Support NeoGAF

[Valhelm]

Hillarycare was the closest thing to a public option;

all Democrats who voted against it are also assholes.

For sure, but that doesn't make Bill's crusade to destroy welfare any less horrific.

 

[jtb]

Good for Carter and Bernie, though isn't Carter exactly the kind of centrist ideology-free Democrat that you'd think the Bernie wing of the party would despise? (Foreign policy, aside, obviously)

 

[And_Gignac]

Who cares, and it makes sense Carter voted for him.

If he won, Bernie would have ended up just like Carter.

At least he would have won. Unlike ending like Mondale, as Clinton did.

 

[excelsiorlef]

At least he would have won. Unlike ending like Mondale, as Clinton did.

Really... Mondale?

 

[kirblar]

The ongoing Labour fiasco shows how cynical centrists can be just as petulant and destructive as ideological leftists. Entitled Blairites help the Tories far more than spurned lefties, because centrists are much more likely to support right-wing candidates when they don't get their way.

Unity is a two-way street. You can't demand that leftists bow to every one of your policies while also doing everything possible to lock leftists out of power. The defamation of Keith Ellison, opposition to medicare expansion, and rightward shift on reproducitve rights suggests that many powerful Democrats would much rather bow to the GOP than embrace the left wing of the party.

All this makes me wonder if "unity" talk is just a ploy to gain leftist votes through moral appeals instead of actually proactive policy. Some leftists, particularly on Twitter, can be divisive in ways that could hamper efforts against Trump, but unless the Democratic party is willing to make policy concessions they're going to stay losing.

Of course you're willing to bastardize and take Pelosi's comments out of context in order to serve your own personal narrative and agenda. The Democrats have always had a need to be relatively flexible w/ candidates (this is what the 50-state strategy is all about!) because they don't have the ideological consistency the GOP does. The Democratic Party is majority female. Pelosi says it herself in that interview- just how many of these people do you think will be able to successfully get through a primary? Not very many. Especially not enough to actually alter policy. If you don't believe me, look at the heavy backlash from core Dem groups (NARAL, PP, etc.) after Mello got dragged into the national spotlight by Sanders.

Plenty of liberals oppose Single Payer but support universal healthcare. You don't need it in order to provide health care to all your citizens- plenty of EU countries don't have it either and are just fine! The voter sitting at the 51% margin tipping the vote is the one who matters. The House (UNDER PELOSI) passed a Public Option! Obama didn't nuke the filibuster, and thus it failed in the Senate. You won't be able to get all the way to single payer because you're not going to get the votes for it in the house or Senate. (for good reason, it would be a shock to the economy) This is the reality of the situation. Pelosi even says in the interview that she supports single payer but that she knows she can't get it passed.

And the ongoing Labour fiasco shows that no, there is not a secret majority out there for ignorant trash policies on the left like there is on the right. Corbyn is completely awful to the point where he makes May look like a good option to people. The GOP is an ideological tire fire wedded to simplistic, outdated, awful ideas, and copying that crap on the liberal side would send our country into the same nuclear wasteland we see the UK in today.

 

[Blader]

Really... Mondale?

Don't you remember when Donald Trump won over 500 electoral votes?

 

[badcrumble]

Interesting, considering that Carter started the gradual pro-privatization turn in the Democratic Party. He was much closer to the Clinton/Obama style than he was to Lyndon Johnson.

Former presidents don't meddle in primaries until the victor is all but assured.

Carter and the Clintons have had bad blood since the 70s, this isn't surprising.

Since the 70s? I know they're both Southern Democrats and Clinton was already a governor in 1979, but what did he do to piss Carter off so early in his career?

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Hard to blame any Democrat for harboring bad feelings to Bill and what he stands for, even a wishy-washy and ineffective Democrat like Carter. Bill thought he could preserve American liberalism by draggng the party to the right, but look where we are today/

Political conversations with zero historical context are asinine. Bill Clinton was as conservative as he needed to be to exist, at a time when the country was still largely conservative. The failure of his first two years (and end result of republicans winning congress) was due to Clinton not recognizing he didn't have a mandate for liberal policy.

I'm not going to defend much of his record, I have no respect for either Clinton. But politically, Bill Clinton revived democrats on a national level by being competent, and he paved the way for 2008.

 

[Dehnus]

Bernie was lacking big endorsements in the primary, wonder why Carter held back till now.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/jimmy-carter-bernie-sanders/







Carter the record if old.

Because Jimmy Carter is toxic with "reasonable left/right" voters. Decades of demonization did its job 😞. I love him, but sooo many hate the guy. Republicans kept pushing "stupid peanut farming hick", which is ironic considering their voter base lolz.

 

[chillybright]

Every thread about Bernie or Hillary is a microscope of Democratic party in its current state.

 

[Volimar]

Every thread about Bernie or Hillary is a microscope of Democratic party in its current state.

A few people trying to come together and craft a plan going forward while the rest bicker about the last primary?

 

[Mael]

You mean Carter? The guy who lost to Reagan and is pretty much the synonym for failure as far as pop culture goes?
Would Dukakis feeling the bern have been the next step?

 

[teruterubozu]

Wow Hillary is Walter Mondale and Carter is Dukakis.
Fun self-hating thread.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Yeah, that much sought after Carter endorsement surely would have made the masses of primary voters finally feel the bern.

Money in politics is fine to rail against. But until campaign finance reform is the law of the land we need to play with a full deck of cards. Moral high ground is great and all, but I'd rather progressive candidates stand the best chance of winning.

I mean I feel you, but Hillary outspent Trump by far and still lost right? I don't know, I sort of feel like strategy has been lost under pure money at this point.

 

[Cocaloch]

Is anyone still confused about why the presidential election transpired the way it did? The reasons have been outlined and explained quite clearly many times.

People still debate the meaning of political events from hundreds of years ago. The idea that we've exhausted the value of analysis on this event because it's been half of a year since the election is silly.

We millennials get to live through the times when the American experiment has ultimately failed under its own hubris and its own unchecked greed. We get to live through the times when we are taxed increasingly more and more, without true representation. So many leaders and presidents since the founding of our nation have warned us about this level of power yielded by so few, which is what we fought against in the first place by 1776. We get to re-live that again in 2017, however food stamps and welfare have prevented millions and millions of starving people from hitting the streets in desperation. We will see what the popular reaction will be if we face another financial crisis (which I believe is already baked into the cake).

1776 was absolutely fought to establish an oligarchical government. The creole elites weren't particularly happy about not being on the same social level of Britain's elites.

All this makes me wonder if "unity" talk is just a ploy to gain leftist votes through moral appeals instead of actually proactive policy. Some leftists, particularly on Twitter, can be divisive in ways that could hamper efforts against Trump, but unless the Democratic party is willing to make policy concessions they're going to stay losing.

I mentioned this in a thread the other day, but I think this is exactly right. Though it's subconscious. The left liberal wing of the democratic party is so sure that people that don't totally buy into that program are simply idiots that they call for unity fully convinced that the only platform on which to unify is theirs. They don't take leftists particularly seriously. Politics is compromise, but in a country with big tent parties its not just compromising with the other party.

 

[Diablos]

Not really surprising. Jimmy has never been a big fan of the Clintons

Frankly he should have endorsed during the primary if he wanted this to make an impact

 

[biggersmaller]

America's grandpa. Good man. I would criticize him for being late, but he's a 90 year old humanitarian who only wanted to do what's best for his country. It's what made him so ineffective.

 

[Cocaloch]

A few people trying to come together and craft a plan going forward while the rest bicker about the last primary?

It's far more the latter than the former.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The OP is largely about Jimmy Carter's opinion on money in politics and why he chose Sanders.
Not feuding about the outcome of the primary.

That must be why the title is "Jimmy Carter condemns influence of money in politics."

 

[The Albatross]

It wouldn't have helped Bernie in either the primary or the general election had Carter endorsed him. Jimmy Carter knows this, too, which is why he generally focuses on endorsing or criticizing policy, and less so about endorsing candidates. Carter didn't come to endorse Obama in 2008 until the primary was well in hand, and Carter was a super-delegate then and I'm unsure if he is anymore.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Don't you remember when Donald Trump won over 500 electoral votes?

And the popular vote lol.

 

[kirblar]

It wouldn't have helped Bernie in either the primary or the general election had Carter endorsed him. Jimmy Carter knows this, too, which is why he generally focuses on endorsing or criticizing policy, and less so about endorsing candidates. Carter didn't come to endorse Obama in 2008 until the primary was well in hand, and Carter was a super-delegate then and I'm unsure if he is anymore.

At least through 2016, ex-Presidents were super-delgates for life. Not sure if that changed w/ the Sanders concessions.

 

[El_Tiguere]

1776 was absolutely fought to establish an oligarchical government. The creole elites weren't particularly happy about not being on the same social level of Britain's elites.

That's an interesting take and all, but what lit a fire under everyone's ass at the time was economic repression by an aristocracy that did not represent the will of the people. We have the same aristocracy today, and the same economic repression.

 

[ZeoVGM]

Every single thread related to this somehow ends up turning into a few people deluding themselves into believing Bernie would have easily beaten Trump.

No.

A video leaked of Donald Trump admitting to sexual assault and he still won.

He was going to beat Bernie too.

 

[The Real Abed]

ex presidents generally sit out primary endorsements

I seem to remember an article talking about how pretty much every living former President was against Trump.

 

[shamanick]

Every single thread related to this somehow ends up turning into a few people deluding themselves into believing Bernie would have easily beaten Trump.

No.

A video leaked of Donald Trump admitting to sexual assault and he still won.

He was going to beat Bernie too.

Sadly, this is simply not true. Bernie would have won

 

[whyamihere]

Maybe Bernie would've won, but we also don't live in a world where that happened, so there's no way to actually be 100% sure. It's sort of a silly argument.

I think Bernie would've had a better shot at the presidency than Hillary, but I'm also uncomfortable stating as a fact that Bernie would've won because, like, I'm not a psychic.

 

[ZeoVGM]

Sadly, this is simply not true. Bernie would have won

Absolutely delusional.

 

[shamanick]

Absolutely delusional.

I agree, making absolute statements about events that never happened is delusional.

 

[polyh3dron]

Who cares, and it makes sense Carter voted for him.

If he won, Bernie would have ended up just like Carter.

I'd take that over Trump any day.

 

[Tarydax]

Sadly, this is simply not true. Bernie would have won

I agree, making absolute statements about events that never happened is delusional.

Make up your mind.

 

[kirblar]

Sadly, this is simply not true. Bernie would have won

Left-wing populism has not been faring well against right wing populism worldwide when the two have gone head to head. Turns out people really like that racism.

 

[Archaix]

Every single thread related to this somehow ends up turning into a few people deluding themselves into believing Bernie would have easily beaten Trump.

No.

A video leaked of Donald Trump admitting to sexual assault and he still won.

He was going to beat Bernie too.

You don't think that maybe has something to do with how completely unelectable Hillary Clinton is as a candidate?

 

[Barajas_201]

The best American president in the most recent history voting (no not Obama) for Bernie is not surprising.

 

[kirblar]

The best American president in the most recent history voting (no not Obama) for Bernie is not surprising.

A good president would have managed to actually do something with a fillibuster-proof congressional majority.

 

[ZeoVGM]

You don't think that maybe has something to do with how completely unelectable Hillary Clinton is as a candidate?

No, I don't. Because Trump's "message" sunk deep into white America and not Hillary or Bernie would have been able to counter the lies and rhetoric that Trump spouted in the states that pushed him over.

But yes, let's talk more about the unelectable woman who got 3 million more votes than the winner.

 

[TestOfTide]

It probably wouldn't have mattered. Look how hard it was for Trump and Obama to break through all the obstacles standing in their way. Bernie would've needed momentum that simply couldn't be ignored and dismissed by the establishment. The actual political revolution that he talked about but didn't come for him. Jim's endorsement wouldn't have been enough to start a big movement.

Not really considering that Jimmy Carter was one of the only Democrats in the past 50 years to have to face a primary challenger in their run for a second term.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Sadly, this is simply not true. Bernie would have won

An open socialist would not have won the election.

And I wanted him to win.

 

[TestOfTide]

The best American president in the most recent history voting (no not Obama) for Bernie is not surprising.

Best American POTUS in recent history? Jimmy Carter? The guy who failed to get the ERA ratified? The guy who did so poorly that he faced a primary challenge for his second term?

And recent? If you are going to claim that 76 recent then why not add another decade and acknowledge the ACTUAL Best POTUS, LBJ?

 

[JordanN]

An open socialist would not have won the election.

And I wanted him to win.

All the arguments against Bernie winning always stem on feelings and not how the election actually went down.

Hillary lost the rust belt. Guess who won those states in the primary?

 

[TestOfTide]

All the arguments against Bernie winning always stem on feelings and not how the election actually went down.

Hillary lost the rust belt. Guess who won those states in the primary?

Except Bernie lost in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Except Bernie lost in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

but he won in our hearts

 

[Professor Beef]

Go back to farming peanuts, Jimmy

 

[minor effort]

Sadly, this is simply not true. Bernie would have won

An open socialist would not have won the election.

And I wanted him to win.

I think it's entirely possible Bernie could have won, but saying Bernie would have won requires writing four months of General Election campaigning that never transpired.

I know it's common to point to Bernie's popularity ratings around November 2016 for iron-clad evidence that he would have glided to victory if he were the nominee, but that's a rebound due for anyone being off the campaign trail for four months. It's still an unknown factor how Bernie would have been polling that November if he actually were the nominee, had actually been through relentless GOP attacks, the debates, the rallies, and so forth.

 

[Neoweee]

Except Bernie lost in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I swear I've wandered into this alternate reality where Bernie didn't get fucking stomped in battleground states by huge margins, and only lost because of superdelegates or something.

but he won in our hearts

Ironically, Carter lost the Pennsylvania primary as sitting president.

 

[Hindl]

All the arguments against Bernie winning always stem on feelings and not how the election actually went down.

Hillary lost the rust belt. Guess who won those states in the primary?

Bernie doesn't automatically get all of the states Hillary won + the rust belt

 

[Autodidact]

All the arguments against Bernie winning always stem on feelings and not how the election actually went down.

Hillary lost the rust belt. Guess who won those states in the primary?

Without Hillary, Nevada might have gone Republican; ditto Virginia. And if she couldn't win Florida or North Carolina, Bernie couldn't, either. He lost Ohio and Pennsylvania in the primaries, so there they go, too.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Not really considering that Jimmy Carter was one of the only Democrats in the past 50 years to have to face a primary challenger in their run for a second term.

In the past 50 years there have only been three democratic presidents.

And recent? If you are going to claim that 76 recent then why not add another decade and acknowledge the ACTUAL Best POTUS, LBJ?

LBJ? The guy who couldn't get out of Vietnam LBJ? The guy who did so poorly he became the only modern sitting president who LOST a primary challenge for re-election?

 

[ZeoVGM]

I swear I've wandered into this alternate reality where Bernie didn't get fucking stomped in battleground states by huge margins, and only lost because of superdelegates or something.

Exactly. That's the delusion I'm talking about.

And I don't say it to be a jerk, I say it because people need to learn to except the truth and move on from it to focus on 2018 and 2020. I voted for Bernie in the primary but I fully understand he wasn't going to magically beat Trump. The facts don't show that in any way at all.

 

[Conciliator]

omg jimmy you traitor. i banish you from the land.

yaaaas queen slay forever