Yes! Of course they are, I can't even understand why someone would say otherwise.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Clinton postmortem of campaign includes criticism of Sanders policy promises
- Thread starter Inuhanyou
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Are people posting that "America deserves a pony!" meme story saying that we can't afford universal healthcare?
It does look like they're saying we can't have the public option, yes.
This was my initial assertion.
This statements remains correct. She refused to back the public option in the 2016 primary; we know this if she had not refused, we would have evidence of her backing the public option in the 2016 primary.
So, again...
Was the public option a free pony?
...you read the links posted. What qualifies as an acceptable response to you?
Because her support for it was stated on her website before the end of the primary. It's also incredibly hard to argue that the candidate who led the battle for it in the 90s is suddenly against it now.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I would agree, but I think there is more nuance to the situation.The reasonable criticism of Bernie's proposals is not that they're politically impractical, but that they are practically impractical -- which is to say, in general, they have not been spelled out enough to understand how they would be implemented, and in the cases where they were, they made unreasonable assumptions like very high GDP growth to reach reasonable funding levels.
This is actually a very notable critique -- as people have mentioned, Bernie has a strong record of getting amendments passed in the Senate. This requires a skilled legislative pen. Bernie should be capable of writing bills that could be passed as written. If he's choosing to push forward bills that can't be passed as written, it's appropriate to question whether those goals are practical or reasonable. After all, if he could write bills that just work, presumably he would be doing so.
Also the thing where he called open borders a Koch brothers plot was kind of notable to me, just saying
Legislators don't really write their own legislation, obviously, and the vast majority of them aren't economists. They can make a moral arguments (health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to all people) and might have a framework for how they think that should be achieved (Obama thinks that creating healthcare markets with subsidies and a mandate will fix uninsurance, Bernie thinks everyone should pay taxes then get all their healthcare paid for by the government) but neither of them can be reasonably expected to write their healthcare bills. That's not their jobs!
But here, Bernie running basically as a protest candidate because Warren wasn't willing to until say, December 2015 means he isn't going to be taken seriously by really any of the groups that can support him. By being locked out of the left-of-center think tank infrastructure (because there are steep penalties for not supporting the presumptive candidate, who highly values loyalty, and also because the people who fund these think tanks are going to be less keen on broad social democratic policies) especially when the closest alternative wasn't a serious choice until around when voting starts!
Really, the issue is just that there was no infrastructure to support a left-wing movement in 2016 in spite of broad support for social democratic policies and a popular candidate. Luckily, Bernie's moves to elect other social democrats and the broader lefts attempts to build alternative institutions might fix that by 2020.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Demographic trends show that Texas could go purple in 2024. Also: Ted Cruz could lose his Senate seat in 2018 if early polls are to be believed.
Vote. Always vote. Sitting out isn't going to make things better for Dems/Independents in deep red state, especially on state referendum. Turning up and voting will help, slowly but surely, change things in the south.
Hey bro, I'm just going off what I was told, it doesn't matter, I should move to a purple state. Screw sticking around, gotta play that short game. We should move to a purple state each election cycle!
Loving how many bernebros on Reddit are up in arms over these two pages. Many of them were the same ones who said they'd be voting for Trump when Hillary won the nomination.
Can you post proof of that?
Democrats in the South don't consider abortion rights to be of any concern.
Yes, there's a difference between Southern Democrats and the rest of the country.
They don't show up, they don't care, they don't matter. Yes I said it. When there's enough of them to hit 40% vote in the state, sure, THEN I'll care.
Stop trying to win fucking Arksansas, Texas, and Mississippi. Start trying to win Wisconsin and Michigan. This isn't new ideas. This is looking at a goddamn map and knowing where to prioritize resources.
What difference does it matter how popular someone is in the South, when the whole fucking region is redwash. Like, seriously, 90% votes for R. It doesn't matter that you got 9% of the remaining 10% it doesn't matter a damn bit.
Citation on the first part. Got any polls.
Southern Dems are just as Liberal as my Northern ass. Blue cities have millions of bog standard Dems. Millions of them vote on Election Day. Of course they show up. You can't disenfranchise them from a primary process.
Think about you are saying. Bernie and his supporters argued that the DNC should be more Democratic with less super delegates. Now you want fellow Dems and Liberals to not have a say in the party they joined.
Dem candidates are MORE Liberal during a primary. They don't pander to the south. They moderate after the primary. At the end of the day, you need a good General Election plan and candidate. Obama can win the southern primary states but that's not a nock against his ability to win swing states.
Are people posting that "America deserves a pony!" meme story saying that we can't afford universal healthcare? Like taxing the ultrarich isn't feasible?
It's something Clinton wasn't willing or perhaps able to fight for. Boy will her face be red when all the democrats jump on that train for the next elections.
It's not about UHC, that's easily feasible.Are people posting that "America deserves a pony!" meme story saying that we can't afford universal healthcare? Like taxing the ultrarich isn't feasible?
It's that Single Payer isn't feasible as a method of implementing UHC.
Renegade Frost
Banned
She's not wrong.
She's horribly wrong.
Bernie Bros never existed, it was russian propoganda all along
soul creator
Member
This is easy. Its both. It seems like you don't really want to face that, but reality doesn't care.
You know what else is possible if we ignore reality? UBI across the entire country. Sure we need to cut our obscene military budget, tax the holy hell out of 80% of the voting electorate and more, but sure... it could probably actually be achieved if you did that.
When someone asks a politician how they plan to achieve something, believe it or not they are assuming the politician understand that the answer is going to be something realistically achievable in the current or upcoming political climate. Not an answer that relies on some utopian dream of a nation that doesn't actually exist in the real world.
This literally applies to every major progressive change in history. Everything always starts out as unrealistic and unachievable, until it isn't.
Why is "work with Republicans to pass tweaks to the ACA" considered sober and realistic, while "help to build popular movements over the long term that make ideas like medicare for all seem obvious and worthwhile, which forces politicians to take it seriously" some utopian fantasy (even though that's pretty much literally how every major change throughout history has been won)?
People usually laughed at the candidate proposing that idea, because he gave it a buzzword "political revolution", but it was simply describing a straightforward, historical process. Help build mass political movements from the bottom-up, and major change becomes far more likely. Obviously, this is a more long-term goal, but it's really the only way forward if we want anything beyond the status quo. And I don't see anything wrong with campaigning on that idea, and offering that vision of political change.
Maybe people just aren't used to someone that talks about politics in that way? Which would be weird, because Obama campaigned this way as well! (he just mostly ignored bottom-up movements once he got into office, lol)
CornBurrito
Member
It's that Single Payer isn't feasible as a method of implementing UHC.
Why is it not?
This is the most undemocratic shit I have seen posted on this site. If this is what it means to be a progressive I want no part of it.
This kinda of diet racist bullshit is what get Bernie supporters painted with such a broad brush
It's flat out racist too
It's unfortunately honest too. A lot of people felt that way. It was obvious during the campaign, but the left let them HAVE it and they got quiet. This guy is saying all the shit they were hinting at back during the election.
Shit is disgusting. And with views like that, its not hard to see why these people have a hateboner for the Democratic party.
So you realize a president needs a constituency to govern and resoresentives from all 50 states are their conduit to said constituency? If you wholesale ignore a greater part of the country, what do you think is gonna happen? They'll all bend the knee anyway?
I'm not talking about changing your platform. I'm talking about WHERE you campaign, WHERE you target the phone calls, the commercials, speeches, all that stuff.
I think Hillary probably COULD have won, possibly, if her campaign logistics weren't absolute dumpster fire and she actually tried speaking freely for once in her life.
It does look like they're saying we can't have the public option, yes.
No now they are saying Clinton was secretly working for it while publicly opposing it because she is smart and we are dumb.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
...you read the links posted. What qualifies as an acceptable response to you?
Because her support for it was stated on her website before the end of the primary.
She started supporting it on the 9th of July, 2016, days before Sanders officially conceded and the primaries ended. It was almost certainly a condition of his concession, and would not have happened without him. Saying she did so before the end of the primary is disingenous, since while true, it was not at all a part of her primary campaign.
It's also incredibly hard to argue that the candidate who led the battle for it in the 90s is suddenly against it now.
I didn't say she was against it. I said she refused to support it. These things are different, and the difference is important.
In the 2016 primaries, Clinton refused to back the public option. Sanders did not. Was the public option a free pony?
ErasureAcer
Banned
#WhatHappenedToTheHighRoad?
Clinton should spend more time working on herself rather than talking ponies.
Clinton should spend more time working on herself rather than talking ponies.
CornBurrito
Member
It does look like they're saying we can't have the public option, yes.
That's how I understood it. I guess the Democrats really have moved further right. I can't support them as a Leftist I guess.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
It's not about UHC, that's easily feasible.
It's that Single Payer isn't feasible as a method of implementing UHC.
You don't want an hybrid system with UHC. Seriously.
Spanish UHC started going to shit as soon health care started going into private hands.
Teknopathetic
Member
Anyone genuinely floating the idea that party members from states you deem unworthy should have less of a say in the primary process can fuck off into space.
She started supporting it on the 9th of July, 2016, days before Sanders officially conceded and the primaries ended. It was almost certainly a condition of his concession, and would not have happened without him. Saying she did so before the end of the primary is disingenous, since while true, it was not at all a part of her primary campaign.
I didn't say she was against it. I said she refused to support it. These things are different, and the difference is important.
In the 2016 primaries, Clinton refused to back the public option. Sanders did not. Was the public option a free pony?
I will concede this.
Still, the free pony analogy doesn't work because a) she never argued against it; and b) we both know from her history she was in support of this.
AmayaPapaya
Banned
The whole thing is a little disingenuous, but I'm glad she wrote a book about what she really thinks. As long as she stays in the woods, I won't care about what she says. Her poll numbers are so bad, nowadays, there is no point in her trying to run again. She was only really popular with traditional Dem voters, and she seems to have lost a good contingency of even them, now.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I mean that's what a primary is. Other candidates have taken those hits and still made it.
I wish she'd stop flopping around about why she lost. She was an establishment candidate in a change election. It cost her where it counts.
I wish she'd stop flopping around about why she lost. She was an establishment candidate in a change election. It cost her where it counts.
Lesson learned, I live in Texas, its Red, I'm not voting anymore.
Demographic shifts do happen, it is important to note that the country is progressing for the better even with a couple steps back with presidents like Trump making their way into control every once in awhile.
I'm not understanding what part involves race?
It doesn't its just people like to fill into the blanks what they want because southern Blacks would be left out of the equation. It is not because of Blacks themselves, but the fact that the state they reside in will almost always go Republican for decades.
Knowing this, people like to twist it whatever way they want.
If you want to min/max winning the fucking presidency, I'm telling you how to do it. If Trump gets re-elected it's because people in purple states weren't swayed. That's it.
Solidly blue and red states DO NOT CHANGE. It's junk food. Red herrings. Going out of your way to please people that are already firmly against or for you. You don't gain on the opposition doing that.
This isn't true, states change overtime one way or the other.
Goldenroad
Member
Raising taxes on the middle/upper class to help out the working class is not some evil thing like Hillary makes it sound. Most American's are not middle class, and will never even be able to strive for upper class. Sucks that there was one candidate looking out for working class American's and he got screwed over so royally.
Except its not, its realizing that those states with our current political system does not matter for U.S President. I disagree with him on not giving them a voice in the primaries, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking it truly matters.
This is just really ignorant, I'm sorry.
California wasn't a blue state until 1992. Now it's the bluest state in the country.
Wisconsin was never considered a swing state until Trump actually won it last year.
States are not assigned a political affiliation at birth. Their political status is a result of the demographics of the state. Failing to represent Americans in a state is not only a democratic failure, it would inevitably lead to the loss of that state, as those citizens became unrepresented.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I will concede this.
Still, the free pony analogy doesn't work because a) she never argued against it; and b) we both know from her history she was in support of this.
If she was 'really' in support of this, why did she not come out publicly in support of this?
She criticised Sanders for offering things that she wanted, but were not realistic, and called these things 'free ponies'. One of the things Sanders offers that she did not offer was the public option. Was the public option a free pony?
If it was not a free pony, I have to go back to my first question: why did Clinton not come out publicly in support of this?
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Anyone genuinely floating the idea that party members from states you deem unworthy should have less of a say in the primary process can fuck off into space.
Yep. How this is progressive I would love to know.
This is some contemptuous shit.
Fenderputty
Banned
Why is it not?
Because we have an entrenched private system and infrastructure supporting that. The transition would take years and there would be massive job loss and realignment wishing the industry. People who like their private insurance (like myself) would resist.
A better question is, why do the bernicrats have their heads so far up single payers Ass that they can't see the merits of a mutilmarket system like sweeden.
lmao what a sore loser and winner.
Jesus Hillary, there's no need to attack other people because you got embarrassed by that orange clown and that's all you'll ever be known for the rest of existence. At least Bernie is still out there working hard while you retire to live in a hut in the middle of nowhere because you can't face reality.
Jesus Hillary, there's no need to attack other people because you got embarrassed by that orange clown and that's all you'll ever be known for the rest of existence. At least Bernie is still out there working hard while you retire to live in a hut in the middle of nowhere because you can't face reality.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Anyone genuinely floating the idea that party members from states you deem unworthy should have less of a say in the primary process can fuck off into space.
The Democratic Party already does this.
States that vote D get more delegates to the Democratic Convention than those that vote R. Now that you know, are you holding with your belief that the Democratic Party should fuck off into space?
Democratic States have more power eithin the party than the Alabama's of the country, as it should be.
Herr Schwarz
Banned
"I'm with her"
It's like the campaign equivalent to old lady asking where her bing bars have gone.
Politicians like Hillary have failed to grasp how the ground in which they once stood has slowly turned to sand, and you can't move on this new ground the same way as you used to.
That and the Russian interference helped.
It's like the campaign equivalent to old lady asking where her bing bars have gone.
Politicians like Hillary have failed to grasp how the ground in which they once stood has slowly turned to sand, and you can't move on this new ground the same way as you used to.
That and the Russian interference helped.
I wouldn't consider losing a free and fair election being "screwed over."Raising taxes on the middle/upper class to help out the working class is not some evil thing like Hillary makes it sound. Most American's are not middle class, and will never even be able to strive for upper class. Sucks that there was one candidate looking out for working class American's and he got screwed over so royally.
I can't tell if this is mockery, but either way, that's what I do.
That's...my point? Bernie's not a virgin. He knows how political campaigns work. If he wanted to run for president for real, he could've started preparing in 2012. That's what Hillary Clinton did!
It's very weird to me that people seem to consistently argue that preparing for a political campaign in the future is somehow unfair, and that people who have not prepared and made no particular effort to position themselves for such a campaign should be treated as being on an equal footing with the people who did. There's definitely an element of privilege there!
If you want to understand this better, notice what Bernie is doing right now -- going to give speeches in Iowa and talking about healthcare at schools. Wonder what he's preparing for? Do you think he's being unfair in doing so?
I would hope he isn't trying to run in 2020, I don't want him to and I say that as a supporter of his. Maybe he could of made his debut earlier, who knows, he came like a storm when he did though.
What I see him doing right now, is just trying to push the Democrats more left than they currently are and I see that as a good thing, even if others feel like it is disruption.
Yes! Of course they are, I can't even understand why someone would say otherwise.
Because I don't like calling people Democrats when they don't believe in even the most basic of human rights, like a woman being able to choose if she wants to have a baby or not, based on their religion or whatever bullshit they want to peddle.
There are way to many conservative Democrats than I would like in U.S. It is okay to not want to believe or agree with abortion and other rights, but blocking others from it is where the line is crossed.
Fenderputty
Banned
Yep. How this is progressive I would love to know.
This is some contemptuous shit.
It's progressive in the same way caucuses benefitted Bernie more than the establishment
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
lmao what a sore loser and winner.
Jesus Hillary, there's no need to attack other people because you got embarrassed by that orange clown and that's all you'll ever be known for the rest of existence. At least Bernie is still out there working hard while you retire to live in a hut in the middle of nowhere because you can't face reality.
Lol. Would you guys make up your fucking mind?!? Please.
googleplex
Member
Yep. How this is progressive I would love to know.
This is some contemptuous shit.
Because it's the polite way to farther marginalize Democratic voters that are also people of color.
CornBurrito
Member
Because we have an entrenched private system and infrastructure supporting that. The transition would take years and there would be massive job loss and realignment wishing the industry. People who like their private insurance (like myself) would resist.
Oh no! Not job loss and infrastructure change. Better bring back coal and keep green energies out.
A better question is, why do the bernicrats have their heads so far up single payers Ass that they can't see the merits of a mutilmarket system like sweeden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden
??? Sweden's healthcare is funded publicly.
i don't understand anyone who is for even more voter suppression in this country when it's the cause of so many issues and we should be constantly fighting to make voting easierAnyone genuinely floating the idea that party members from states you deem unworthy should have less of a say in the primary process can fuck off into space.
Because the US's healthcare infrastructure wasn't developed from the ground up in a way that supports it. We are heavily reliant on private insurance, and any form of UHC is going to have acknowledge that. Forcing Single Payer as a means of providing UHC would mean effectively destroying infrastructure (by rendering it useless) while having to recreate that infrastructure within the government. (This would likely send the economy into a recession.)Why is it not?
Single Payer is not a necessity for UHC - it just happens to be the method that many other English speaking countries in the western world have. We don't have it in the US because our employer-based health insurance system was an accident that evolved out of WWII wage caps. Nothing about it was deliberately designed and it makes it a nightmare to wrangle into something that actually makes sense.
Countries like Germany, France, and Switzerland have multi-payer systems w/ subsidized universal baseline coverage. They're much closer to where we're currently at and make much more sense as a model to move to in order to get our citizens universal healthcare while trying to minimize economic disruption and disruption of care.
I mean that's what a primary is. Other candidates have taken those hits and still made it.
I wish she'd stop flopping around about why she lost. She was an establishment candidate in a change election. It cost her where it counts.
Yeah this is pretty much my stance, and I say this as someone who thought - and still thinks - she was the better candidate in the Dem primary. I honestly think the 2008 primary was more bitter.
It's disturbing that you think the state someone lives in is what determines their political beliefs.Because I don't like calling people Democrats when they don't believe in even the most basic of human rights, like a woman being able to choose if she wants to have a baby or not, based on their religion or whatever bullshit they want to peddle.
There are way to many conservative Democrats than I would like in U.S. It is okay to not want to believe or agree with abortion and other rights, but blocking others from it is where the line is crossed.
If she was 'really' in support of this, why did she not come out publicly in support of this?
She criticised Sanders for offering things that she wanted, but were not realistic, and called these things 'free ponies'. One of the things Sanders offers that she did not offer was the public option. Was the public option a free pony?
If it was not a free pony, I have to go back to my first question: why did Clinton not come out publicly in support of this?
...? Sanders was NOT offering the public option. He was Medicare for All. Full stop. That is NOT the public option. Public option was HIS concession.
Now you're misremembering the primary.
So I'm going to preface my post with this: I partly do blame Hillary for her campaign's flawed strategy that cost her the campaign, but I am not inclined to believed that Sanders would have stood much of a chance either. I'll welcome any attempts to change my view.
Anyway, there's always this talk about establishment Democrats causing him to have a disadvantage during the primaries. From my armchair perspective, I will concede that he is a popular politician, and his strong attempt to secure the presidential nomination has doubtlessly shifted the Democratic Party platform to the left.
At the same time, it was not enough: Obama was often criticized for his inexperience and insubstantial oratory, but he nevertheless had the charisma to sway the Democratic machinery his way. As much as the people loved Bernie, not enough people loved him. And to get Machiavellian about this, to his credit and discredit, he is not the politician Hillary is, and we can clearly see presently how someone who doesn't have diplomatic chops can affect our standing in the world stage.
The other part of it was his decision to "disrupt the Democratic Party", by joining it in the course of the primary election, and whether you think he it intended to or not, he tried to get a ride on the coattails of power offered by the Democratic establishment while at the same time trying to tear it down. And the fact that he left shortly after he lost the primary has secured my impression of what he was really in it for.
Anyway, there's always this talk about establishment Democrats causing him to have a disadvantage during the primaries. From my armchair perspective, I will concede that he is a popular politician, and his strong attempt to secure the presidential nomination has doubtlessly shifted the Democratic Party platform to the left.
At the same time, it was not enough: Obama was often criticized for his inexperience and insubstantial oratory, but he nevertheless had the charisma to sway the Democratic machinery his way. As much as the people loved Bernie, not enough people loved him. And to get Machiavellian about this, to his credit and discredit, he is not the politician Hillary is, and we can clearly see presently how someone who doesn't have diplomatic chops can affect our standing in the world stage.
The other part of it was his decision to "disrupt the Democratic Party", by joining it in the course of the primary election, and whether you think he it intended to or not, he tried to get a ride on the coattails of power offered by the Democratic establishment while at the same time trying to tear it down. And the fact that he left shortly after he lost the primary has secured my impression of what he was really in it for.
ErasureAcer
Banned
The whole thing is a little disingenuous, but I'm glad she wrote a book about what she really thinks. As long as she stays in the woods, I won't care about what she says. Her poll numbers are so bad, nowadays, there is no point in her trying to run again. She was only really popular with traditional Dem voters, and she seems to have lost a good contingency of even them, now.
Bernie outperformed her amongst those under 45. She won the nursing home vote. Her base will be dead in 2020.
excelsiorlef
Member
Yes, if you don't understand political trends and instead just react in easily consumable 140 characters or less sound bytes instead of building a political platform, you're going to continue to lose, and you're just going to keep putting racists in power.
All of those gay and minority Americans who voted for Trump because they couldn't deal with another Clinton Presidency... I dunno. I guess they're homophobic and racist too.
All those?
Clinton won those demographics in a landslide.
If the white vote just broke 50/50 the Democrats woupd win every election in a landslide.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Bernie outperformed her amongst those under 45. She won the nursing home vote. Her base will be dead in 2020.
I'm really really starting to not want to be associated with the term progressive.
CornBurrito
Member
A better question is, why do the bernicrats have their heads so far up single payers Ass that they can't see the merits of a mutilmarket system like sweeden.
"Private companies in 2015 provide about 20% of public hospital care and about 30% of public primary care, although in 2014 a survey by the SOM Institute found that 69% of Swedes were opposed to private companies profiting from providing public education, health, and social care, with only about 15% actively in favour.
In April 2015 Västernorrland County ordered its officials to find ways to limit the profits private companies can reap from running publicly funded health services.[2]"
Umm... so do you like Sweden or not? Because it doesn't sound very capitalist to me. Limiting private profit.
This is just really ignorant, I'm sorry.
California wasn't a blue state until 1992. Now it's the bluest state in the country.
Wisconsin was never considered a swing state until Trump actually won it last year.
States are not assigned a political affiliation at birth. Their political status is a result of the demographics of the state. Failing to represent Americans in a state is not only a democratic failure, it would inevitably lead to the loss of that state, as those citizens became unrepresented.
I am aware of all of this, that is why I told the other guy up above that even if he lives in Texas, he should vote and said that I disagree with the other guy on not giving them a voice. All I am saying is I understand and somewhat agree that southern deep red states do not matter most of the time, but weird things do happen from time to time and can be unpredictable and that is why they should be given a voice and all should be encouraged to vote.
U.S's political system needs to change and it seems that is not what is being pushed by either side of the aisle.
It's disturbing that you think the state someone lives in is what determines their political beliefs.
Of course I don't think it determines all of their beliefs, I am in a red district and am probably more left leaning than NOVA in Virginia.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.