Support NeoGAF

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I would lose literally all respect for Warren if she endorsed Clinton after pressure like that. I'm fine with no endorsement, but stepping back from a base that is essentially yours and only embraced Sanders because you wouldn't run would be a kick in the teeth to many, many Democrats. It would absolutely tank enthusiasm for Clinton *and* Warren. If she favours Clinton, she should stay quiet, wait for Clinton to win, then endorse her - that way Clinton gets some meaningful enthusiasm and Warren doesn't jeopardize her hard earnt following.

If she genuinely favors Clinton she should stay quiet? What kind of attitude is that?

 

[disastermouse]

It's almost like identity politics is a bullshit term pushed by largely status quo friendly writers and politicians to undermine the problems of non-white males into the realm of "complaining about things that don't really matter."

Not at all. The problems are real. They simply can't easily be fixed without backlash in an economy that NEEDS losers. Each identity faction will fight for special access to resources and status if those resources are perceived to be scarce. All of this creates divisions that prevent a coherent class based (resource distribution and workplace function) identity upon which to work for progress and relieve the resource hoarding and inequitable resource allocation.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If she genuinely favors Clinton she should stay quiet? What kind of attitude is that?

Because she has enthused literally hundreds of thousands of people in the political process, possibly millions, who agree with her... but not on this. That's a powerful thing; throwing many of them away is a kick in teeth to involving people in the democratic process.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Because she has enthused literally tens of thousands of people in the political process who agree with her... but not on this. That's a powerful thing; throwing many of them away is a kick in teeth to involving people in the democratic process.

This doesn't make any sense to me and it shouldn't to you either.

 

[ivysaur12]

Because she has enthused literally hundreds of thousands of people in the political process, possibly millions, who agree with her... but not on this. That's a powerful thing; throwing many of them away is a kick in teeth to involving people in the democratic process.

What?

 

[disastermouse]

Because she has enthused literally hundreds of thousands of people in the political process, possibly millions, who agree with her... but not on this. That's a powerful thing; throwing many of them away is a kick in teeth to involving people in the democratic process.

Yup. It would deflate enthusiasm if she kneecapped Bernie now. After he quits the race, she can endorse Clinton without risking that.

Alienating the greater party wins her nothing and creates political enemies that would block what she wants to accomplish in the Senate. And it probably wouldn't help Bernie that much more than her mere existence already does.

 

[damisa]

Because she has enthused literally hundreds of thousands of people in the political process, possibly millions, who agree with her... but not on this. That's a powerful thing; throwing many of them away is a kick in teeth to involving people in the democratic process.

I don't think the Democrats need people who would be that upset over who Warren endorses. The Democrats shouldn't try to appease the far left the way the Republicans do the far right.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What?

There are lots of powerful who have been inspired by Warren's message who do not normally become politically active or interested in Warren's cause. Many of them disagree with her about Clinton, we know this because MoveOn was the movement that tried to draft Warren to begin with. Having the person who 'eased you into' the political sphere and got you thinking about things like the economy and disappearing middle class incomes suddenly start promoting something you don't agree with can very easily make you think 'they're all the same after all!', and stop participating. If Warren values getting people to care about the banks and Wall Street and middle class incomes, she should not endorse Clinton. It would heavily damage the progressive movement she has done so much to nurture.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't think the Democrats need people who would be that upset over who Warren endorses. The Democrats shouldn't try to appease the far left the way the Republicans do the far right.

What the hell does it say about those people if she can't share her genuine opinion out of fear of backlash? Jesus christ, are they 10 year olds?

 

[JesseEwiak]

There are lots of powerful who have been inspired by Warren's message who do not normally become politically active or interested in Warren's cause. Many of them disagree with her about Clinton, we know this because MoveOn was the movement that tried to draft Warren to begin with. Having the person who 'eased you into' the political sphere and got you thinking about things like the economy and disappearing middle class incomes suddenly start promoting something you don't agree with can very easily make you think 'they're all the same after all!', and stop participating. If Warren values getting people to care about the banks and Wall Street and middle class incomes, she should not endorse Clinton. It would heavily damage the progressive movement she has done so much to nurture.

Or maybe those Bernie Sanders fans should actually listen to Elizabeth Warren if she does endorse Hillary instead of sick Reddit memes.

If Bernie fans actually do turn on Warren for this if it happens, then they really are the Paulbots of 2016.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Does income equality actually reduce racism?

I don't remember modern Japan, modern France, or 1950s America being places not full of racial hatred, but those are just a few data points and I haven't read studies on this.

Racism is probably the main factor being opposing immigration and immigration is a major economic boon for the elites (and the immigrants obviously) so I don't see the logic in a ruling class that promotes racism. LGBT-hatred would be something a ruling class would more profitably push as a dividing issue, but that theory runs counter to reality.

 

[disastermouse]

What the hell does it say about those people if she can't share her genuine opinion out of fear of backlash? Jesus christ, are they 10 year olds?

Bro, do you even politics? And who cares what it says about them?

Repeat after me, "not everyone needs to be like me to be my ally". Stupid people get the same vote that politically sophisticated and intelligent people get.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Or maybe those Bernie Sanders fans should actually listen to Elizabeth Warren if she does endorse Hillary instead of sick Reddit memes.

If Bernie fans actually do turn on Warren for this if it happens, then they really are the Paulbots of 2016.

I'm worried that you have no concern for building a progressive advocacy movement. Clinton will win without Warren's support, don't jeopardize this.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Did George McGovern lead to any form of a progressive, anti-war movement coming out of American politics?

 

[disastermouse]

Did George McGovern lead to any form of a progressive, anti-war movement coming out of American politics?

Dude, he was on the wrong end of that wave.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I'm worried that you have no concern for building a progressive advocacy movement. Clinton will win without Warren's support, don't jeopardize this.

I don't think politicians should let themselves be held hostage by people who can't even bother to turn out to vote every two years.

If people turn on Warren, then they don't actually care about progressive advocacy, they care about feeling superior to other people. Just like Nader voters.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean both Clintons were former McGovern staffers.

 

[disastermouse]

I'm worried that you have no concern for building a progressive advocacy movement. Clinton will win without Warren's support, don't jeopardize this.

How is this not common sense?

No wonder we can't get anything done.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think politicians should let themselves be held hostage by people who can't even bother to turn out to vote every two years.

If people turn on Warren, then they don't actually care about progressive advocacy, they care about feeling superior to other people. Just like Nader voters.

a.k.a. "I don't mind if we lose in '16 and '18, because all I care about is rational voters and all the irrational voters can go fuck themselves'.

Don't go into electioneering.

 

[Elaugaufein]

But only complain about this much, not too much. Or you'll scare people. *Insert MLK's white moderate speech here*

I'm not a moderate to start with. I don't personally suffer if the white working class gets screwed any more than I do if gays, women, Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans or any other minority do. I already vote against my own immediate financial interests for what I perceive as the moral good. My actual disagreements with GAF orthodoxy on social issues are basically all linked to freedom of expression where I depart significantly but those are kind of irrelevant because historically speaking GAF's positions are no worse than the ones the right have when ascendant, that doesn't mean I won't criticize it though.

 

[disastermouse]

I don't think politicians should let themselves be held hostage by people who can't even bother to turn out to vote every two years.

If people turn on Warren, then they don't actually care about progressive advocacy, they care about feeling superior to other people. Just like Nader voters.

Again, who cares as long as they vote your way?

Also, "Let's lose the presidential race in order to prove a point to the people who don't turn out for the midterms...and they won't get the message anyway, but we're better than them, dammit!"

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The amount of people who will refuse to vote in a general election because Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton will literally be in the dozens.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, "Let's lose the presidential race in order to prove a point to the people who don't turn out for the midterms...and they won't get the message anyway, but we're better than them, dammit!"

This, so fucking much! Yes, some Bernie supporters have Trump as their second choice - better have them pissing out the tent. Yes, some progressive advocates are very easily deterred and driven to non-engagement - better to keep them on board. Voters are not rational. you need to understand that and account for it.

 

[damisa]

a.k.a. "I don't mind if we lose in '16 and '18, because all I care about is rational voters and all the irrational voters can go fuck themselves'.

Don't go into electioneering.

If the only way the left can win is to start catering to crazies like the right does with "Birthers" than we deserve to lose.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The amount of people who will refuse to vote in a general election because Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton will literally be in the dozens.

Not talking about the general, I'm talking about fostering a progressive wing in the Democratic party in the long-run.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Holy fuck, and the people in this thread were criticizing Sanders fans for not focusing on electability! Do you guys even look at yourselves sometimes?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Why do people think a Presidential election is decided on the fringes of your base? I thought it was decided by those people we see in those debate panels who voted for Bush in 2004 but then voted for Obama in 2008. Swing voters, undecideds, moderates, etc.

 

[JesseEwiak]

This, so fucking much! Yes, some Bernie supporters have Trump as their second choice - better have them pissing out the tent. Yes, some progressive advocates are very easily deterred and driven to non-engagement - better to keep them on board. Voters are not rational. you need to understand that and account for it.

Speaking of rational versus irrational, Sanderistas need to understand that pulling the "we'll take out ball and go home" strategy only works if you're the actual base of the party. Evangelicals can pull that shit w/ the GOP. Young white liberals in urban areas can't do that, because they're not the base. Suburban women voters and African-American's are the base.

Holy fuck, and the people in this thread were criticizing Sanders fans for not focusing on electability! Do you guys even look at yourselves sometimes?

Hillary can win without Sanders base who will upvote any thread about him on Reddit, who are largely the people talking about how Clinton is doomed if she doesn't bow down to Bernie enough or if Warren dears speak her mind, instead of being a good little solider for the revolution.

 

[damisa]

Holy fuck, and the people in this thread were criticizing Sanders fans for not focusing on electability! Do you guys even look at yourselves sometimes?

It's ok, the Democrats can survive without the handful of crazy Bernie fans who wouldn't vote because of another person's endorsement.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Why do people think a Presidential election is decided on the fringes of your base? I thought it was decided by those people we see in those debate panels who voted for Bush in 2004 but then voted for Obama in 2008. Swing voters, undecideds, moderates, etc.

Swing voters and undecideds are not usually moderates. You want an accurate example of swing voter? HUELEN. There is a fuck ton of information out there, easily enough to make a preference for one party or the other. Therefore most of the people who can't decide, can't decide because they have a crazy as fuck mish mash of god knows what priorities. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), many of these people like Sanders. He dominates Clinton among independents. Yes, you need these people - that's why you need Sanders.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

The funniest Orly (and team) complaints were against Jindal and Rubio for despite having been born in the U.S. not having American-born parents.

They're anchor babies.

You could apply that same standard to most of the continental US. No one is eligible to run for President!

Except Native Americans. Wind In His Hair 2016!

Oh, as far as the failure of the HERO referendum is concerned, this is much like what happened to Prop 8 in California. Houston is about 25% black. So 25 percent of the 157,110 NO votes are responsible? One quarter? Assuming that all the eligible black people voted (with a 27.45 percent voter turnout, not likely) and that all of them voted NO (considering that there are black LGBTQIA+ people, and supporters), that doesn't place the sole responsibility at the feet of the black community (25% of the NO votes would be 39,278 votes. If you took that away, the NO vote still wins at 117,832 (53.94%) against a YES vote of 100,582 (46.05%)). Yes, homophobia/transphobia does exist in the black community. But guess what? It exists in every community, including the white community, which, last time I checked, is still the majority.


Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Carry on with the poll wars.

 

[Black Mamba]

Honestly, I don't think Warren endorsing would do anything. She's not a national figure. Maybe 1% of the population outside of Mass and the media knows who she is.

And those people who do know who she is are either already locked into the Dem in the GE no matter what or aren't voters anyway.

Think this isn't a big deal either way.

 

[User 406]

Shouldn't need to be said but given your insinuation: Still 100% against unjustified shootings of black people and them getting institutionally screwed.

Then let me be perfectly clear. The anti-identity politics discussion going on in this thread right now is fucking revolting. Minorities are engaged in identity politics because they are being systematically abused because of those identities. It's not just a fucking party strategy you can turn off to gain a few more percentage points of white voters who would otherwise be scared off by brown faces looking angry just because they're being killed or deported and shit. These are real problems happening to real people in our country, and their voice needs to be heard, not hushed to avoid driving Johnny Dixiecrat further into the arms of Trump. They deserve representation, not marginalization. Not everything needs to be about god damn white people all the fucking time.

And this shit about white people magically being more tolerant of minorities if their economic needs were met? THEY THREW AWAY THE NEW DEAL BECAUSE BLACKS GOT TO SHARE. The most prosperous fucking time the white middle class EVER had was right before the CRA passed, and you seriously expect people to believe this horseshit that the only reason racism is a thing is because of economic inequality?

The mental contortions that people who are claiming to be such avowed leftists are making to support what is essentially a Southern Strategy Lite are just staggering. So you can't bring yourself to vote for a centrist Democrat, but you're cool with letting racial injustice slide as long as we get that extra 1% difference in economic policy that for some reason meets the threshold for true leftism. Talk about fucking identity politics.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Then let me be perfectly clear. The anti-identity politics discussion going on in this thread right now is fucking revolting. Minorities are engaged in identity politics because they are being systematically abused because of those identities. It's not just a fucking party strategy you can turn off to gain a few more percentage points of white voters who would otherwise be scared off by brown faces looking angry just because they're being killed or deported and shit. These are real problems happening to real people in our country, and their voice needs to be heard, not hushed to avoid driving Johnny Dixiecrat further into the arms of Trump. They deserve representation, not marginalization. Not everything needs to be about god damn white people all the fucking time.

And this shit about white people magically being more tolerant of minorities if their economic needs were met? THEY THREW AWAY THE NEW DEAL BECAUSE BLACKS GOT TO SHARE. The most prosperous fucking time the white middle class EVER had was right before the CRA passed, and you seriously expect people to believe this horseshit that the only reason racism is a thing is because of economic inequality?

The mental contortions that people who are claiming to be such avowed leftists are making to support what is essentially a Southern Strategy Lite are just staggering. So you can't bring yourself to vote for a centrist Democrat, but you're cool with letting racial injustice slide as long as we get that extra 1% difference in economic policy that for some reason meets the threshold for true leftism. Talk about fucking identity politics.

+ Fucking 1.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Honestly, I don't think Warren endorsing would do anything. She's not a national figure. Maybe 1% of the population outside of Mass and the media knows who she is.

And those people who do know who she is are either already locked into the Dem in the GE no matter what or aren't voters anyway.

Think this isn't a big deal either way.

I don't think this is true at all. They polled for what impact a Warren endorsement would make a while back, and it was a significant swing - I think something like 7 percentage points would go to Sanders from Clinton, for example. Warren is dear to Democrats.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Swing voters and undecideds are not usually moderates. You want an accurate example of swing voter? HUELEN. There is a fuck ton of information out there, easily enough to make a preference for one party or the other. Therefore most of the people who can't decide, can't decide because they have a crazy as fuck mish mash of god knows what priorities. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), many of these people like Sanders. He dominates Clinton among independents. Yes, you need these people - that's why you need Sanders.

These are also the same people who hear raised taxes or increased government and go running to the other side. They want concrete and strong foreign policy, something Sanders has yet to display.

 

[damisa]

Swing voters and undecideds are not usually moderates. You want an accurate example of swing voter? HUELEN. There is a fuck ton of information out there, easily enough to make a preference for one party or the other. Therefore most of the people who can't decide, can't decide because they have a crazy as fuck mish mash of god knows what priorities. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), many of these people like Sanders. He dominates Clinton among independents. Yes, you need these people - that's why you need Sanders.

Now your just changing the topic to who you think the nominee should be, while the original topic is catering to people who would not vote based on an endorsement. If people are that crazy, why would they vote for Clinton even with no Warren endorsement?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Speaking of rational versus irrational, Sanderistas need to understand that pulling the "we'll take out ball and go home" strategy only works if you're the actual base of the party. Evangelicals can pull that shit w/ the GOP. Young white liberals in urban areas can't do that, because they're not the base. Suburban women voters and African-American's are the base.



Hillary can win without Sanders base who will upvote any thread about him on Reddit, who are largely the people talking about how Clinton is doomed if she doesn't bow down to Bernie enough or if Warren dears speak her mind, instead of being a good little solider for the revolution.

You're aware that this post is basically a poster for why Sander's supporters shouldn't vote for your candidate right ? It's a mixture of "Why don't these people fall in line ?" and "Fuck them". The second part is a very good answer to the first, if they know you loathe them they've got absolutely no reason to fall in line.

 

[East Lake]

Hillary can win without Sanders base who will upvote any thread about him on Reddit, who are largely the people talking about how Clinton is doomed if she doesn't bow down to Bernie enough or if Warren dears speak her mind, instead of being a good little solider for the revolution.

The whole Sanders reddit stuff in here is mostly a delusion. Sanders has appeal because he is seen as outside of the establishment, and that's not because people are fringe retards that don't read the NYT and haven't come around to Clinton's inevitability, it's because the establishment hasn't served them well and don't care about their interests.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Now your just changing the topic to who you think the nominee should be, while the original topic is catering to people who would not vote based on an endorsement. If people are that crazy, why would they vote for Clinton even with no Warren endorsement?

Not all people are crazy; just some. However, that some is enough I am pretty damn confident Clinton would do worse in a GE than Sanders - and we have polling evidence to suggest that is indeed the case.

And yes, reddit represents less than 1% of Sanders' funding, so it's less than 1% of the most enthused Sanders supporters, never mind Sanders supporters as a whole. I don't think I've ever even posted in /r/SandersForPresident - I've only even looked in a few times, I mostly lurk /r/paradoxplaza. The strawman is so boring, it makes you guys look all shook up.

 

[damisa]

Not all people are crazy; just some. However, that some is enough I am pretty damn confident Clinton would do worse in a GE than Sanders - and we have polling evidence to suggest that is indeed the case.

Again, just answer straight, do you think that there's a significant amount of Bernie fans who would vote for Clinton if she gets no Warren endorsement, but wouldn't vote for her if she did get a Warren endorsement?

 

[A Human Becoming]

Rubio is in 5th.

Amazing.

Fixed.

I've been very weary of Rubio's campaign after reading this WaPo article. Maybe he's gotten his act together the past three weeks.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Again, just answer straight, do you think that there's a significant amount of Bernie fans who would vote for Clinton if she gets no Warren endorsement, but wouldn't vote for her if she did get a Warren endorsement?

No? That's not what I'm saying. I think there's a significant amount of Bernie fans who, if Warren says nothing until Bernie loses, then, alongside Bernie, endorses Clinton, will reluctantly tag along with the Democrats, and help foster a progressive wing on the Democrats in favour of socioeconomic issues - that's Sanders' rallying call, that's Warren's rallying call. If Warren endorses Clinton early, I think a lot of them will be disillusioned, and probably still vote for Clinton, but not get involved at greater level. The Democratic party then loses a valuable engine both for encouraging progressive ideas in wider society and a potential activist base. That's bad - and it is especially bad for Warren, because these are issues she cares about.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Not all people are crazy; just some. However, that some is enough I am pretty damn confident Clinton would do worse in a GE than Sanders - and we have polling evidence to suggest that is indeed the case.

And yes, reddit represents less than 1% of Sanders' funding, so it's less than 1% of the most enthused Sanders supporters, never mind Sanders supporters as a whole. I don't think I've ever even posted in /r/SandersForPresident - I've only even looked in a few times, I mostly lurk /r/paradoxplaza. The strawman is so boring, it makes you guys look all shook up.

I think if the GE was tomorrow, Sanders _might_ do better.

But, the GE is in 10 months, after billionaires with lots of money have plenty of ammunition that even rational Sanders fans have to admit won't be appealing to median voters, especially taking a honeymoon in the Soviet Union while there were still gulags and wanting to dramatically expand social programs that can be painted as giving money to lazy shiftless minorities.

Again, you might not think it's a big deal, but like you said, people are irrational. People didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 because they thought he lied about inventing the Internet. Trump versus Sanders might be a tossup because of crazy versus crazy, but any other GOP nominee, even Cruz kills Sanders in a GE after $1 billion dollars in Super PAC spending, especially if Sanders sticks to his guns about not allowing any Super PACs to spend money for him.

You know who turned Mitt Romney into the vulture capitalist literally killing factory workers in the mind of moderate Ohio voters? Obama's SuperPAC.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think if the GE was tomorrow, Sanders _might_ do better.

But, the GE is in 10 months, after billionaires with lots of money have plenty of ammunition that even rational Sanders fans have to admit won't be appealing to median voters, especially taking a honeymoon in the Soviet Union while there were still gulags and wanting to dramatically expand social programs that can be painted as giving money to lazy shiftless minorities.

Again, you might not think it's a big deal, but like you said, people are irrational. People didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 because they thought he lied about inventing the Internet. Trump versus Sanders might be a tossup because of crazy versus crazy, but any other GOP nominee, even Cruz kills Sanders in a GE after $1 billion dollars in Super PAC spending, especially if Sanders sticks to his guns about not allowing any Super PACs to spend money for him.

You know who turned Mitt Romney into the vulture capitalist literally killing factory workers in the mind of moderate Ohio voters? Obama's SuperPAC.

This cycle is an incredibly rare political opportunity because of how anti-establishment the electorate is feeling. There has actually been a mild negative correlation between how much money a candidate has raised, and what their polling trend has been - Trump has raised less than Rubio, and has only gone up while Rubio has gone down (not even touching on Bush). Sanders has raised less than Clinton - and literally not used SuperPACs at all - and is posing a serious and heavyweight challenge in the early states. This might genuinely be the first and last opportunity for a *looooong* time to have an election where money does not make a major feature, because a whole host of other factors have lined up in a very specific way that is unlikely to line up again. Can you name an attack ad that has had a serious impact this campaign? I can't, and the Republicans have had tons. Best was Jeb!'s jab at Rubio's shoes, and that wasn't exactly a game-changer.

I'm not afraid of money right now. What I am afraid of, is money in the future. There are not really any "Sanders-like" candidates. There are not really, as much as I hate him, any "Trump-like" candidates that get the GOP just as whipped up against their own establishment. This may never happen again, if it doesn't, money will come back, and in a *big* way. We really can't blow this when we have a once-in-a-lifetime candidate like Sanders who is having a once-in-a-hundred lifetimes success story like he is.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Then let me be perfectly clear. The anti-identity politics discussion going on in this thread right now is fucking revolting. Minorities are engaged in identity politics because they are being systematically abused because of those identities. It's not just a fucking party strategy you can turn off to gain a few more percentage points of white voters who would otherwise be scared off by brown faces looking angry just because they're being killed or deported and shit. These are real problems happening to real people in our country, and their voice needs to be heard, not hushed to avoid driving Johnny Dixiecrat further into the arms of Trump. They deserve representation, not marginalization. Not everything needs to be about god damn white people all the fucking time.

And this shit about white people magically being more tolerant of minorities if their economic needs were met? THEY THREW AWAY THE NEW DEAL BECAUSE BLACKS GOT TO SHARE. The most prosperous fucking time the white middle class EVER had was right before the CRA passed, and you seriously expect people to believe this horseshit that the only reason racism is a thing is because of economic inequality?

The mental contortions that people who are claiming to be such avowed leftists are making to support what is essentially a Southern Strategy Lite are just staggering. So you can't bring yourself to vote for a centrist Democrat, but you're cool with letting racial injustice slide as long as we get that extra 1% difference in economic policy that for some reason meets the threshold for true leftism. Talk about fucking identity politics.

I'm Australian. I don't have this problem. I can be a dues paying Green and preference the ALP above the Coalition and whatever fringe right wing crazies are on the ticket in any given year.

In the context of US politics, in a General election, I'd probably vote for a pot plant with a D attached over any of the current Republican candidates because there's maybe 30% of them that I'd trust with nukes and a party putting forward a field of candidates like that disqualifies them from consideration, not to mention that every disagreement I have with the Democrats the Republicans are at least as bad. I just happen to understand why people might be disenchanted by a party who's current signature left-wing reform is something that even the current Australian Center Right wouldn't put forward because it'd be seen as too right wing.

ETA - Racism was exploited to overturn the New Deal yes. But it wasn't racism , in the sense of "we hate black people", like you're putting forward. They created a mythical black person who was abusing the system and used that. It was exploiting a fear of Others taking from them. It's that ability to suggest unfairness that's the key. And yes racism makes people far more willing to accept that idea.

 

[danm999]

Fixed.

I've been very weary of Rubio's campaign after reading this WaPo article. Maybe he's gotten his act together the past three weeks.

I still don't agree with this piece's line of thinking. Rubio's big wins have come at the hand of absolutely atrocious unforced errors by his fellow establishment candidates. I don't think it's his campaign have discovered some new top down magic.

I dunno, I prefer the explanation he and his campaign never intended to be the establishment frontrunner. I mean, the initial favourite was Jeb Bush, someone from Rubio's own state.

Now that they're there they are desperately trying to walk a tightrope between looking like they aren't trying and being despised for letting outsider candidates take over the process, and looking like they are trying and getting utterly humiliated by the Donald to the extent Rubio is finished in national politics.

Maybe if Bush wised up months ago like Walker and got out something could be done with the resources he's sucking up to make Rubio viable, but at this point it seems like the best he can do is a New Hampshire win if Trump implodes somehow.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I'm not afraid of money right now. What I am afraid of, is money in the future. There are not really any "Sanders-like" candidates. There are not really, as much as I hate him, any "Trump-like" candidates that get the GOP just as whipped up against their own establishment. This may never happen again, if it doesn't, money will come back, and in a *big* way. We really can't blow this when we have a once-in-a-lifetime candidate like Sanders who is having a once-in-a-hundred lifetimes success story like he is.

I think this is the fundamental difference here - I don't think Sanders is having this massive success story. I just think Sanders is very lucky that folks like Hickenlooper, Biden, Warner, Kaine, Brown, and so on, and so forth decided not to run for the nomination because Hillary decided to run.

If this was the typical Presidential nomination with 8 or 9 candidates, I think Sanders would be getting 10 to 15% of the vote. Great, but right now, he's the only vessel for anti-Clinton sentiment. I'm absolutely sure that you could do a Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel style segment finding people at Sanders rallies in Sanders t shirts who disagree with many of his stated policies.

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't think this is true at all. They polled for what impact a Warren endorsement would make a while back, and it was a significant swing - I think something like 7 percentage points would go to Sanders from Clinton, for example. Warren is dear to Democrats.

You do realize you just validated what I said, right. 7% of Dem Primary voters is < 1% of US Population. And that 7% includes people in Mass which I exempted.

Plus such a poll could be wrong. Plus such an endorsement could be forgotten over time. And where that swing is concentrated, matters. What if most of that swing is solely in the NE corner but the South and West don't give a fuck?

 

[Zona]

Then let me be perfectly clear. The anti-identity politics discussion going on in this thread right now is fucking revolting. Minorities are engaged in identity politics because they are being systematically abused because of those identities. It's not just a fucking party strategy you can turn off to gain a few more percentage points of white voters who would otherwise be scared off by brown faces looking angry just because they're being killed or deported and shit. These are real problems happening to real people in our country, and their voice needs to be heard, not hushed to avoid driving Johnny Dixiecrat further into the arms of Trump. They deserve representation, not marginalization. Not everything needs to be about god damn white people all the fucking time.

And this shit about white people magically being more tolerant of minorities if their economic needs were met? THEY THREW AWAY THE NEW DEAL BECAUSE BLACKS GOT TO SHARE. The most prosperous fucking time the white middle class EVER had was right before the CRA passed, and you seriously expect people to believe this horseshit that the only reason racism is a thing is because of economic inequality?

The mental contortions that people who are claiming to be such avowed leftists are making to support what is essentially a Southern Strategy Lite are just staggering. So you can't bring yourself to vote for a centrist Democrat, but you're cool with letting racial injustice slide as long as we get that extra 1% difference in economic policy that for some reason meets the threshold for true leftism. Talk about fucking identity politics.

Bravo!

I'm Australian. I don't have this problem. I can be a dues paying Green and preference the ALP above the Coalition and whatever fringe right wing crazies are on the ticket in any given year.

In the context of US politics, in a General election, I'd probably vote for a pot plant with a D attached over any of the current Republican candidates because there's maybe 30% of them that I'd trust with nukes and a party putting forward a field of candidates like that disqualifies them from consideration, not to mention that every disagreement I have with the Democrats the Republicans are at least as bad. I just happen to understand why people might be disenchanted by a party who's current signature left-wing reform is something that even the current Australian Center Right wouldn't put forward because it'd be seen as too right wing.

At some point if your going to talk American politics you have to concede the political and cultural realities of the US. I would be ecstatic if we where starting from the position of Australia. But that's not the case...