Support NeoGAF

[Prodigal Son]

I wonder, is he admitting defeat then? I mean, certainly it's a big issue, but if money in politics is truly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be, then he has no chance at defeating Hillary and even less of a chance of defeating his GOP opponents, because they're extra money precludes any chance he his of winning, right?

And if he somehow manages to not only defeat Clinton, but also his GOP opponent... then how much of an impact does stuff like Citizens United really have? I mean, certainly it has an impact, but if he manages to win in spite of it and despite not taking SuperPAC money and nonetheless winning against people who took tons from SuperPAC, how can one simultaneously argue that it's not just an important issue, but the most important issue, when you won anyway, something that should be impossible under that logic?

It just seems there's a contradiction in there somewhere--if it's really that big of a deal, he's admitting it's impossible to win. But if he does manage to win, despite not using SuperPAC money himself, how big of a deal can it truly be if it didn't stop him from getting his message across and the people choosing him despite all that money being thrown around. It just seems odd to me.

Really good point. I suppose the 'political revolution' he's talking about would be a sufficient number of individual people voting for him, so much so that he can beat a 'money in politics' establishment candidate.

 

[disastermouse]

I wonder, is he admitting defeat then? I mean, certainly it's a big issue, but if money in politics is truly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be, then he has no chance at defeating Hillary and even less of a chance of defeating his GOP opponents, because they're extra money precludes any chance he his of winning, right?

And if he somehow manages to not only defeat Clinton, but also his GOP opponent... then how much of an impact does stuff like Citizens United really have? I mean, certainly it has an impact, but if he manages to win in spite of it and despite not taking SuperPAC money and nonetheless winning against people who took tons from SuperPAC, how can one simultaneously argue that it's not just an important issue, but the most important issue, when you won anyway, something that should be impossible under that logic?

It just seems there's a contradiction in there somewhere--if it's really that big of a deal, he's admitting it's impossible to win. But if he does manage to win, despite not using SuperPAC money himself, how big of a deal can it truly be if it didn't stop him from getting his message across and the people choosing him despite all that money being thrown around. It just seems odd to me.

"Their"

 

[damisa]

I don't ignore it. Bernie wins in categories besides FP specifics and minutiae. plus he can negotiate with congress better than hildawg, I think, to achieve better healthcare.

Forget about republicans who won't negotiate with anyone, Bernie is increasingly being hated by Democrats in congress for his constant criticism of their progressiveness

"Sanders supporters want "to dismiss the fact that none of his colleagues have endorsed him, but you can’t,” McCaskill said. “He hasn’t had the ability to get consensus or lead people.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...sanders-senate-democrats-218751#ixzz3zGOMODc8

 

[The Technomancer]

I wonder, is he admitting defeat then? I mean, certainly it's a big issue, but if money in politics is truly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be, then he has no chance at defeating Hillary and even less of a chance of defeating his GOP opponents, because they're extra money precludes any chance he his of winning, right?

And if he somehow manages to not only defeat Clinton, but also his GOP opponent... then how much of an impact does stuff like Citizens United really have? I mean, certainly it has an impact, but if he manages to win in spite of it and despite not taking SuperPAC money and nonetheless winning against people who took tons from SuperPAC, how can one simultaneously argue that it's not just an important issue, but the most important issue, when you won anyway, something that should be impossible under that logic?

It just seems there's a contradiction in there somewhere--if it's really that big of a deal, he's admitting it's impossible to win. But if he does manage to win, despite not using SuperPAC money himself, how big of a deal can it truly be if it didn't stop him from getting his message across and the people choosing him despite all that money being thrown around. It just seems odd to me.

It is much more of an issue at the local level then the national. CU money probably doesn't effect the presidential election much, but gubernatorial elections, mayors of large cities, roles like that

 

[legacyzero]

"Bring both your heart and your head."
Is that what Bill did?

 

[Owzers]

this weekend

I hope Chris Christie talks about something being the reason why the american people are so tired of politics as usual.

 

[Macho Madness]

And immediately to Chris Matthews pushing the "THEY ATTACKED EACH OTHER LOOK LOOK" narrative. Off goes that.

 

[RustyNails]

Huma spotted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Mengy]

Sometimes I wish we could just combine Sanders and Clinton into a single person. That would solve all of our problems.

Berry Santon

Billary Clinters.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I though she always polled extremly well among people concerned with foreign policy

That's why I prefer her to Bernie. Bernie is a great idealogue, but he is just not a leader (IMO).

 

[B-Dubs]

Huma spotted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

HUMA!!!

 

[Grover]

if money in politics is truly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be?

are you saying it isn't lol?

money literally controls our government via its relationship with corporations

and like Techonmancer said, its more of a local thing than natonal, which is why law makers are beholden to their donors and not the electorate

 

[ApharmdX]

This was an enjoyable debate. 1v1 was great.

I want President Sanders but I could live with 8 years of Clinton. However, Hillary as president may be even more divisive than Obama. We need to regain the Senate and have some plan to recapture the House. Otherwise we are looking at terrible gridlock.

 

[DataStream]

MSNBC selling themselves as the place for politics

 

[the_id]

That was great entertainment Murica. I give it 3.5 stars. Not as entertaining or crazy as the republicans.

 

[Linkyn]

I wonder, is he admitting defeat then? I mean, certainly it's a big issue, but if money in politics is truly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be, then he has no chance at defeating Hillary and even less of a chance of defeating his GOP opponents, because they're extra money precludes any chance he his of winning, right?

And if he somehow manages to not only defeat Clinton, but also his GOP opponent... then how much of an impact does stuff like Citizens United really have? I mean, certainly it has an impact, but if he manages to win in spite of it and despite not taking SuperPAC money and nonetheless winning against people who took tons from SuperPAC, how can one simultaneously argue that it's not just an important issue, but the most important issue, when you won anyway, something that should be impossible under that logic?

It just seems there's a contradiction in there somewhere--if it's really that big of a deal, he's admitting it's impossible to win. But if he does manage to win, despite not using SuperPAC money himself, how big of a deal can it truly be if it didn't stop him from getting his message across and the people choosing him despite all that money being thrown around. It just seems odd to me.

It's not even just Bernie. Consider Jeb!'s failing campaign. The money may help in a sense, but you can't take the win unless there is substance (regardless of whether or not you might agree with it).

 

[TheChits]

Great debate. Both did very well overall.

 

[Arkeband]

Sorry, my power fluctuated right as I was about to hit reply.



I can only personally contribute two factors that I've seen posted;

1.) Perception of the source of income inequality. A poll showed that many Black people see racism as the primary reason. While Sanders believes in the mantra "A Rising Tide Raises all Ships" and sees tax policy among others as the primary reason.

2.) Electability. I have not seen any polls on the matter, but it's not far fetched to think Hillary would have a better chance in the general election. If one of your priorities is to keep the other party who hates your guts out of office, then that may be of great importance.

So Sanders would have to literally say "I will make people not racist anymore"?

 

[NullPointer]

They're running for the Presidency, it should be tough. If you aren't willing to vigorously defend your ideas stay home.

Yep. They both took hits, and deserved to. Bernie has to do something major about his foreign policy weakness, while Clinton needs to reformulate her stance and message re: Wall Street and accountability. I think Hillary has the far easier hill to climb.

At the end of the day you know you're getting more Obama with Hillary, and that baseline level of comfort will easily see her through imho, and as the general election approaches her historic candidacy will only gain momentum. The only way that changes is if Bernie can not only say the right things, but lay out a specific strategy to actually accomplish them. No easy task there, but political revolutions aren't easy, especially when you're not in the very midst of disaster.

 

[ugaboga232]

I think the money is much bigger for everything except the presidential election (and its still big and sanders is doing well cuz he has a ton of money regardless).

 

[RustyNails]

Hillary working the crowd like Slick Willy

 

[thehypocrite]

I think there are valid critiques of free trade, economics tends to look at the whole and not the parts. The way it has evolved has been less than ideal. There's good and bad to trade, some of it intranational, some of it bilateral, some of it global (the reduction in extreme poverty is generally attributed to the reduction in trade barriers). That's likely no consolation to someone who lost their manufacturing job in the US.

I don't really know though, what people are proposing would change in the current globalised economy. Tariffs a la Trump? Increased subsidies to industries a la the flawed agricultural subsidies in the US?

Workers relocated as viable resources instead of economic expulsion would be a good starting point.

 

[Gaogaogao]

why the fuck are they still bringing up emails? like seriously?

 

[Blader]

This was an enjoyable debate. 1v1 was great.

I want President Sanders but I could live with 8 years of Clinton. However, Hillary as president may be even more divisive than Obama. We need to regain the Senate and have some plan to recapture the House. Otherwise we are looking at terrible gridlock.

Really, the Dems best chance for retaking the Senate and many seats in the House is a Cruz nomination.

 

[Slackerish]

MSNBC selling themselves as the place for politics

They have been using that since at least 2006 elections.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I think there are valid critiques of free trade, economics tends to look at the whole and not the parts. The way it has evolved has been less than ideal. There's good and bad to trade, some of it intranational, some of it bilateral, some of it global (the reduction in extreme poverty is generally attributed to the reduction in trade barriers). That's likely no consolation to someone who lost their manufacturing job in the US.

I don't really know though, what people are proposing would change in the current globalised economy. Tariffs a la Trump? Increased subsidies to industries a la the flawed agricultural subsidies in the US?

This. Also, I think people forget that after we gave Mexico our manufacturing, we took all of their computer industry and engineering. Trade usually goes both ways.

Bernie Sanders said he supports trade, but does not support making people in factories have to compete with Vietnam minimum wages. But then that means he doesn't support trade! The whole point of trade is that two trading nations have relative advantage in particular goods, and the entire GDP raises on both ends because of the trade. That's the point. I think he lives in a world where trading looks like a guy with 4 apples talking to a guy with 4 pears and both ending up with 2 apples and 2 pears, and that's the story.

 

[loki 16]

That's why I prefer her to Bernie. Bernie is a great idealogue, but he is just not a leader (IMO).

Most people don't really care about foreign policy. They care about health care, college tuition and money in politics. This is some of the reasons I think Bernie is the better candidate. Most people care about the issues Bernie is putting forward.

 

[Paskil]

Good debate. Can't wait for the Republicans this weekend and their surely substantive policy discussion, heh. Bernie went back to his stump speech a little too often, but he also has to continue to hammer his message home. Appreciate that they went for the throat occasionally but were both genuinely supportive of each other, especially when they both refused bait to go after the other on petty issues.

I also appreciate the few instances from both of dismissal of questions that did not deserve the limited time that could be filled with other more important issues, like law enforcement and systemic racism.

Most people don't really care about foreign policy. They care about health care, college tuition and money in politics. This is some of the reasons I think Bernie is the better candidate. Most people care about the issues Bernie is putting forward.

Different demographics care about different things. It doesn't help Bernie that he was basically body slammed on foreign policy and most talk of global issues. There is no excuse for him not giving at least basic competent answers at this point. He needs to round out his candidacy or the GOP will filet him, if he were to win.

 

[Linkyn]

Yep. They both took hits, and deserved to. Bernie has to do something major about his foreign policy weakness, while Clinton needs to reformulate her stance and message re: Wall Street and accountability. I think Hillary has the far easier hill to climb.

At the end of the day you know you're getting more Obama with Hillary, and that baseline level of comfort will easily see her through imho, and as the general election approaches her historic candidacy will only gain momentum. The only way that changes is if Bernie can not only say the right things, but lay out a specific strategy to actually accomplish them. No easy task there, but political revolutions aren't easy, especially when you're not in the very midst of disaster.

As I've said before, Hillary's stance on Wall Street is also much more defensible against a Republican opponent than Sanders' struggle with foreign policy.

 

[Blader]

Yep. They both took hits, and deserved to. Bernie has to do something major about his foreign policy weakness, while Clinton needs to reformulate her stance and message re: Wall Street and accountability. I think Hillary has the far easier hill to climb.

I think Hillary actually did a pretty good job getting in front of that tonight, considering how she almost always just dodges the matter completely.

I think it was for the most part a great debate with strong showings on both sides, but I'd give the edge to Hillary just because she's clearly much stronger talking about foreign policy than Bernie.

 

[DataStream]

They have been using that since at least 2006 elections.

Yeah I know, I was making a timely joke about their personal circle-jerk on how well they moderated the debate (which was well moderated, love Rachel - Chuck not so much). But it was a little too self-congratulatory.

 

[SolarPowered]

That's why I prefer her to Bernie. Bernie is a great idealogue, but he is just not a leader (IMO).

Luckily presidents get to surround themselves with dozens if not hundreds of experts in all sorts of fields. I like to think that his administration as a whole would help him on foreign policy issues and trade issues when necessary. Hillary is without a doubt the better foreign policy pick even if she comes with Saudi strings attached.

 

[barnone]

Forget about republicans who won't negotiate with anyone, Bernie is increasingly being hated by Democrats in congress for his constant criticism of their progressiveness


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...sanders-senate-democrats-218751#ixzz3zGOMODc8

OK I can forget about that. I don't think this means they'll shut their doors to him completely if he were president..

 

[Republic of Ezo]

I think there are valid critiques of free trade, economics tends to look at the whole and not the parts. The way it has evolved has been less than ideal. There's good and bad to trade, some of it intranational, some of it bilateral, some of it global (the reduction in extreme poverty is generally attributed to the reduction in trade barriers). That's likely no consolation to someone who lost their manufacturing job in the US.

I don't really know though, what people are proposing would change in the current globalised economy. Tariffs a la Trump? Increased subsidies to industries a la the flawed agricultural subsidies in the US?

However sad it may be for those individuals, low-tech manufacturing is not coming back to the US. Not now, not ever. The cork has been popped and people and companies aren't going to sacrifice lower manufacturing prices for the sake of patriotism (tax benefits for Made in America products like Obama suggested in the American Jobs Act could have a beneficial effect though in somewhat stemming the tide).

But on a deeper philosophical level, if a Vietnamese or a Malaysian worker can manufacture the same product for half the price of an American worker (which is often still a living wage in those countries), why is it morally correct to prefer the latter over the former in the first place? I am somewhat biased on this because my future wife's family is from Malaysia, but all lives and jobs matter - not just American lives and American jobs.

 

[rex]

Eastern European nations. I mean really they raised the defense budget in Europe because of Russia. To your last point, and Russia has more than that than you mentioned . There are US troops in the Baltic nations and Russia has nukes too. I find it surprising that people are comparing a country that has almost done nothing besides threaten countries that never amounted to anything for years to a country that just invaded a country.

But invading a country sounds scarier than what's actually happening.

Russia is essentially supporting an insurgency to retain a part of Ukraine when a few years ago all of Ukraine was allied to them.

Not very expansionist.

Overreacting to such a non-event. That's the danger from the US side.

 

[nib95]

I hope they don't break up. Big banks made it so that your bank account didn't disappear when your nobody local bank closed shop due to shoddy investment strategies that were utilized primarily by shadow banking industries.

Lol, if they got broken up they're not going to turn in to family run corner shop institutes. They're still going to be prominent and ideally more heavily and easily regulated to prevent the kinds of things you speak of, and perhaps easier for the FR to provide protections against.

 

[ApharmdX]

Really, the Dems best chance for retaking the Senate and many seats in the House is a Cruz nomination.

Definitely! Cruz is so despicable that his entire party can't stomach him. And he just may win. I hope so.

 

[disastermouse]

This was an enjoyable debate. 1v1 was great.

I want President Sanders but I could live with 8 years of Clinton. However, Hillary as president may be even more divisive than Obama. We need to regain the Senate and have some plan to recapture the House. Otherwise we are looking at terrible gridlock.

I cannot. No faith. I have NO faith that she gives a shit or will vote as if she gives a shit.

 

[zoozilla]

I wonder, is he admitting defeat then? I mean, certainly it's a big issue, but if money in politics is truly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be, then he has no chance at defeating Hillary and even less of a chance of defeating his GOP opponents, because they're extra money precludes any chance he his of winning, right?

And if he somehow manages to not only defeat Clinton, but also his GOP opponent... then how much of an impact does stuff like Citizens United really have? I mean, certainly it has an impact, but if he manages to win in spite of it and despite not taking SuperPAC money and nonetheless winning against people who took tons from SuperPAC, how can one simultaneously argue that it's not just an important issue, but the most important issue, when you won anyway, something that should be impossible under that logic?

It just seems there's a contradiction in there somewhere--if it's really that big of a deal, he's admitting it's impossible to win. But if he does manage to win, despite not using SuperPAC money himself, how big of a deal can it truly be if it didn't stop him from getting his message across and the people choosing him despite all that money being thrown around. It just seems odd to me.

I understand what you mean, but the presidential election is only one election out of hundreds, even if it is "the most important" (a debatable point, but it's certainly the most publicized).

It also doesn't change the fact that corporations and lobbying groups do have tremendous power that extends as far as to the actual language of the legislation that goes through Congress. It also doesn't change the fact that many policies that are in place now benefit large corporate entities without providing substantial benefit to the majority of the population. It doesn't change the fact that many members of Congress have high-ranking and well-paying positions in these companies waiting for them when they leave Congress.

While a Bernie victory would be a big blow to the effective oligarchy we have now, it would be symbolic more than anything. The mechanisms by which money can control politics run much deeper.

 

[Suikoguy]

But invading a country sounds scarier than what's actually happening.

Russia is essentially supporting an insurgency to retain a part of Ukraine when a few years ago all of Ukraine was allied to them.

Not very expansionist.

Overreacting to such a non-event. That's the danger from the US side.

Wait, are you calling Ukraine a non-event?
Seriously?

 

[Your Entertainer]

Lol is this greenspans wife?

 

[Kibbles]

Isn't Hilary in favor of SOPA and similar bills that are sneaking their way in?

Last I remember she was but anything change? That's enough for me to never vote for her

 

[Linkyn]

But invading a country sounds scarier than what's actually happening.

Russia is essentially supporting an insurgency to retain a part of Ukraine when a few years ago all of Ukraine was allied to them.

Not very expansionist.

Overreacting to such a non-event. That's the danger from the US side.

Trust me, Russian aggression feels very real when you're living on this side of the Atlantic.

 

[theignoramus]

The Republican candidates seem like sociopaths by comparison, only talking about war, revoking a womans right to chose, and tax cuts. Trump is the one guy paying lip service to working class Americans but his ugly rhetoric undermines that completely.

 

[barnone]

why doesn't Bernie sue Wall Street execs now? could he pursue this as president.

 

[Juice]

Lol is this greenspans wife?

… yes. Andrea Mitchell is an incredibly accomplished and respected journalist in her own right.

 

[rex]

Wait, are you calling Ukraine a non-event?
Seriously?

From the standpoint of the US?

Absolutely

 

[excelsiorlef]

Forget about republicans who won't negotiate with anyone, Bernie is increasingly being hated by Democrats in congress for his constant criticism of their progressiveness


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...sanders-senate-democrats-218751#ixzz3zGOMODc8

That tweet from one of his staffers after someone endorsed Clinton. Ugh, he has the worst people working for him.

 

[Grover]

The Republican candidates seem like sociopaths by comparison, only talking about war, revoking a womans right to chose

pro life republicans are anti women - carlin

 

[Gaogaogao]

Isn't Hilary in favor of SOPA and similar bills that are sneaking their way in?

Last I remember she was but anything change? That's enough for me to never vote for her

depends on how deep comcast's pockets are

http://www.geektime.com/2015/04/13/the-politics-of-tech-where-does-hillary-clinton-stand/