Macho Madness
Member
And vise versa. Who did he make Secretary of State after that 08 campaign? It doesn't mean he has to like her but it shows he respects her.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic Primary Debate VI: Raid Time 2/11 9PM EST
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
why not both gif.?
Macho Madness
Member
Because liking someone in a political contest is irrelevant. Perhaps he does like her. We probably don't know that. But you don't nominate someone to be Secretary of State unless you respect them.
excelsiorlef
Member
Oh jesus... Sanders campaign team is the literal worst.
Macho Madness
Member
As someone who voted for Obama twice and who has been pleased with the progress he's made, it doesn't make me happy to hear that. If the excuse is that he wanted Obama to be checked on his first term promises, he got plenty of that from the Republicans. A primary opponent for an encumbent president is a sign of a weak president historically. We did not need that in 2012. To me, it shows how radical Bernie can be, and in a destructive way.
maabus1999
Member
You would also need a constitutional amendment against lobbyists to get his world, which is currently protected by the first.
It would be much, much, much easier to try and regulate it, instead of stopping it.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Threatening to primary a standing president is just not something you do. Threatening to primary a popular president who strongly appeals to a key demographic that you lack appeal to is basically political suicide.
I don't think having a primary challenger to move Obama to the left would have been a bad idea. I brought up this primary to prove that because look at the conversation the Democrats are having. do you think the conversation would have been the same without Bernie? sure, he might not win but he's brought some things to the table that would have never been there without him and he has also been pulling Hillary to the left and forcing her to deal with some things that her own party isn't so hot about. this is supposed to be a democracy, after all.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-martin-omalleys-claim-bernie-sanders/
balladofwindfishes
Member
Challenging Obama in a primary would have 100% secured Romeny the win.
Rather than move the country left, it would moved it right. It would have did the dead opposite of what Bernie intended.
You send weak presidents to primaries (although you shouldn't even do that). You don't send Obama to a primary to prove a point. The only point the American people get is that Obama is a weak president whose party has no faith in him. And you lose the election.
Rather than move the country left, it would moved it right. It would have did the dead opposite of what Bernie intended.
You send weak presidents to primaries (although you shouldn't even do that). You don't send Obama to a primary to prove a point. The only point the American people get is that Obama is a weak president whose party has no faith in him. And you lose the election.
agree to disagree then
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
That's tame. Literal worst is possibly some of the shit I've seen from the Republican camp.
Veritigo_X
Member
Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy and lost his reelection.
HW Bush was challenged by Pat Buchanan and lost his reelection.
Seems like a good strategy!
Macho Madness
Member
There's always a few dissenters in every reelection but they usually never come close to meaning anything.
excelsiorlef
Member
Yeah but their shit sort of works. Sanders twam consistently makes him look foolish
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
This was a very valid but unarticulate point she made. There was a lot of misinformation in Central America (I'm from El Salvador) about what happened to the kids that were sent with coyotes to the US.
The 'message' she was talking about is that the trip is really unsafe, lots of kids were dying and it's not worth the risk. Sending the kids back, while heartbreaking, was meant to tell parents in CA that they should not send their kids alone with dangerous people to an uncertain fate.
CA is pretty fucked up overall and it needs a LOT of help.
Yeah that is going to hurt him, using the same talking points as the GOP and Bill Cosby is not a good look
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Actually that's possibly the dumbest thing she said last night.
The kids would have likely died had they stayed in their towns. Also I don't think "lots" of kids were dying on the trip. I'm assuming you live in a decent ES place? From all I read these kids lived in extremely dangerous places.
excelsiorlef
Member
No. It's historical fact that primarying a sitting president kills that presidency.
Had Sanders got his way, Obama looks weak, loses against a relatively (in comparison to the asylum that is this crop) moderate looking GOP candidate and guess what instead of looking to carry on from Obama 2016 is about trying to defeat and incumbent Romney. Primarying Obama flat out would have put the GOP on an easier path to winning this election and securing a conservative Supreme Court for the next 20 years
gutter_trash
Banned
pretty much this, Jimmy Carter got screwed over by egonamiac Ted Kennedy and look what happend, the Right's messiah Ronald Reagan changed the political landscape in the US forever
thanks to Ted's small mindedness.
Hillary is smart in her praises for Obama yesterday and she will fight to help the down-ticket in many local elections.
Not sure how far Sanders is going to fight for Democrats in congressional races in the South
Even Someone Else is doing better than Jeb
So, like, I would caution against equating correlation with causation. Politically weak presidents are more likely to lose reelection. Politically weak presidents are also more likely to get primaried. It doesn't necessarily follow that primarying a president makes them more likely to lose reelection.
I don't really think a primary fight in 2012 would have been a good idea -- I do think it's kind of politically ignorant to suggest it -- but I also don't think we can really say it might have cost Obama reelection.
maabus1999
Member
Too close to the margin of error honestly. I would say mostly unchanged.
RustyNails
Member
Yup, and thats why no one challenged a sitting president to a primary since. It fractures the party which needs to be rock solid united behind the president in order to have the incumbency argument. Obama getting primaried would have given a billion mpre talking points to Mitt Romney about how even democrats dont like Obama.
Did you skip over the part where he helped open China to the West? He's totally a huge fucking shithead, no one will disagree, but people aren't binary. Opening China up was a very good thing.
You wouldn't expect to see a jump beyond the margin of error anyways. But people always slag off trends as being error, even when the jumps are consistent behind the error correction.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
On an individual level, yes it was a tragedy to send the kids back. I cannot emphasize enough how fucked up Central America is because of gang violence. The long term solution for these places is not to have their families send their kids alone to the US.
The US has been pretty passive in responding to what is a huge humanitarian crisis mostly caused by 90s deportations and US demand for drugs.
It's tough. I don't think you can fault either side for trying to keep the kids here or sending them back to prevent *more* kids from coming
like I said, agree to disagree. I think it would have only strengthened Obama going into the general especially against a candidate as bland as Romney.
Because it went so well for Jimmy Carter.
I remember a few months back that one of the more popular opinions was that Bernie was going to hit a percentage plateau of 25-30% because he wasn't going to attract anybody but young white males. Once young white females started to jump on board that changed and now he's starting to make at least some ground with minorities. Good to see.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Obama didn't need to be strengthened going into the general. He ultimately won the election.
excelsiorlef
Member
Also Obama made the decision to not have the Justice Department defend DOMA in court. This doesn't happen under Romney.
You're disagreeing with history based on nothing. And like someone already said he didn't need to be strengthed (and he wouldn't have been), he won.
It makes no sense to believe that challenging a sitting President for his job makes him look stronger. Completely illogical.
You're disagreeing with history based on nothing. And like someone already said he didn't need to be strengthed (and he wouldn't have been), he won.
It makes no sense to believe that challenging a sitting President for his job makes him look stronger. Completely illogical.
People said it was the straight white males that jumped on first, but my female friends have been far more vocal about Bernie than the guys and for a much longer time.
I don't think that's an apples to apples comparison, especially comparing Reagan to fucking Mittens, but we're treading subjective waters right now which is why I agreed to disagree. look at Obama in 2008. a lot of that enthusiasm was lost during his first term and I think pulling him to the left during the primary could have sparked some of that enthusiasm back making him a stronger candidate going into the general.
I realize that, the logic is that he could have won while also moving to the left
You remember that the general wasn't even close right? He crushed Mittens. That shit wasn't even close.
Because he should be in prison, his Nobel peace prize stripped, and disregarded by everybody for the shit he's pulled. Stalin wasn't binary either, look at what he did for Russia's industry. That was a very good thing for Russia.
This argument is always funny to me. It's rather a 'female' version of "I have black friends", isn't it?
I've seen it used on gaming side by people who want to argue a female character design isn't sexualized because their female friend/SO/sister said so.
that's the point, a more left leaning Obama could have also crushed Romney
balladofwindfishes
Member
I don't think it's worth the risk to primary a president to slightly make them maybe possibly lean a bit more left.
Obama is already a liberal. It seems pointless and too risky to potentially move the entire country further right just for a slight chance that maybe Obama would move a little more the left. Which would have been pointless anyway, because Obama is unable to get anything passed through congress. And most people who voted for him for re-election, I think, knew that.
Too high of a risk for no practical payout.
Manmademan
Member
A more far left Obama also could have lost.
Romney was done in more by fortuitous unforced errors (the 47% thing, let Detroit go bankrupt) than anything Obama did.
An Obama forced to run to his left and defend himself in a primary against his own party means mittens has less of a reason to go out on a limb making controversial statements to make his case.
Primarying a sitting president has nothing but downside.
excelsiorlef
Member
What don't you get about the fact that a primaryed president ends up looking weak because it's basically a statement that even his own party doesnt trust him.
He would not, would not, would not have been strengthened
the bolded is certainly true I just think that it would have been worth it to keep the larger voting base, especially young people, enthused
googleplex
Member
This is pure madness. Just admit Bernie was wrong in this regard and Move on dude.
I don't think this use is a fair comparison to that. Anecdotal example is all it was. Had he said, I'm not a sexist, I have female friends, then yeah.
I too have anecdotal evidence that many latino people I know are pro-bernie. I wouldn't appreciate somebody using that simple statement as if I am trying to hide racist sentiments instead of just providing an example of people I know that support Bernie that re perhaps outside of his key demographic.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
I don't think making Obama run a more left leaning campaign would've translated on his second term being more left-leaning in its policies, so the point is kinda moot.
Besides, wouldn't that go against the most liked characteristic of Bernie Sanders of never compromising positions? What kind of slimy politician would Obama be if he went left to win an election?!
Hardly at all. The odd claim is that it's mostly males that followed Bernie early on. We saw instead what you would have expected based on American demographics. Young liberal voters latched onto him first in proportions that you'd expect to see reflecting the liberal youth. Minorities being a small proportion of America, they grew the slowest over time. With young white men and women growing roughly equally. Not a large enough disparity to discount early female voters.
The anecdote exist simply as a counter example to blanket claim. It is nowhere near the same as suggesting I can speak for women because I have a female friend. Kind of astounding to see that comparison drawn.
No it's just trying to make statistical conclusions based on a really low sample.
Which is wrong, but it's certainly not sexist.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked