. Then it doesn't matter where the district map is or how it's changed for political benefit of one party.

Sure, Republicans stay in power in the house, but that 90% you speak about has some new priorities that the party needs to address. You need to give new political priorities to that 90%. Getting them to ask their representatives about how they afford to send their kids to school, why their wage in their new job is lower, and how they can pay their medical bills isn't an impossible task. Issue is outside of Bernie Sanders, no one is trying to change them.

EDIT - Please confirm you read edit.

They believe their wages are lower because of regulations from Washington and immigrants loweing their wages, believe they can't afford their medical bills because of Obamacare, and think their schools are no good because of Common Core.

Read this article - http://family-studies.org/why-do-white-working-class-people-support-trump/

“My thought is that I kind of agree with him, though,” she said. “Is it fair for someone who works at McDonald’s to make $15 an hour, versus I’m a teacher at a preschool with an associate’s degree making $10 an hour? Is that fair? Is it fair that I should go to school to better myself to have a career, yet any Joe that walks into McDonald’s is making more than me? Is that fair? I don’t think so.”

She points out that there’s no way her boss could afford to pay her $15 an hour for her job. She thinks that you have to look at things from the perspective of the small business owner, too.

These aren't people who would be socialists if they heard Bernie's speech. They've bought into the Republican spiel.

 

[titiklabingapat]

One other thing that so many Bernie supporters are overlooking is that this is the Democratic primary and Bernie only became a Democrat this year out of convenience (even though he had great intentions).

Clinton has been a Democrat ever since her switch back in the 70s (or was it the 80s?) so it's no surprise people are saying the nominations has been wrapped up.

 

[PhoenixDark]

...the 1993 Congress where the Democrats had a majority in both the Senate and the Congress? No, that's some revisionist bullshit. Hillarycare failed because of the Republican "Harry and Louise" attack ads, which Clinton proved utterly incapable of responding to or doing anything it, which made Blue Dog Democrats worried about their seats. Bill Clinton *actively* campaigned on getting healthcare reform, and the 1993 Democrats were overwhelmingly in favour of it because Bill was so popular he'd carried half of them into office with him; it failed precisely because Hillary wasn't able to cut the mustard in terms of presenting a compelling political image and just let the Republicans savage it.



So your response to "nobody actually seems to think very highly of your candidate", is "it's okay, they've not thought strongly about her for a really long time!".

ok.gif

This post is not historically accurate on any level. Clinton didn't win the 1992 election with a majority, and his administration overestimated their mandate. In short the electorate was less liberal than Clinton thought. Hillary couldn't sell the plan because the plan was too much for voters at the time. It required a mandate for employers to provide health insurance, for instance, which was very unpopular and was used to allege the plan would hurt the economy. And unlike Obama, Clinton did not get the health insurance industry to support the plan; they hated the plan and sunk it with endless negative ads. Blaming the law's failure entirely on Hillary Clinton is laughable.

Furthermore let's not act like Clinton swept a bunch of democrats into office in 1992; democrats had held congress for decades up to that point. They lost 9 seats in 1992, but still had a large majority. For reference democrats lost more than 30 seats during the 1980 election, during which Reagan blew out Carter, and still had a 50 seat majority over republicans. Congress full of conservative democrats throughout much of the country in 1993, and they also balked at the voter revolt over the proposed bill.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This post is not historically accurate on any level. Clinton didn't win the 1992 election with a majority,

Didn't say that. I said that the 1993 Congress was majority Democratic - which it was. Reading comprehension, bru.

and his administration overestimated their mandate.

No, Hillary squandered it.

In short the electorate was less liberal than Clinton thought. Hillary couldn't sell the plan because the plan was too much for voters at the time. It required a mandate for employers to provide health insurance, for instance, which was very unpopular and was used to allege the plan would hurt the economy.

It did not start unpopular. It became unpopular because...

And unlike Obama, Clinton did not get the health insurance industry to support the plan; they hated the plan and sunk it with endless negative ads.

a) Clinton was unable to find a way to reach compromise with the health insurance industry, and b) she was absolutely unable to escape the frame the attack ads placed on her. By there are attack ads for literally every major policy under the sun; being able to out-manoeuvre them is the mark of a good politician, a mark Clinton does not bear. She can't compromise and she can't frame, there's very little use to her.

 

[thezerofire]

This thinking is why America is gridlocked politically and will be for decades to come.

Each side thinks they can't change each other.

This doesn't happen in most other modern democratic nations. They go through large shifts in the political spectrum as each individual voter evaluates the political platform of each party against their own priorities. Canada went from a conservative majority to a liberal majority just this fall.

EDIT - I have talked to a lot of Americans from close to half of your states over the last decade due to business travel, and most Republicans I've met, while being ignorant on a lot of things (I find this an American thing in general), are not that extreme and just really care about fiscal conservatism and their individual taxes more then anything else. These aren't old white people unable to change, they are people my age.

Other modern democratic nations have parliamentary systems without First Past The Post voting, they aren't comparable.

 

[Tabris]

Other modern democratic nations have parliamentary systems without First Past The Post voting, they aren't comparable.

Canada has First Past the Post system.

 

[thezerofire]

Canada has First Past the Post system.

Still Parliamentary, which helps third parties and a more diverse political spectrum.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Didn't say that. I said that the 1993 Congress was majority Democratic - which it was. Reading comprehension, bru.

Again, the majority is irrelevant when you consider the democrats in office. The party was significantly more conservative and balked at the law's unpopularity. Furthermore you claim Clinton carried democrats into office when that is literally not true.

No, Hillary squandered it.

What are you talking about? Clinton's first year filled with multiple blunders and mistakes, many of which centered on the administration not realizing the country was more conservative than their agenda (gays in the military), and others were simply controversial (NAFTA). Was all this Hillary's fault too?

It did not start unpopular. It became unpopular because...

a) Clinton was unable to find a way to reach compromise with the health insurance industry, and b) she was absolutely unable to escape the frame the attack ads placed on her. By there are attack ads for literally every major policy under the sun; being able to out-manoeuvre them is the mark of a good politician, a mark Clinton does not bear. She can't compromise and she can't frame, there's very little use to her.

Name some recent major legislation that didn't lose initial support once negative ads started running.

Hillary Clinton did not even propose the employer mandate. It was Bill Clinton's proposal, and it was never going to work in 1993. Hillary was not negotiating with insurance companies, the administration was. Hillary's "job" was to sell it to the American people. It's not her fault the AMA and health insurance industry opposed the bill. The law would have dramatically changed the insurance system, with little benefit to the insurance industry (unlike the ACA).

Even the compromise (delaying the mandate) wasn't good enough to pass. Solely blaming Hillary for this fuck up is laughable. Being unable to beat an onslaught of negative ads does not make someone a bad politician. You have to look at the issue through the context of the era, specifically the conservative slant of the American people and the insurance industry and business community's opposition to mandates at the time.

 

[curlyfriski]

Politics, especially elections is pretty comparable to sports. That is what drew Nate Silver to it originally coming from a sports background for example.

The poligaf approach to politics

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

The only thing that's clear to me is that Clinton fans are just as bad as Sanders fans.

Good news for Clinton.
Clinton fans: "Hell yeah. Go Hilldawg!"
Sanders fans: "Bernie, Bernie, Bernie"

Good news for Sanders.
Sanders fans: "Hell yeah. Go Bernie!"
Clinton fans: "Hilldawg, Hilldawg, Hilldawg"

 

[eBay Huckster]

One other thing that so many Bernie supporters are overlooking is that this is the Democratic primary and Bernie only became a Democrat this year out of convenience (even though he had great intentions).

Clinton has been a Democrat ever since her switch back in the 70s (or was it the 80s?) so it's no surprise people are saying the nominations has been wrapped up.

1968, actually.

Canada has First Past the Post system.

And guess how many attempts it took for anyone other than Harper's party to finally receive a plurality, let alone a majority, of seats?

 

[injurai]

If Sander's ceiling is 30% or so, then that means he has more supporter than Trump at this point in time. Or he is at least reaching parity. His supporters are also younger compared to Trump's (who will probably die off in the next 20 to 30 years), and is probably the future of the Democratic party. They can at least take comfort in that and I hope Bernie's hard work of laying the foundations of the new Left pays off later.

If nothing else, I take solace in this.

 

[ginger ninja]

Oh, good for berny.

Spoiler

Sucks that all this money is going to waste in the end...

 

[zero shift]

Are people seriously arguing that the left can't dominate a non-parlimentary system? Are they forgetting like all of Latin America and even American history? France is one of the few non-parliamentary republics in the EU, yet is one of the furthest left countries in the EU.

What makes you think Clinton will be able to magically pass shit that Bernie can't, or that Bernie is not pragmatic? Neither of them are winning the House, but this narrative of Bernie being an ideologue unwilling to compromise is just not true.

He says what his ideals are but doesn't let perfect be the enemy of good, and is willing to compromise to get the closest thing to his ideal as possible in the current system. He's been involved in plenty of bipartisan legislation, possibly even more than Clinton. Most recently a veterans bill with McCain, afaik.

It's just odd that two of the most frequent criticisms of Bernie/his supporters i see here are "he'll never be able to pass anything he says! At least Hillary will do something," and "Hilary and Bernie have the same positions on virtually everything anyway! " which seem contradictory. If they supposedly share the same ideas, why would one have an easier time passing it than the other?

It's ridiculous isn't it? At least many Bernie fans say that they will do their best to energize the base and capture the House. But to some Hillary supporters, her winning the presidency will not result in a "do nothing congress".

 

[eBay Huckster]

Are people seriously arguing that the left can't dominate a non-parlimentary system? Are they forgetting like all of Latin America and even American history? France is one of the few non-parliamentary republics in the EU, yet is one of the furthest left countries in the EU.

Sure, the left can dominate a non-parliamentary system.

Spoiler

Just not this one, until at least 2024 if we're exceedingly lucky

 

[StickSoldier]

People really don't think Bernie is a charismatic guy with a big voice and meaning behind what he says? Man, that dude had me in tears one night with a speech he had on a college campus. Ain't never had something like that happen to me before, but maybe I was just like sad or something? I dunno. The point is, I felt like he was a great speaker and regardless of his age, skin color, height, face, etc, I feel like he has something that makes him connect with a diverse group of people. I can't really pinpoint what it is though..

I'm not even sure of his policies or Hillary's. I honestly have never been interested in politics until recently, so this is just me watching some videos of Sanders that have been posted on GAF.

 

[zero shift]

Sure, the left can dominate a non-parliamentary system.

Spoiler

Just not this one, until at least 2024 if we're exceedingly lucky

Gerrymandering is not the main reason why the left keeps losing congress. It's due to apathy more than anything else. Regardless, you can't just overnight create a political force. It takes organization and time to build a base and a "movement".

 

[eBay Huckster]

Gerrymandering is not the main reason why the left keeps losing congress. It's due to apathy more than anything else. Regardless, you can't just overnight create a political force. It takes organization and time to build a base and a "movement".

I'm not saying 2024 because there's an election that year (or because Democratic gerrymanders will somehow cure all of this country's ills), I'll say that much.

 

[damisa]

I don't mind her trying. I do mind she's very much the Wall Street candidate and even seems to fall out of line for even some of Obama's endgame goals, like single payer.

I feel she is mainly a significantly lesser of the evils in terms of candidate and directions, but not one I can consider good and meaningful in and of itself. Bernie would be the same, but more for the climate he'd be inheriting, not the slime around shady associations.

Gotta muck through filth for the time being.

It's getting pretty tiring hearing Bernie supporters keep demonizing Wall Street. It's a very important industry that employs millions directly and indirectly and brings tons of money to the country.

Breaking up big banks is nonsense, raising the minimum wage nationwide to $15 is terrible economics. People who believe these are good ideas are living in a warped reality like republicans who don't believe in climate change.

 

[Amir0x]

It's ridiculous isn't it? At least many Bernie fans say that they will do their best to energize the base and capture the House. But to some Hillary supporters, her winning the presidency will not result in a "do nothing congress".

The difference is harsh pragmatism. Bernie hardcore fans are typically by nature more idealistic, skew younger and rely more on pure ideology that how to implement their ideas. Many Hillary voters (potential voters anyway) might even prefer Bernie policies (I know I do, in the places Hillary and Bernie actually differ anyway - which isn't that often statistically), but understand no amount of energy is actually going to let us capture the House.

Most of Hillary supporters know she'll face the same do nothing Congress Bernie would. Which is why many of those voting for Hillary like myself just want to end the primary process and put her into the nominees seat to reduce damage to her campaign and to ensure we have the highest odds of winning (which is indisputably according to the polling averages Hillary. And no, the polls aren't skewed).

The things we need to change to win back the House won't be happening til 2022 at the earliest. Therefore, it's about Supreme Court Nominations. No ideology is worth risking losing those considering how split the court is between liberal/conservative justices.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

The difference is harsh pragmatism. Bernie hardcore fans are typically by nature more idealistic, skew younger and rely more on pure ideology that how to implement their ideas. Many Hillary voters (potential voters anyway) might even prefer Bernie policies (I know I do, in the places Hillary and Bernie actually differ anyway - which isn't that often statistically), but understand no amount of energy is actually going to let us capture the House.

Most of Hillary supporters know she'll face the same do nothing Congress Bernie would. Which is why many of those voting for Hillary like myself just want to end the primary process and put her into the nominees seat to reduce damage to her campaign and to ensure we have the highest odds of winning (which is indisputably according to the polling averages Hillary. And no, the polls aren't skewed).

The things we need to change to win back the House won't be happening til 2022 at the earliest. Therefore, it's about Supreme Court Nominations. No ideology is worth risking losing those considering how split the court is between liberal/conservative justices.

It's just a real shame as It seems a lot of people in America really need better social welfare and a government that takes better care of all its citizens.

 

[zero shift]

The difference is harsh pragmatism. Bernie hardcore fans are typically by nature more idealistic, skew younger and rely more on pure ideology that how to implement their ideas. Many Hillary voters (potential voters anyway) might even prefer Bernie policies (I know I do, in the places Hillary and Bernie actually differ anyway - which isn't that often statistically), but understand no amount of energy is actually going to let us capture the House.

Most of Hillary supporters know she'll face the same do nothing Congress Bernie would. Which is why many of those voting for Hillary like myself just want to end the primary process and put her into the nominees seat to reduce damage to her campaign and to ensure we have the highest odds of winning (which is indisputably according to the polling averages Hillary. And no, the polls aren't skewed).

The things we need to change to win back the House won't be happening til 2022 at the earliest. Therefore, it's about Supreme Court Nominations. No ideology is worth risking losing those considering how split the court is between liberal/conservative justices.

And this is where I completely disagree with Hillary supporters.

This isn't how politics work. Just think of what you are saying. We will have a leftist grassroots movement to push the country forward and get voters out. We will wait until 2022 and then magically we will enter a liberal revolution without bothering to build a base before hand.

The House isn't unwinnable due to gerrymandering. It is unwinnable due to political apathy. The entire map could be redrawn completely equally and Democrats would still firmly lose to the Republicans due to voters sitting home, and (as much as people want to deny it) many voters not agreeing with the Democrats message. This is the inconvenient truth many Democrats fail to realize.

The Supreme Court nomination issue is weak argument to me. There will almost always be a risk losing seats on the supreme court in any given term. Last major election you could say it wasn't worth the risk to push a leftist agenda because the previous liberal judges were getting old and we'd risk a court consisting of a conservative super majority. Once Hillary gets done with her term, the argument will then move to "well we can't push a leftist agenda because we may lose our majority on the Supreme Court."

Finally, the whole "no ideology is worth putting that into risk" is nonsensical. If Bernie beats Hillary in the primaries, he clearly be more than enough to beat any of the current candidates if he could trump Hillary. If this is referring to the "they won't vote if Bernie isn't in the general", then this is nonsense. Virtually all Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary in the general election. And for the few that aren't, they wouldn't have shown up to vote for Hillary anyway.

Hillary supporters keep yelling "pragmatism" off their top of their lungs, but assume that a "liberal revolution" will come about by using confidence fairy approach of taking the House due to "ending" gerrymandering and assume all the other pieces will fall into place despite virtually every data point stating the opposite. Hardly pragmatic to me and is the core issue of the Democratic party and what has turned so many people away from them.

 

[Zaptruder]

I am not "lost", I'm clearly understanding the obstacles that we must overcome in order to get policies like Bernie's in place. Because someone who has only ideology but no clear plan to implement that ideology is essentially worthless as a candidate. He's basically Ron Paul at that point.

Yes, we can change the constitution and we can change our representatives. But you are still not understanding why that's not going to happen right now. That's the important part: it's not happening right now or the next four years when the Presidential (whoever that is) is elected. And it's not because we think it's impossible to ever happen, but because certain things have to first occur for that change to be possible.

a.) Democrats have to get control of redistricting from the GOP
b.) In order to do that, they have to have people participate in the census and the results of that census must be favorable to Democrats.
c.) But the next census is not until 2020.

The alternative is that they'd need to win some insanely unlikely mandate during mid-term elections, winning something like 56% of the vote in order to outpace just how much GOP have gerrymandered the election cycle and gain most seats (and that's just the first hurdle: then we'd have to hope the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" aren't a big constituency of that new election class, gumming up the works at every turn as they did on Health Care reform). That's simply not going to happen once again if you understand our political system of the moment, and no amount of conversations are going to be able to change that within the next three years which is what would be required to get in under the next mid-terms.

To me, it seems like you have a great misunderstanding of American politics:



You're misunderstanding the nuance of my position based on this. Because it's not impossible, it's just not possible at the moment. That's why I was talking about the right time and place sort of thing. And that's decidedly American: even Boehner understood that the history of American politics is the history of incremental change. People compromise and get little victories, until eventually it adds up to a huge victory.

What Bernie supporters want is some massive change overnight, which is what many Obama supporters unrealistically wanted from him as well. But the reality is that's not how our system is set up. It is very rare when the conditions are right for a candidate to put that big of an imprint on our system (say, like FDR did due to WWII and the Depression).

Right now the reality is that were Bernie to beat the slim odds and get elected, none of his policies would get passed. And that's not giving in to anything, that's understanding how our system works. Eventually the country will be in a place where a candidate like Bernie can be elected and have his policies put into place. It's just not now, and won't be for at least another decade or two.

This is a good little summary on sad political realities.

But if we want those long term changes to happen... signalling to the establishment through candidates like Sanders is kinda what needs to happen.

Even if we accept that Hilary will eventually win - surely there's no harm in saying that; 'We'd actually really like to go further left than Hilary.'

 

[Man God]

Parliamentary systems on the macro all end up being two party systems, the party in power and the opposition. Just some of the pieces change from time to time. It's the illusion of choice that makes it attractive to most.