Have you not watched any of the debates?
-
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.
DNC agrees to give Sanders greater influence over party platform
- Thread starter jack_package_200
- Start date
- Status
Have you not watched any of the debates?
It's the only explanation I can think of because she called him out big time on this.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
She should be doing speeches, gathering supports, proposing legislation and hammering him with it. Its not like they are doing regular debates where she could just rely on repetition.
her points even say this
that sounds like expansion. can you remove the neo prefix from her liberal now?
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Prototype Viktor
Member
But polls don't matter!
Hey what's behind you!?!
Now look at the polls saying Bernie will win over Trump
She's repeatedly called him out for placing gun manufacturers liability ahead of people's lives.
She's done dozens of press interviews stating that, tweeted it multiple times. She met with Sandy Hook survivor families. She laid out a plan including universal background checks closing loopholes, making gun manufacturers liable. Her surrogates accused his home state of supplying New York and Connecticut with illegally obtained guns for months. She's done everything you suggested and more.
Short of busting into one of his rallies Kool Aid man style I'm not sure what more she could do.
So you haven't been paying any attention then.
I'm not sure if this was posted (scrolled through but didn't see it)
According to Associated Press:
"Bernie Sanders predicted Monday that the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia could be "messy" as he pushed the party to adopt his progressive agenda, but added, "Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle."
According to Associated Press:
"Bernie Sanders predicted Monday that the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia could be "messy" as he pushed the party to adopt his progressive agenda, but added, "Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle."
exmachina64
Banned
How many people are part of the center in your mind? Liberal? Conservative?
Is there a vast silent liberal majority across the country that just doesn't show up at elections? If so, how long has it existed? When Reagan swept the country in a landslide twice, was he carried by a conservative minority?
excelsiorlef
Member
What's his major malfunction. He's lost and lost decisively.
Democracy has spoken.
Shit I mean the 08 convention went smoothly and Clinton was hell of a lot more competitive vs Obama than Sanders has ever been.
Such honest to god arrogance.
Frozenprince
Banned
I mean Hillary could be doing that.
The DNC could be doing that.
But they haven't, they have been treating Bernie with kid gloves, going in with full headgear and only throwing feints and jabs. If that.
Know why?
Because they know, and Bernie knows, that this whole thing was a farce from jump, and that there is no point in Hillary attacking him because she is winning so overwhelmingly and that gap is gonna just get bigger when California rolls around.
Sanders has been playing far more to the negative that Hillary has been, that should be telling of who's scared.
The DNC could be doing that.
But they haven't, they have been treating Bernie with kid gloves, going in with full headgear and only throwing feints and jabs. If that.
Know why?
Because they know, and Bernie knows, that this whole thing was a farce from jump, and that there is no point in Hillary attacking him because she is winning so overwhelmingly and that gap is gonna just get bigger when California rolls around.
Sanders has been playing far more to the negative that Hillary has been, that should be telling of who's scared.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's funny people talk about how lucky Clinton is to be running against Trump but no one mentions how lucky Sanders has been to run against Clinton.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome is so strong that he gets away with behavior that wouldn't be tolerated from almost any other politician.
Not to mention the fact that as you say Clinton has pulled basically 100% of her punches against him.
No one but a candidate running against Clinton would be able to get away with threatening some sort of fucked up chaotic/messy Democratic Convention because he's unhappy that he's down 300 delegates and 3 million in the popular vote.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders was indeed very lucky to be able to run against Clinton; it's rare the party elite choice is so uninspiring or uncharismatic. I think Clinton's palpable weaknesses as a candidate certainly help explain why Sanders did so much better than Kucinich or Bradley or the 'liberal challenger' of prior years. Equally, Clinton's very lucky to be running against Trump - she'd be the most disliked presidential candidate of all time were it not for Trump just about batting her back into second.
So really, everything worked out fine.
So really, everything worked out fine.
excelsiorlef
Member
Uninspiring which is why she's got the third highest primary votes in Democratic history (she's also get the second highest in history too).
She's just not flashy.
Though lol if she acted like Sanders she'd get shit on for being rude and too angry.
Frozenprince
Banned
Y'all wonder why we get so damn angry. I don't even like Hillary and I can tell you that this entire paragraph didn't have a single fact in it.
The woman is on pace for around 18 million votes. That's a stupidly impressive run. It's more than Obama got and Obama destroyed her down the stretch.
I mean for fucks sake she beat him by HALF A MILLION VOTES in Florida.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's not really surprising. The population of America increases by 6% every 8 years, and Democratic primary participation tracks this. As the winning candidate in any given year, you have to try quite hard not to have the most votes since whenever, that's just maths.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sure, right. But Bradley and Kucinich didn't win a state between them. Beating Sanders by half a million votes in Florida really should not be impressive. If you go look at PoliGAF posts from last December, most were predicting Sanders would only win Vermont. Some crazy people thought he'd win New Hampshire. If you go back to June, most predicted he wouldn't break the 10% barrier. Both of those were, at the time, pretty reasonable predictions - because Sanders-type candidates don't do well. They have a long history of not doing well. Saying "hey, look, Clinton's beating Sanders 60%-40%" is sort of missing the point. Like, only beating a Sanders-type candidate by that margin is pretty damn terrible. It's like Usain Bolt reaching the finishing line four metres ahead of someone in a wheelchair and saying "I trashed him, check out how awesome I am!".
Frozenprince
Banned
Except it's not that. At all. But okay sure believe whatever it is you want to believe.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
"I have no coherent argument, please accept my assertions!"
C'mon, step your game up son. If you're not even going to bother just hit the ignore button or something, these posts are just disappointing.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
And dramatis, with respect it is probably worth editing that last post. Being banned can get quite tedious.
Frozenprince
Banned
It's 7 in the morning, I'v been up for about 30 hours, and I'v had this argument 1000x. If you can't be bothered to read the quite literally hundreds of other threads that show your assertion is bullshit then I don't know what to tell you.
And how is your argument any more "coherent". It's the same general sentiment repeated over and over just made pretty with empty metaphors and sophistry.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
true statement.
subjective, but given the previous and following statements, I think you have to make a reasonably strong argument as to why it isn't the case.
true statement.
true statement.
true statement.
subjective but in light of the above and previous you have to make a pretty strong argument as to why it isn't the case
true statement
subjective but in light of the above and below etc.
an analogy to make the point.
I mean, that last post was composed of true statements, and then a series of subjective statements which were nevertheless quite well supported by the true statements. You can't just dismiss it out of hand.
If we want to do it differently, I can just post Clinton's favourable/unfavourable ratios, her trustworthy/untrustworthy ratios (worse than Trump!), or whatever other polling data you want. It really isn't a particularly controversial statement that as Democratic nominees go, Clinton is a historically weak candidate. Just trying to brush this off with "no u" posts makes you look a bit silly, to be honest. It's a plausible argument that I suspect a lot of people reading this thread agree with.
If you can't be bothered to have a proper conversation, then just don't reply. If you are going to reply, reply properly. Making posts that are only about a quarter of a intellectual tier above "lolololol cba u so wrong" is just pointless; it's basically just shit-posting.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
1. uninspiring and uncharismatic, yet roughly 30% more people voted for her than Sanders, and about 20% more than voted for Donald Trump, the GOP nominee.
2. Sanders did better than Kucinich because basically no one else ran because they knew they weren't going to beat Clinton, so why waste millions even acting like they had a chance? Sanders was a message candidate who ran at a time when populist ideology is at it's peak. Even then he's gotten destroyed. The only reason it's gone on this long is because Sanders refuses to drop out like every other candidate historically did when it was clear they had lost. Again, because he's a message candidate (and a delusional ideologue).
3. You should go take a look at Hillary Clinton's Favorable/Unfavorable history on RealClearPolitics.
I'll summarize: they've pulled a complete 180 when it was clear she was going to run. Why?
Well, because the Clinton smear machine was fired back up by the GOP, the GOP candidates spent more time attacking Clinton than Trump until it was too late, and the other candidate who refuses to see reality in the Dem Primary has built his entire message during the primary season around attacking her. Add a nice sprinkle of inherent sexism and you've got a pretty heady cocktail of unfavorability.
Something that will likely turn around rather quickly once she's actually in office and doing a good job though, just like it did when she was Sec. of State.
Frozenprince
Banned
Oh just stop, I don't need to throw out 4 paragraphs of sourced documentation to know that your general assertation is stupid and flawed. This isn't a high school debate team and you don't get the judge the intellectual veracity of my posts by their wording or length. It's pretentious and highly disrespectful.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...5-million-nearly-20-percent-2016-versus-2008/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/28/d...-down-a-whopping-26-in-2016-compared-to-2008/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
Primary turnout is down almost 30%, thus raw votes matter more than ever. Your entire argument is based on a false presumption, have a nice day.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This displays a remarkable ability to miss the point. Yes, well done, she did 30% better than Sanders and 20% better than Trump. That's a pretty low barrier to meet. Sanders is literally an independent who joined the Democratic Party purely for the purpose of running as nominee and had made a career out of attacking the Democratic Party structure. He's 74, Jewish, and a self-proclaimed Socialist. She should be thrashing him; on paper he shouldn't be doing better than 10%, tops - which was what everyone in PoliGAF was predicting when he announced.
Same thing with Trump. Trump is literally the most disliked presidential candidate of all time. Beating him should not be difficult.
All I'm saying is that in a historical context, almost every Democratic nominee in the past thirty years at least has been stronger than Clinton. Kerry? More favourable, more trusted. Al Gore? More favourable, more trusted. Dukakis? More favourable, more trusted. Those are just true statements. Clinton is the weakest candidate that the Democratic party has nominated in quite some time.
I like how you casually ignored Bradley, when the situation is exactly the same (nobody else ran because they knew they wouldn't beat Gore). There's so much revisionist history here it's amazing. Do you want me to go back and quote all the PoliGAF posts saying "Sanders won't win a single state" from December, even? I mean, how do you explain this? You have a few options: PoliGAF is really terrible at politics (this would explain a lot), Sanders ended up being an unexpectedly strong campaigner (none of you want to admit this), or Clinton ended up being an unexpectedly weak campaigner (none of you want to admit this either).
Pick your poison, go on.
That's not denying the point (that she's the most disliked candidate the Democrats have ever put forward); it's just explaining why. I mean sure, people don't like her because the Clinton smear machine has been in action by the GOP, fine, by the GOP have smeared every Democratic candidate since forever. That's what they do, that's how politics works. No other Democratic candidate fared as badly as Clinton in the face of it. Hence, she's a bad candidate.
I mean, look. I'm confident Clinton will beat Trump. I'm glad of it; she's easily better than any potential Republican candidate. But you just can't get around the fact that people really don't like her, and she's very lucky to be running against a 74-year old independent Jewish socialist and then a guy who is plausibly a modern fascist.
Frozenprince
Banned
I'd like to point out, before I fuck off to bed since I'm just so intellectually challenged.
That a non-sitting president in a democratic primary winning the vote by more than 30% has happened exactly 3 times.
One was Bill, the other two were Gore (who could have run against Jesus and won the nomination), and Kerry (who ran against a literal block of wood).
A 30% margin of victory, historically, is an absolute fucking slaughter. But hey narratives, I guess.
That a non-sitting president in a democratic primary winning the vote by more than 30% has happened exactly 3 times.
One was Bill, the other two were Gore (who could have run against Jesus and won the nomination), and Kerry (who ran against a literal block of wood).
A 30% margin of victory, historically, is an absolute fucking slaughter. But hey narratives, I guess.
lol. I think he's way past the point of no return here.
Sounds like something a mobster would say before he lays out why you are paying for his potection
excelsiorlef
Member
Nah he's threaning a messy convention lol. I'm preparing myself for a potential larger scale Nevada.
I condemn violence but ny supporters are young enthusiastic people and it would behoove you to listen...just saying it's a nice convention you have here so I'd hate for it to get messy...
You funny guy
I know hoping that he acts like an adult for more than ten consecutive minutes for the remainder of the campaign is a tall order, but...
I wanna say, I liked Bernie from the start, I still think he has the better ideas than Hillary for the most part but I'm really being soured over how he's handling his campaign. Everyone, rightfully so, blamed Trump for his rhetoric inciting his supporters, including Sanders if I'm not mistaken, and he pretty much is doing the same thing now that it's obvious he's going to lose.
I'm also a little miffed at how he's treating the party. On one hand I have no real love for a political party but on the other hand they were nice enough to let him run on their ticket despite him making it clear he didn't consider himself one publicly. Maybe that's not a big deal, maybe we can say everyone does it, the Republicans let the Paul's run on their ticket after all, but in a way that tells me that they're not all bad, even the Republicans, if they allow people who're just mostly aligned but not actual party members run on their ticket. As much as I would like to see the Democratic party move to the left more I do think he should have been softer on the attacks because, had Sanders won, the party would have backed him, despite him not being a Democrat and being further to the left than most of the rest of them. I could see him saying there's a party bias for sure but if at the end of the day they are willing to bet on something else I fail to see how it's flat out corrupt or rotten. They, and the Republicans, are willing to change some if the people demonstrate through voting that that's what they want. So as much as the parties may annoy me I do think there's a minimum amount of respect that they do deserve under their banner.
I personally am thankful for the Democratic party for even giving him the chance, I'm thankful he brought up some good issues and got some airtime, but I think the more hardcore Bernie supporters are missing the point. The Democratic party would be happy to adopt these policies if they thought they'd win with them, it's just been demonstrated so far that they won't and so others aren't willing to go to bat for them yet. These types of people are not the enemy. In any shape or fashion. Tearing them all down is just wrong to me. Doubly so when they were nice enough to let you run on their ticket. If there was really some kind of "conspiracy" or relevant collusion on the party's end they'd have made his ass run as an independent, he'd have gotten no time at any of the debates and we wouldn't even be having this conversation because no-one would know who the fuck he was.
And again, this has actually given me a lot of hope, even on the Republican side with Trump and Tea Partiers getting to run for them. It means the parties are not as closed and rigid as people think. Of course the people currently in the party will have their personal biases about what platforms a party should have and there'd be friction to new ideas, both good and bad, like, I'm happy the Republican side seems to hate Ted Cruz and Donald Trump for example, but it still shows that at the end of the day the parties are malleable and we're not stuck with what we have for all time. We just need the right people to run.
I'm also a little miffed at how he's treating the party. On one hand I have no real love for a political party but on the other hand they were nice enough to let him run on their ticket despite him making it clear he didn't consider himself one publicly. Maybe that's not a big deal, maybe we can say everyone does it, the Republicans let the Paul's run on their ticket after all, but in a way that tells me that they're not all bad, even the Republicans, if they allow people who're just mostly aligned but not actual party members run on their ticket. As much as I would like to see the Democratic party move to the left more I do think he should have been softer on the attacks because, had Sanders won, the party would have backed him, despite him not being a Democrat and being further to the left than most of the rest of them. I could see him saying there's a party bias for sure but if at the end of the day they are willing to bet on something else I fail to see how it's flat out corrupt or rotten. They, and the Republicans, are willing to change some if the people demonstrate through voting that that's what they want. So as much as the parties may annoy me I do think there's a minimum amount of respect that they do deserve under their banner.
I personally am thankful for the Democratic party for even giving him the chance, I'm thankful he brought up some good issues and got some airtime, but I think the more hardcore Bernie supporters are missing the point. The Democratic party would be happy to adopt these policies if they thought they'd win with them, it's just been demonstrated so far that they won't and so others aren't willing to go to bat for them yet. These types of people are not the enemy. In any shape or fashion. Tearing them all down is just wrong to me. Doubly so when they were nice enough to let you run on their ticket. If there was really some kind of "conspiracy" or relevant collusion on the party's end they'd have made his ass run as an independent, he'd have gotten no time at any of the debates and we wouldn't even be having this conversation because no-one would know who the fuck he was.
And again, this has actually given me a lot of hope, even on the Republican side with Trump and Tea Partiers getting to run for them. It means the parties are not as closed and rigid as people think. Of course the people currently in the party will have their personal biases about what platforms a party should have and there'd be friction to new ideas, both good and bad, like, I'm happy the Republican side seems to hate Ted Cruz and Donald Trump for example, but it still shows that at the end of the day the parties are malleable and we're not stuck with what we have for all time. We just need the right people to run.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Those are 30 men-percents. Not the same thing.
Why is it that people always talk as if it's a super positive thing that Sanders is forcing Clinton and possibly the Democratic party widely to the left. What if people are happy with where the democratic party sits roughly? Maybe that's partially why Clinton won?
Speaking for myself, I know I agree with the democrats on most every social issue but whenever I hear a hard left politician talking about wall street, big banks, and shaking up the entire system it always seems misguided and uneducated. I'm far more centrist on economic policy, and I think that if the party goes Bernie Sanders crazy and is pushed to his side on economic policy, then that leaves a massive opening for the center-right on the republican side. Not necessarily a good idea for the party.
Speaking for myself, I know I agree with the democrats on most every social issue but whenever I hear a hard left politician talking about wall street, big banks, and shaking up the entire system it always seems misguided and uneducated. I'm far more centrist on economic policy, and I think that if the party goes Bernie Sanders crazy and is pushed to his side on economic policy, then that leaves a massive opening for the center-right on the republican side. Not necessarily a good idea for the party.
EnthronedReaper
Neo Member
Sounds like someone looking for change. Unlike ahem *obama*
I love Obama. But I know some people in the "hood" hate the fact that shit is the same for them and getting worse. They got sold hope and all they got was higher rent. (I'm from la if you guys saw the thread about it, people are feeling the housing burden heavy here)
If my boy Obama can't do it, i sure as hell don't trust Hillary. I love gaf except when it comes to politics. So go ahead and shove the Goldwater girl down our throats gaf. She ain't got my vote
Maybe if the people you know in the "Hood" got off their asses and made their own lives better themselves they wouldnt have to worry about some person thousands of miles away playing savior for their own mistakes.
Hillary 2016.
EnthronedReaper
Neo Member
Oh yeah jackass that's gotta be it. Geez
Belittlement is what denies you the truth.
My mom works 2 jobs. Respecatble jobs. She nurses the mentally handicapped at night and is a dental assistant in the mornings EVERY WEEKDAY. I guarantee your smug ass does not work like her. Yet she can barely make ends meat. She gets food from the food bank. People in the hood aren't "hood" their people too.
Just not born with your privelage. If you can't see that. We can't be friends
...Did Democrats reverse their perspective on class and welfare while I wasn't looking?
But Obama is supposed to magically ride in on a unicorn and save them from their lives?
Its all about accountability. Your station in life is what you make of it. America is still the land of opportunity.
uncelestial
Member
It hasn't been in her platform either time she's run for president, so being "for it" in whatever sense you're talking about is essentially meaningless. I'm sure you can point out where on this page there is a proposal that would achieve UHC?
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
No I am talking about to people who bitch about one of the best presidents we ever had because their lives are shit and they want somebody else to fix it for them.
Obama has been a GREAT president.
Actually every study has shown the opposite - America is the western nation with the least amount of opportunity. Social mobility is extremely low in the USA compared to other countries, people of minority backgrounds suffer more than in other countries, and the gap between rich and poor is larger.
You can earn more as a billionaire in America compared to other western democracies - but for general opportunity, America sucks. The amazing exceptional and inspiring story about the person who escapes the ghetto and becomes a millionaire doesn't make up for the thousands of people left behind.
Uh, maybe for the same reason some people don't want to see it pushed to the left? People want what they want. Same thing as the Tea Party people wanting to push the Republican party to the right.
I'm sure it is at the moment.
That's fair enough, I can't really say my opinion's more valid than yours but I don't think Sanders is particularly crazy he just can't sell his ideas worth a shit, well without making them sound like they're, well, crazy. I don't really like left, centrist and right when it comes to economics because not only is that incredibly simplistic but it's also dependant on time. I'd say both the Republican party and Democratic party have shifted to the right economically than they were 50 years ago, so are you a modern centrist, a classic centrist, a really old traditional centrist? But then, if most of our economic discussion is about reversing things done relatively recently, all in my lifetime fyi, can it really be called "shaking up the system." It's not like either time is unknown we went from virtually no regulation, regulation and then laxing the regulation again, at this point pretty much everything's tried and known when it comes to banking.
I mean, to put it into perspective, in a way we're basically saying that going back to early Reagan years is crazy left shit. Reagan. Too far left. Too far left economically(even he didn't do all the deregulation people blame for the banking crises), too far left on immigration(for amnesty), hell, probably too far left environmentally(believed the government should use it's power for the ozone and to reduce lead)! He even presided over the breakup of AT&T that monopoly hater! Hell, even during Reagan's tenure as President the adults who went to college in the decade prior went for free or a nominal fee as tuition for public universities was still *free* or dirt cheap for some states at that time.! That's crazy in my book.
The only crazy left thing, for this country, that Sanders really proposes is medicare for all and even that's not crazy or an unknown if we can just look around, but I'll give you that would be a massive shakeup of they system. For us.
But at the end of the day, if people feel this, right now, is the center and they like it, I can't say much, just, historically, aside from a few things like LGBT and race rights I feel like we've been shifting backwards, I'd like to see them move back to the "left" myself.
I think you are probably earning more in almost every salaried job in America compared to western countries. The big draw is the fact that healthcare and student loans are often the big issue here.
Speaking about specifics, some of Bernie's left ideas that a moderate democrat may be opposed to include breaking up the big banks (Bernie demonizes the entire financial sector, but big banks aren't all bad for 'Joe America'. Lower interest rates, more liquid lending, etc...) and his opposition to trade agreements (and the fear of globalization. Protectionist policies suck)
- Status