Support NeoGAF

[NullPointer]

As much as I would love Bernie to win, I think Hilary has been a lock since 2012. Maybe Bernie can come up and run Canada instead.

Its always possible that Hillary's campaign implodes - she could have a meltdown or some new scandal could arise or a whole host of crazy things. Its silly season after all.

Putting all the eggs in a single basket from the very beginning (anointing Hillary) seems short-sighted and risky to me.

 

[acheron_xl]

If anyone is going to beat Hillary, it isn't going to be Sanders. Not without putting some money into his appearance. As much as I like the guy, he's too much of a schlub to be competitive in our shallow society.

 

[Knoxcore]

I'm completely dumbfounded how so many Sanders supporters are willing to throw away the idea of a Democratic if their candidate does not win the nomination. By all means, vote your heart in the primary but, Jesus, vote Democrat to ensure continued progressive policies for another four years.

 

[disastermouse]

So this is how we got Bush term two, huh? Because of people like you who think your high standards and perfect idealism are worth more than practical solutions in reality that might actually do something to help people, just maybe not you.

Is your "economically enfranchised working class" really the only thing you will ever strive for, because god forbid immigrants, blacks, or women have any social or civil rights issues addressed before your economic revolution? Is it also because you're so self-centered that you're not thinking about future consequences? I thought that was the domain of the young and the conceited, but apparently it affects the old and bitter.

Economics may be a huge influence in politics, but it is not the only component of politics. Your pseudo philosophy has very little to do with current reality. Your unwillingness to look further and see what your vote means to your community or country is ironically characteristic of the typical self-serving, capitalistic behavior that you so adamantly side with Bernie Sanders against.

Economics is class struggle, class struggle is politics. All the rest is a sideshow. I heard someone say recently that the Democratic party is where movements go to die. In the past I'd have resisted that notion, but it's because I'm older that I'm starting to see the truth in it.

 

[disastermouse]

By not voting for a "subpar" candidate, you are complicit in supporting their opposition. Who will be considerably worse politically than the subpar candidate. If the democrats lose, they won't see the lack of votes for a subpar candidate as, "We weren't liberal enough," they'll see it as, "We weren't conservative enough."

The democrats can't win on the right. The only reason they've been successful in the center is that liberals use your logic to vote for candidates they don't support. Democrats take the liberal vote for granted in presidential cycles. Since they feel they have a lock on the liberals, they go as conservative as they can without completely losing liberals, and since liberals feel pretty hopeless since Reagan, we've been willing to put up with a lot - but I think that era is ending.

 

[gogosox82]

I'm completely dumbfounded how so many Sanders supporters are willing to throw away the idea of a Democratic if their candidate does not win the nomination. By all means, vote your heart in the primary but, Jesus, vote Democrat to ensure continued progressive policies for another four years.

I don't think being excited for Sanders = refusing to vote for Hilary. Even the op said that if someone disastrous like Walker got the nom, he'd hold his nose and vote for Hilary. It's 7 months until Iowa so I think its ok for people to be excited for him.

 

[water_wendi]

I don't think being excited for Sanders = refusing to vote for Hilary. Even the op said that if someone disastrous like Walker got the nom, he'd hold his nose and vote for Hilary. It's 7 months until Iowa so I think its ok for people to be excited for him.

i dont know how you can say that when the very OP you are quoting says what you are saying it doesnt. The Republicans got the lock this election. At least stuff in government will get done when they control all three branches.

 

[Leeroy3101]

vote Democrat to ensure continued progressive policies for another four years.

What progressive policies? Obama may be decent on social liberties, but he endorses the neoliberal model of corporate welfare.

 

[disastermouse]

What progressive policies? Obama may be decent on social liberties, but he endorses the neoliberal model of corporate welfare.

This!

Look, Dems and Reps are just good cop, bad cop. The inexorable movement is always corporatist.

 

[lednerg]

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Also, let's not ignore the obstructionists in the GOP who are doing everything in their power to block and/or reverse anything even remotely progressive.

 

[gogosox82]

i dont know how you can say that when the very OP you are quoting says what you are saying it doesnt. The Republicans got the lock this election. At least stuff in government will get done when they control all three branches.

I have no idea what the hell you just said. OP said a few pages back that he would vote for Hilary if someone really bad like Walker got the nomination. And Republicans don't "have the lock". Dems have a decent shot at the senate and the presidency so how can republicans "have the lock". And stuff like what? Cutting social security and medicare and starting pointless wars in the middle east? If that's their "stuff" then no thanks.

 

[Bowdz]

The democrats can't win on the right. The only reason they've been successful in the center is that liberals use your logic to vote for candidates they don't support. Democrats take the liberal vote for granted in presidential cycles. Since they feel they have a lock on the liberals, they go as conservative as they can without completely losing liberals, and since liberals feel pretty hopeless since Reagan, we've been willing to put up with a lot - but I think that era is ending.

The republicans can't win on the left. The only reason they've been successful in the center is that conservatives use your logic to vote for candidates they don't support. Republicans take the conservative vote for granted in presidential cycles. Since they feel they have a lock on the conservatives, they go as liberal as they can without completely losing conservatives, and since conservatives feel pretty hopeless since Obama, we've been willing to put up with a lot - but I think that era is ending.

You are the tea party of the left. Newsflash, it hasn't led to Republicans winning the White House, just like the Democratic nominee, despite your saying otherwise, won't win the White House if they pull hard to the left (and they haven't in the past when they've done this).

Like it or not, America is a center-right leaning country that, due to savvy politicians on the left who understand the notion of slow progress, has slowly been nudged to the left in the past century. Hard swings in one direction or another can only really happen after an election provided there is an swell of broad support and the political climate is right. Candidates that have presided over massive shifts in the modern era haven't done so in the election season because swing voters live in the center-right.

 

[Leeroy3101]

Do the parties truly even matter with our plutocratic system? I feel like I'm just perpetuating a problem by voting for a Dem if only for social issues and SCOTUS nominees.

The backbone of our system is held up by exorbitant amounts of money, along with a poorly educated populace, from corporate America. How do all of the diehard Hillary supporters ignore this fact?

 

[disastermouse]

Do the parties truly even matter with our plutocratic system? I feel like I'm just perpetuating a problem by voting for a Dem if only for social issues and SCOTUS nominees.

The backbone of our system is held up by exorbitant amounts of money, along with a poorly educated populace, from corporate America. How do all of the diehard Hillary supporters ignore this fact?

This is the dilemma and the source of so much disinterest in our political system.

 

[gogosox82]

You are the tea party of the left. Newsflash, it hasn't led to Republicans winning the White House, just like the Democratic nominee, despite your saying otherwise, won't win the White House if they pull hard to the left (and they haven't in the past when they've done this).

Like it or not, America is a center-right leaning country that, due to savvy politicians on the left who understand the notion of slow progress, has slowly been nudged to the left in the past century. Hard swings in one direction or another can only really happen after an election provided there is an swell of broad support and the political climate is right. Candidates that have presided over massive shifts in the modern era haven't done so in the election season because swing voters live in the center-right.

No it is not. When you poll Americans on the issues that are considered progressive, they are usually for them. Good example is Obamacare. When you poll people on the provisions of Obamacare most Americans, even tea partiers, are for them. Its only when you ask them if they like Obamacare is when you get people saying they don't like it and that is a function of republicans running ads and spreading misinformation(ie spending money to run negative ads) about Obamacare more than anything else.

The reason a candidate like Bernie cannot win is because of money, pure and simple. Sanders will not use superpac money and Hilary will and she'll probably raise about $50 million and have enough money for the primary and the general. This is main reason why people are predicting Hilary/Jeb for the presidency is because of money. They are both just going to raise the most money out of anyone on their prospective sides. People like Walker and Trump being talked about because they have money. Walker via his Koch Bros connection and Trump because he's billionaire. It has little to nothing to do with policy and everything to do with money. Whoever has the most money wins most elections and its been that way for a pretty long time. Anytime you wonder why this guy got beat or why this bill got passed, just follow the money and that's usually your answer.

 

[benjipwns]

Whoever has the most money wins most elections and its been that way for a pretty long time.

No, it hasn't.

 

[disastermouse]

No it is not. When you poll Americans on the issues that are considered progressive, they are usually for them. Good example is Obamacare. When you poll people on the provisions of Obamacare most Americans, even tea partiers, are for them. Its only when you ask them if they like Obamacare is when you get people saying they don't like it and that is a function of republicans running ads and spreading misinformation(ie spending money to run negative ads) about Obamacare more than anything else.

The reason a candidate like Bernie cannot win is because of money, pure and simple. Sanders will not use superpac money and Hilary will and she'll probably raise about $50 million and have enough money for the primary and the general. This is main reason why people are predicting Hilary/Jeb for the presidency is because of money. They are both just going to raise the most money out of anyone on their prospective sides. People like Walker and Trump being talked about because they have money. Walker via his Koch Bros connection and Trump because he's billionaire. It has little to nothing to do with policy and everything to do with money. Whoever has the most money wins most elections and its been that way for a pretty long time. Anytime you wonder why this guy got beat or why this bill got passed, just follow the money and that's usually your answer.

Except...

Who's watching television anymore? Internet ads are cheaper and social media word of mouth is practically free.

 

[acheron_xl]

Except...

Who's watching television anymore? Internet ads are cheaper and social media word of mouth is practically free.

People who vote in high percentages.

 

[lednerg]

People who vote in high percentages.

Yup. Baby Boomers who have nothing to do but watch The Weather Channel and Fox News all fucking day.

 

[boiled goose]

The democrats can't win on the right. The only reason they've been successful in the center is that liberals use your logic to vote for candidates they don't support. Democrats take the liberal vote for granted in presidential cycles. Since they feel they have a lock on the liberals, they go as conservative as they can without completely losing liberals, and since liberals feel pretty hopeless since Reagan, we've been willing to put up with a lot - but I think that era is ending.

Democrats not catering to liberals was disastrous in the midterms. No one showed up to vote and they got crushed.

They go center because of money in politics. The game is rigged to favor the corrupt

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yup. Baby Boomers who have nothing to do but watch The Weather Channel and Fox News all fucking day.

Which is why American politics will be very interesting in ~20 years. I don't think Bernie could win, but I do think he's ahead of the curve. Texas will be blue within four or five presidential elections, and that will signal some pretty momentous things for American politics.

 

[A_Gorilla]

Which is why American politics will be very interesting in ~20 years. I don't think Bernie could win, but I do think he's ahead of the curve. Texas will be blue within four or five presidential elections, and that will signal some pretty momentous things for American politics.

Isn't VIrginia already blue?

 

[Jelly Rajah]

Hilary has already won this election.

 

[disastermouse]

Hilary has already won this election.

From a year and a half out? That's an eternity in politics.

 

[gogosox82]

No, it hasn't.

Yes it has. 90% of incumbents win and that isn't because they are just better candidates. Its party because of gerrymandering districts so many don't have challengers but its mostly to do with money. They just have more money to spend and that usually makes the difference.

 

[benjipwns]

Candidates who spent the most money in races within 10 points or less tend to win only 60% of the time.

As Senators Huffington and McMahon show. And Governor Corzine's second term illustrates.

Most races in general are foregone conclusions because of factors outside of campaign spending.

With every dollar spent on non-infrastructure factors you get less and less of an impact. Some studies have shown almost no impact once voter awareness hits a certain level.

 

[Indicate]

For those doubting Bernie because he won't have enough money, here's what he has to say:

“When I ran for mayor of the city of Burlington in 1981, nobody, nobody, nobody thought that I could win that election,” said Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.

“When I ran for the United States Congress the first time, everybody thought I would be a spoiler — not [that I would] do well. But in 1990, I defeated an incumbent Republican congressman by 16 points,” Sanders said.

“In 2006, when I first ran for the United States Senate, I ran against the wealthiest person in the state, who spent three times more money than anyone else has ever spent. I won that election 2-to-1.”
“People,” he added, “should not underestimate me.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-senate-colleagues-opinions-120007.htm

 

[Fenderputty]

What progressive policies? Obama may be decent on social liberties, but he endorses the neoliberal model of corporate welfare.

This is probably true in bizarro world were the expansion of the patriot act never happened, Obama never riased taxes, and the ACA was still just romneycare.

 

[inm8num2]

For those doubting Bernie because he won't have enough money, here's what he has to say:

“People,” he added, “should not underestimate me.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-senate-colleagues-opinions-120007.htm

I like that confidence. Reminds me of Heisenberg's "tread lightly". HeisenBernie.