ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
His polling has been terrible in these hypothetical third-party runs, lol. He's polling lower than Deez Nuts.
-
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.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
His polling has been terrible in these hypothetical third-party runs, lol. He's polling lower than Deez Nuts.
Great for millionaires and billionaires, right?Like the guy said in the thread, Bernie vs. literally two billionaires is great.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Explain to me how the all mighty Trump is going to beat Bernie in a GE?
Try to rationalize a Trump victory over Sanders, he gets minority voters all the sudden? Turnout is below 50%? What is the realistic path for Trump win in a GE against Sanders or Clinton - I really like to hear your opinion on the matter since you seem so sure of this acting like it's some fact.
I'm not 100% keen on an authoritarianism vs. socialism (democrasocialocracy whatever) fight in the U.S.
I'd still bet on Bernie just from the inherent D electoral advantage, but it would be uncharted territory for a US election
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Okay, Hillary actually went fucking hard at Bernie this time:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/690911059603927040
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/690911059603927040
Bernie isn't a realistic candidate. Everything he is selling requires a Democratic controlled House and Senate by comfortable margins which is not happening, and frankly, a left-leaning SCOTUS (which we currently do not have) that would not throw out his policies if he could somehow manage to make them laws.
Don't underestimate how enthused white voters will be to vote Trump where it counts.
It would probably be a somewhat close race but Sanders will no doubt have a hard time outspending Trump or even coming close to him. Bernie has a very enthused base but I don't really see any evidence of this translating into a formidable general election campaign, i.e. Obama.
Once again there is nothing factual in the argument you are making. I don't see any evidence there is any enthusiasm for Clinton either, which doesn't mean I see any path for Trump to beat her in a GE even if he outspends her. By your logic Trump is actually better off against Clinton in a GE, which head to head polling indicates.
I'm feeling sort of weird about the text spelling out what she's saying in her videos.Okay, Hillary actually went fucking hard at Bernie this time:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/690911059603927040
On one hand it seems kind of clumsy, on the other I appreciate that it's pretty much very nice looking closed captioning for hard of hearing or deaf people.
'Enthusiasm' isn't a very factual argument either, but you have no problem using it all the time.Once again there is nothing factual in the argument you are making. I don't see any evidence there is any enthusiasm for Clinton either, which doesn't mean I see any path for Trump to beat her in a GE even if he outspends her. By your logic Trump is actually better off against Clinton in a GE, which head to head polling indicates.
eBay Huckster
Member
Explain to me how the all mighty Trump is going to beat Bernie in a GE?
By running up margins with non-college educated white voters while holding approximately steady with everyone else relative to 2012, which would be significantly easier than you seem to believe
'Enthusiasm' isn't a very factual argument either, but you have no problem using it all the time.
I'm not the one proclaiming that a candidate has no chance in a GE, nearly an year away from a single vote being cast.
By running up margins with non-college educated white voters while holding approximately steady with everyone else relative to 2012, which would be significantly easier than you seem to believe
If that's the path for Trump I see no reason he wouldn't employee the same tactic against Hills.
eBay Huckster
Member
If that's the path for Trump I see no reason he wouldn't employee the same tactic against Hills.
Of course you don't.
e: Yes, this is dismissive, because the question isn't whether he'll "employ the same tactic" - it's whether he can succeed (particularly re: the other groups).
You're more likely to remember something you've heard and read, rather than something you only hear.I'm feeling sort of weird about the text spelling out what she's saying in her videos.
On one hand it seems kind of clumsy, on the other I appreciate that it's pretty much very nice looking closed captioning for hard of hearing or deaf people.
'Enthusiasm' isn't a very factual argument either, but you have no problem using it all the time.
Ogrekiller
Member
If that's the path for Trump I see no reason he wouldn't employee the same tactic against Hills.
Oh he will. But Hillary is much less likely to crumple under pressure and more importantly has the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind her along with a solid voting bloc that will reliably turn out.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You guys have a terrible understanding of Sanders supporters. Now, Reddit represents at best just 1% of Sanders' most enthusiastic support and is demographically not representative at all of Sanders supporters, but it does act as a nexus for the information that spreads through Sanders supporters. The question of "are Bernie's policies going to happen?" gets asked all the time. Here's the top-voted comment from the last time the question was asked:
I think this is easily the consensus view among Sanders fans. No, he'll probably achieve at best 10% of what he sets out to do... but that is at least 10% of something. What Clinton is offering is very difficult to discern from maintenance of the status quo. It's very hard to identify anything positive and substantive she offers. People aren't being "mislead by Sanders' exaggerations", they're just going for a candidate that knows what America should look like and wants to do his best to take them there. Nobody can really tell you what Clinton stands for.
The fact you don't understand this is why you're now in the position where most of you are at least somewhat worried about a Sanders win in Iowa, despite the fact I could find quotes from all of you within the last 3 months saying you think he wouldn't take a single state except Vermont. Regardless of how well he does or does not do, and I obviously agree Clinton is still the clear and predominant favourite, you guys are fundamentally out of touch with a very large and powerful section of the left-leaning base.
I think everyone on this sub knows that most of Sanders' policies as he describes them are very unlikely to happen, at least immediately. That's not the point. The point is that you need to know where you want to be one day to know what to do tomorrow. Clinton has no idea, no moral framework. Her policies essentially boil down to "this is what focus groups tell me is permissible". She's capitulated to Republican constraints before they've even started negotiations. Sanders says "this is what America should look like; I will do my best". That's always going to get you further. If you don't even try, you'll never succeed.
I think this is easily the consensus view among Sanders fans. No, he'll probably achieve at best 10% of what he sets out to do... but that is at least 10% of something. What Clinton is offering is very difficult to discern from maintenance of the status quo. It's very hard to identify anything positive and substantive she offers. People aren't being "mislead by Sanders' exaggerations", they're just going for a candidate that knows what America should look like and wants to do his best to take them there. Nobody can really tell you what Clinton stands for.
The fact you don't understand this is why you're now in the position where most of you are at least somewhat worried about a Sanders win in Iowa, despite the fact I could find quotes from all of you within the last 3 months saying you think he wouldn't take a single state except Vermont. Regardless of how well he does or does not do, and I obviously agree Clinton is still the clear and predominant favourite, you guys are fundamentally out of touch with a very large and powerful section of the left-leaning base.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Native NYers: Trump, Bernie.
Moved to NY: Bloomberg, Hillary.
I think one state has a bit of influence on this race so far...
Moved to NY: Bloomberg, Hillary.
I think one state has a bit of influence on this race so far...
Ogrekiller
Member
You guys have a terrible understanding of Sanders supporters. Now, Reddit represents 1% of Sanders support and is demographically not representative of that support, but it does act as a nexus for the information that spreads through Sanders supporters. The question of "are Bernie's policies going to happen?" gets asked all the time. Here's the top-voted comment from the last time the question was asked:
I think this is easily the consensus view among Sanders fans. No, he'll probably achieve at best 10% of what he sets out to do... but that is at least 10% of something. What Clinton is offering is very difficult to discern from maintenance of the status quo. It's very hard to identify anything positive and substantive she offers. People aren't being "mislead by Sanders' exaggerations", they're just going for a candidate that knows what America should look like and wants to do his best to take them there. Nobody can really tell you what Clinton stands for.
The fact you don't understand this is why you're now in the position where most of you are at least somewhat worried about a Sanders win in Iowa, despite the fact I could find quotes from all of you within the last 3 months saying you think he wouldn't take a single state except Vermont. Regardless of how well he does or does not do, and I obviously agree Clinton is still the clear and predominant favourite, you guys are fundamentally out of touch with a very large and powerful section of the left-leaning base.
So... where was this section when they were needed in 2014? 2010?
What Berniestans want to do is send a message but what good is sending a message when nothing gets done?
They turned on Obama just as quickly and refused to vote in midterms. Is that the strategy?
Where is the long term plan to control all branches of government so you can get your policies passed? And barring that where is the framework to provide a reliable base of successors to continue Bernie's legacy?
What guarantee is there that IF only 10% gets done Bernie will not be discarded as a sellout by his followers and the search for the next savior continues?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Hillary does have grand ideas that will never pass Congress too (repealing the Hyde amendment), it's just that she also has some ideas that could, possibly, maybe, if she runs against Trump or Cruz (I think her LGBT bill could pass to be honest...)
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/22...s-decide-hillary-clinton-when-leaders-decide/
Every major union or progressive organization that let its members have a vote endorsed Bernie Sanders.
Meanwhile, all of Hillary Clintons major group endorsements come from organizations where the leaders decide. And several of those endorsements were accompanied by criticisms from members about the lack of a democratic process.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So... where was this section when they were needed in 2014? 2010?
They were absent because the Democrats did not bother to cultivate them. Note that where Democrats did cultivate them, they did well. It's no surprise that the 112th Congress had the most leftmost Democratic senators on average for any Congress until that point. The Democrats who were wiped out (almost entirely) were Blue Dog Democrats. There are now arguably only 2 left in the Senate, and 14 in the House.
What Berniestans want to do is send a message but what good is sending a message when nothing gets done?
They turned on Obama just as quickly and refused to vote in midterms. Is that the strategy?
Again, this just illustrates how poor your understanding is. Whose supporters have raised $57 million in small donations from 2.5 million different contributors? Whose supporters have already put in more volunteer hours in total than any campaign in American history? "Berniestans" aren't some sort of political waster group. They have been by far the most active political support group in American history; easily more than even '08 Obama. They are very clearly working towards an obtainable political goal (Sanders' election); but they also have other clear political goals - initiatives like Grassroots Select, running primary challengers against Democrats they perceive as too conservative (e.g. Tim Canova against DWS), and fund-raising for people like John Fetterman. This isn't sending a message, it's *doing* something. I see references to the 2018 mid-terms all the time from Sanders supporters.
The campaign right now showing the least political willpower to actually do anything or achieve anything is Clinton's. She's had to send around begging emails asking her supporters for money, and has seen an almost unreal reversal in her position in Iowa in less than a month.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
You guys have a terrible understanding of Sanders supporters. Now, Reddit represents at best just 1% of Sanders' most enthusiastic support and is demographically not representative at all of Sanders supporters, but it does act as a nexus for the information that spreads through Sanders supporters. The question of "are Bernie's policies going to happen?" gets asked all the time. Here's the top-voted comment from the last time the question was asked:
I think this is easily the consensus view among Sanders fans. No, he'll probably achieve at best 10% of what he sets out to do... but that is at least 10% of something. What Clinton is offering is very difficult to discern from maintenance of the status quo. It's very hard to identify anything positive and substantive she offers. People aren't being "mislead by Sanders' exaggerations", they're just going for a candidate that knows what America should look like and wants to do his best to take them there. Nobody can really tell you what Clinton stands for.
The fact you don't understand this is why you're now in the position where most of you are at least somewhat worried about a Sanders win in Iowa, despite the fact I could find quotes from all of you within the last 3 months saying you think he wouldn't take a single state except Vermont. Regardless of how well he does or does not do, and I obviously agree Clinton is still the clear and predominant favourite, you guys are fundamentally out of touch with a very large and powerful section of the left-leaning base.
I'm "worried" about a Sanders win in Iowa--not really, but more concerned about a seriously threatening Sanders primary run long-term-- because I think the massive disconnect with Sanders supporters is the perception of socialism among the general U.S. electorate. I think it's fatal. I'd love to be wrong, but I ain't.
Clinton has flung, like, a quarter of a nugget of shit at him so far. No one else--not the press, nor the GOP, nor any kind of pundit, has treated him like anything except an amusing foil for Clinton. The same lack of seriousness about him that frustrates Sanders supports is what is keeping his favorability numbers, and likely his GE polls (for however little theyre worth) so high.
All that said, if Sanders somehow really starts to forge a believable path to a nomination , the Clinton camp is going to get dirty, and frankly, they'd better. If he weathers all that through to a nomination, it's possible much of what he'd face in the general will have already come out in the wash.
Ogrekiller
Member
They were absent because the Democrats did not bother to cultivate them. Note that where Democrats did cultivate them, they did well. It's no surprise that the 112th Congress had the most leftmost Democratic senators on average for any Congress until that point. The Democrats who were wiped out (almost entirely) were Blue Dog Democrats. There are now arguably only 2 left in the Senate, and 14 in the House.
Again, this just illustrates how poor your understanding is. Whose supporters have raised $57 million in small donations from 2.5 million different contributors? Whose supporters have already put in more volunteer hours in total than any campaign in American history? "Berniestans" aren't some sort of political waster group. They have been by far the most active political support group in American history; easily more than even '08 Obama. They are very clearly working towards an obtainable political goal (Sanders' election); but they also have other clear political goals - initiatives like Grassroots Select, running primary challengers against Democrats they perceive as too conservative (e.g. Tim Canova against DWS), fund-raising for people like John Fetterman. This isn't sending a message, it's *doing* something.
The campaign right now showing the least political willpower to actually do anything or achieve anything is Clinton's. She's had to send around begging emails asking her supporters for money, and has seen an almost unreal reversal in her position in Iowa in less than a month.
Ultimately, the question boils down to:
Who will actually show up to vote? And who will they vote for?
We already staked out our positions. Now we'll see who's right on that front.
They were absent because the Democrats did not bother to cultivate them. Note that where Democrats did cultivate them, they did well. It's no surprise that the 112th Congress had the most leftmost Democratic senators on average for any Congress until that point. The Democrats who were wiped out (almost entirely) were Blue Dog Democrats. There are now arguably only 2 left in the Senate, and 14 in the House.
Again, this just illustrates how poor your understanding is. Whose supporters have raised $57 million in small donations from 2.5 million different contributors? Whose supporters have already put in more volunteer hours in total than any campaign in American history? "Berniestans" aren't some sort of political waster group. They have been by far the most active political support group in American history; easily more than even '08 Obama. They are very clearly working towards an obtainable political goal (Sanders' election); but they also have other clear political goals - initiatives like Grassroots Select, running primary challengers against Democrats they perceive as too conservative (e.g. Tim Canova against DWS), and fund-raising for people like John Fetterman. This isn't sending a message, it's *doing* something. I see references to the 2018 mid-terms all the time from Sanders supporters.
The campaign right now showing the least political willpower to actually do anything or achieve anything is Clinton's. She's had to send around begging emails asking her supporters for money, and has seen an almost unreal reversal in her position in Iowa in less than a month.
Political Willpower? So that political willpower is going to get channeled into votes for down-ticket democrats that will vote for Bernie Sander's initiatives right? The only willpower I see people believing they can discard the entire Democratic structure and still get stuff Bernie wants to implement.
Or will they get vilified for not being 'pure' enough? How will a Democrat in a purple district going to hold or win a seat long enough to do anything Sander wants? Will they get any support from the top of the ticket even if they aren't 100% ideologically the same?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Frankly, if the Clinton campaign goes dirty, they're stupid. They just tried doing that with healthcare and it caused YouGOV's competency trackers to go from Clinton have a +21 lead on healthcare competency to a -6 deficit. Even if you don't think Sanders' policies are practical, he is the heart of what most Democrats think. I'm sure plenty of you will admit you'd probably vote for Sanders over Clinton if you thought he was more electable (obviously some exceptions). You don't win a Democratic primary by attacking the core of what the Democratic base believes in.
If Clinton wants to win the primary *and* get keep Sanders' base enthused - which I think is important because while I don't agree with them, a worrying large portion will not vote Clinton - she needs to co-opt as much of his message as she feasibly thinks she can, not reject it. Rejecting it is the clearest way for her to actually lose a race she should have absolutely no business losing.
If Clinton wants to win the primary *and* get keep Sanders' base enthused - which I think is important because while I don't agree with them, a worrying large portion will not vote Clinton - she needs to co-opt as much of his message as she feasibly thinks she can, not reject it. Rejecting it is the clearest way for her to actually lose a race she should have absolutely no business losing.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
This is complete garbage as I've outlined in the other thread.
Essentially two groups had open online polling that chose Sanders. Every other one of his endorsements used polling to guide their decision and just as many endorsed Hillary that used polling to guide their decision. It's even listed in that link but they ignore the groups that polled there meme era and ended up endorsing Hillary.
Would be nice if that influence can make a forcefield to repel snowNative NYers: Trump, Bernie.
Moved to NY: Bloomberg, Hillary.
I think one state has a bit of influence on this race so far...
I really think the fundamental question dividing the left is the question of how fucked the GOP really is.
If you believe that the GOP is actually pretty strong right now, that they have a reasonable chance to win the White House, that they will maintain House control, etc., as many political observers and political scientists argue, then obviously as a progressive you really want a safe choice right now to consolidate and defend Obama's achievements and avoid sliding back to the bad old 2000s. Hillary is the candidate campaigning for you directly -- that's pretty much her whole pitch. The status quo under Obama is still a lot better than the status quo under George W. Bush. And obviously lots of people who are real Democratic politicians seem to take this perspective.
If you believe that the GOP is fundamentally disintegrating ala Democrats in the late 60s, that they are going to struggle to stay relevant, that they have no chance in any national election going forward, and that their Congressional power is inevitably going to melt away, then there's no reason to play defense. You want to start nominating the furthest left candidate that could run and start pushing aggressive changes, because there's no way for the GOP to win anyway. Why not go all in? And a lot of people on the left believe this -- hell, PoliGAF was filled with claims like this in 2013 after that election. People have been talking for years about the permanent Democratic demographic advantage, the Blue Wall, etc. etc. So it's no surprise, if you believe the Democrats can't lose, that you have little enthusiasm for a candidate whose message is "we could lose, so choose me to minimize the danger of that." You're going to want somebody like Bernie Sanders.
Personally I think both arguments have some truth to them -- I mean, the GOP is obviously undergoing a catastrophic realignment right now, and I do believe the Democrats have an advantage that will continue expanding. But I also think America's a divided nation and there's still a lot of danger that people just don't want a third Democratic term. So I can see both sides. If there were a candidate further left than Hillary whose policies I agreed with more than Sanders, I might prefer them. Unfortunately that candidate is Martin O'Malley and he killed that one black kid, so.
If you believe that the GOP is actually pretty strong right now, that they have a reasonable chance to win the White House, that they will maintain House control, etc., as many political observers and political scientists argue, then obviously as a progressive you really want a safe choice right now to consolidate and defend Obama's achievements and avoid sliding back to the bad old 2000s. Hillary is the candidate campaigning for you directly -- that's pretty much her whole pitch. The status quo under Obama is still a lot better than the status quo under George W. Bush. And obviously lots of people who are real Democratic politicians seem to take this perspective.
If you believe that the GOP is fundamentally disintegrating ala Democrats in the late 60s, that they are going to struggle to stay relevant, that they have no chance in any national election going forward, and that their Congressional power is inevitably going to melt away, then there's no reason to play defense. You want to start nominating the furthest left candidate that could run and start pushing aggressive changes, because there's no way for the GOP to win anyway. Why not go all in? And a lot of people on the left believe this -- hell, PoliGAF was filled with claims like this in 2013 after that election. People have been talking for years about the permanent Democratic demographic advantage, the Blue Wall, etc. etc. So it's no surprise, if you believe the Democrats can't lose, that you have little enthusiasm for a candidate whose message is "we could lose, so choose me to minimize the danger of that." You're going to want somebody like Bernie Sanders.
Personally I think both arguments have some truth to them -- I mean, the GOP is obviously undergoing a catastrophic realignment right now, and I do believe the Democrats have an advantage that will continue expanding. But I also think America's a divided nation and there's still a lot of danger that people just don't want a third Democratic term. So I can see both sides. If there were a candidate further left than Hillary whose policies I agreed with more than Sanders, I might prefer them. Unfortunately that candidate is Martin O'Malley and he killed that one black kid, so.
Aren't you just complaining about the other side again?Frankly, if the Clinton campaign goes dirty, they're stupid. They just tried doing that with healthcare and it caused YouGOV's competency trackers to go from Clinton have a +21 lead on healthcare competency to a -6 deficit. Even if you don't think Sanders' policies are practical, he is the heart of what most Democrats think. I'm sure plenty of you will admit you'd probably vote for Sanders over Clinton if you thought he was more electable (obviously some exceptions). You don't win a Democratic primary by attacking the core of what the Democratic base believes in.
If Clinton wants to win the primary *and* get keep Sanders' base enthused - which I think is important because while I don't agree with them, a worrying large portion will not vote Clinton - she needs to co-opt as much of his message as she feasibly thinks she can, not reject it. Rejecting it is the clearest way for her to actually lose a race she should have absolutely no business losing.
Hillary has a clear sell, it's just the usual Bernie supporter narrative that she does not.
Say what you will, complain as you please, beg us to pay attention to the diehard Bernie supporters who have already refused to consider Hillary in any respect other than villain. Her campaign efforts are better spent considering and courting undecideds and moderates, and increasing minority turnout rather than the turnout that turns its back because of the smallest transgressions.
ugaboga232
Member
Has any of the major frontrunners said anything about increasing funding for science or research? As a medical/research person, I know healthcare is still being heavily debated but I would hope at least someone would pledge a bit more to the NIH.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Ultimately, the question boils down to:
Who will actually show up to vote? And who will they vote for?
We already staked out our positions. Now we'll see who's right on that front.
I think Clinton will win the primary. I'm just saying that the conception of Sanders' supporters as airheads on this thread is both demeaning and ultimately wrong; and we have evidence for that.
Political Willpower? So that political willpower is going to get channeled into votes for down-ticket democrats that will vote for Bernie Sander's initiatives right?
Or will they get vilified for not being 'pure' enough? How will a Democrat in a purple district going to hold or win a seat long enough to do anything Sander wants? Will they get any support from the top of the ticket even if they aren't 100% ideologically the same?
Sanders supporters themselves aren't even ideologically pure. I'd put a pretty penny on Sanders having at least twice the ex-Republican support Clinton does, while at the same time attracting the hard left, and everything in between the two. They don't insist on ideological purity because they don't have it themselves. Heck, the vast majority of Sanders' support doesn't even like Sanders' stance on guns.
If there is one over-arching commitment between all supporters, it's anti-establishment feeling. It's the disgust at talentless politicians with no desire to help the communities they serve rising to the top by palming off other talentless politicians. It's disgust at lobbyists and the money in politics, at gerrymandering, at a political system that fundamentally does not respond to people. All the 'purity' you need is to make an effort not to be a part of this.
Ogrekiller
Member
Frankly, if the Clinton campaign goes dirty, they're stupid. They just tried doing that with healthcare and it caused YouGOV's competency trackers to go from Clinton have a +21 lead on healthcare competency to a -6 deficit. Even if you don't think Sanders' policies are practical, he is the heart of what most Democrats think. I'm sure plenty of you will admit you'd probably vote for Sanders over Clinton if you thought he was more electable (obviously some exceptions). You don't win a Democratic primary by attacking the core of what the Democratic base believes in.
If Clinton wants to win the primary *and* get keep Sanders' base enthused - which I think is important because while I don't agree with them, a worrying large portion will not vote Clinton - she needs to co-opt as much of his message as she feasibly thinks she can, not reject it. Rejecting it is the clearest way for her to actually lose a race she should have absolutely no business losing.
Frankly it would be dumb NOT to go negative.
Being positive wouldn't work given that the people willing to believe her over Sanders would have already signed up for her. Bernie's believer would never be persuaded to vote for her in a primary and some will even defect to Trump if she wins.
Doing nothing just opens her up for the Repubs and Bernie to hammer her on anything they want.
So negativity it is. Given that Sanders is the figurehead of the whole movement the logical thing to do is to poison the Sanders well and discredit him to the electorate. This is scummy of course, BUT IT WORKS.
You can see the same thing happening on the Republican side, and in how Republicans have tanked Clinton's numbers.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I really think the fundamental question dividing the left is the question of how fucked the GOP really is.
If you believe that the GOP is actually pretty strong right now, that they have a reasonable chance to win the White House, that they will maintain House control, etc., as many political observers and political scientists argue, then obviously as a progressive you really want a safe choice right now to consolidate and defend Obama's achievements and avoid sliding back to the bad old 2000s. Hillary is the candidate campaigning for you directly -- that's pretty much her whole pitch. The status quo under Obama is still a lot better than the status quo under George W. Bush. And obviously lots of people who are real Democratic politicians seem to take this perspective.
If you believe that the GOP is fundamentally disintegrating ala Democrats in the late 60s, that they are going to struggle to stay relevant, that they have no chance in any national election going forward, and that their Congressional power is inevitably going to melt away, then there's no reason to play defense. You want to start nominating the furthest left candidate that could run and start pushing aggressive changes, because there's no way for the GOP to win anyway. Why not go all in? And a lot of people on the left believe this -- hell, PoliGAF was filled with claims like this in 2013 after that election. People have been talking for years about the permanent Democratic demographic advantage, the Blue Wall, etc. etc. So it's no surprise, if you believe the Democrats can't lose, that you have little enthusiasm for a candidate whose message is "we could lose, so choose me to minimize the danger of that." You're going to want somebody like Bernie Sanders.
Personally I think both arguments have some truth to them -- I mean, the GOP is obviously undergoing a catastrophic realignment right now, and I do believe the Democrats have an advantage that will continue expanding. But I also think America's a divided nation and there's still a lot of danger that people just don't want a third Democratic term. So I can see both sides. If there were a candidate further left than Hillary whose policies I agreed with more than Sanders, I might prefer them. Unfortunately that candidate is Martin O'Malley and he killed that one black kid, so.
I fundamentally disagree and think this is a false dichotomy, because it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Sanders is more electable than Clinton, particularly given the anti-establishment narrative driving current politics.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Frankly it would be dumb NOT to go negative.
Being positive wouldn't work given that the people willing to believe her over Sanders would have already signed up for her. Bernie's believer would never be persuaded to vote for her in a primary and some will even defect to Trump if she wins.
Doing nothing just opens her up for the Repubs and Bernie to hammer her on anything they want.
So negativity it is. Given that Sanders is the figurehead of the whole movement the logical thing to do is to poison the Sanders well and discredit him to the electorate. This is scummy of course, BUT IT WORKS.
You can see the same thing happening on the Republican side, and in how Republicans have tanked Clinton's numbers.
Clinton is winning the primary regardless. The odds of Bernie winning are like 10% or less. Clinton's strategy shouldn't really be about winning the primary per se, it should be about maximizing the support she can expect to carry into the general. You don't do that by attacking Sanders, because you are effectively attacking your own side's deepest dreams and ambitions. It just makes you look bad. Heck, if anything it's doubly bad because so far Clinton's attacks have done nothing but backfire and help Sanders' numbers, so not only are they worse from a presidential election perspective, they're worse from a primary perspective.
I really think the fundamental question dividing the left is the question of how fucked the GOP really is.
If you believe that the GOP is actually pretty strong right now, that they have a reasonable chance to win the White House, that they will maintain House control, etc., as many political observers and political scientists argue, then obviously as a progressive you really want a safe choice right now to consolidate and defend Obama's achievements and avoid sliding back to the bad old 2000s. Hillary is the candidate campaigning for you directly -- that's pretty much her whole pitch. The status quo under Obama is still a lot better than the status quo under George W. Bush. And obviously lots of people who are real Democratic politicians seem to take this perspective.
If you believe that the GOP is fundamentally disintegrating ala Democrats in the late 60s, that they are going to struggle to stay relevant, that they have no chance in any national election going forward, and that their Congressional power is inevitably going to melt away, then there's no reason to play defense. You want to start nominating the furthest left candidate that could run and start pushing aggressive changes, because there's no way for the GOP to win anyway. Why not go all in? And a lot of people on the left believe this -- hell, PoliGAF was filled with claims like this in 2013 after that election. People have been talking for years about the permanent Democratic demographic advantage, the Blue Wall, etc. etc. So it's no surprise, if you believe the Democrats can't lose, that you have little enthusiasm for a candidate whose message is "we could lose, so choose me to minimize the danger of that." You're going to want somebody like Bernie Sanders.
Personally I think both arguments have some truth to them -- I mean, the GOP is obviously undergoing a catastrophic realignment right now, and I do believe the Democrats have an advantage that will continue expanding. But I also think America's a divided nation and there's still a lot of danger that people just don't want a third Democratic term. So I can see both sides. If there were a candidate further left than Hillary whose policies I agreed with more than Sanders, I might prefer them. Unfortunately that candidate is Martin O'Malley and he killed that one black kid, so.
This is me. I'm a liberal and I see the benefit of Bernie, but I think the republican weakness is over estimated. They are still very powerful in local and state elections. In a vacuum I'd likely be a Sanders person, but I think pushing the accelerator too hard on more leftward ideas runs the risk of doing more damage to the democratic cause than good.
I fundamentally disagree and think this is a false dichotomy, because it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Sanders is more electable than Clinton, particularly given the anti-establishment narrative driving current politics.
"Anti-establishment narrative" is really just another version of "things are fundamentally different now." So, sure, I guess you could either believe that the GOP is melting down, or that all established politics is melting down, but I feel like the distinction is not that important for this discussion.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is a horrible analysis. The teamsters if held to a vote would likely endorse trump. Many locals would support Hillary due to demographics and other reasons.
They know nothing has these decisions are made.
Ogrekiller
Member
Clinton is winning the primary regardless. The odds of Bernie winning are like 10% or less. Clinton's strategy shouldn't really be about winning the primary per se, it should be about maximizing the support she can expect to carry into the general. You don't do that by attacking Sanders, because you are effectively attacking your own side's deepest dreams and ambitions. It just makes you look bad. Heck, if anything it's doubly bad because so far Clinton's attacks have done nothing but backfire and help Sanders' numbers, so not only are they worse from a presidential election perspective, they're worse from a primary perspective.
But deepest dreams and ambitions are just that. What matters is the now. IF the republicans rally around Trump, IF they unify, squabbling now just makes things worse.
If Bernie wins, he will have proved that he was the most fit to win the race. But there's no room for error at this point. Dreams and ambitions are great... but so far I haven't seen a way for Bernie to turn them into reality.
If Bernie can prove he can deliver that reality better than Hillary can, then he will win.
Oh, and of course Clinton's strategy is completely about winning the primary at this point. Now that the perception is that she could lose it would be folly to assume she would still win. You have to win the primary before the general after all.
The only real risk for Hillary in Iowa is that the media turns it into a momentum story. I know exactly who Bernie's base is which is why I'm not worried about her not coming out of the state with more delegates. From an actual electoral standpoint, zzz. It's all media really.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
"Anti-establishment narrative" is really just another version of "things are fundamentally different now." So, sure, I guess you could either believe that the GOP is melting down, or that all established politics is melting down, but I feel like the distinction is not that important for this discussion.
Hmm. I sort of agree and sort of disagree. "Sanders can win despite being a weak candidate because the GOP are melting down" and "Sanders can win because anti-establishment politics has made him a strong candidate" are two fundamentally different propositions which have different degrees of evidence in favour and against. Even if they're united by the fact they're both different from the status quo, they are also different enough from each other not to be so easily lumped together. In particular, people who think Sanders can win despite being a weak candidate because the GOP are melting down are still likelier to support Clinton because they're not just concerned with winning the presidency but rather House and Senate maximizing; so it doesn't accurately describe the split in the Democratic base.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The one thing I'm really frustrated is the idea Bernie represents the "true left"
I don't think progressive or liberal politics should be determined by who proposes higher taxes. And there's a lot more than health care to politics.
I don't think progressive or liberal politics should be determined by who proposes higher taxes. And there's a lot more than health care to politics.
I think Clinton will win the primary. I'm just saying that the conception of Sanders' supporters as airheads on this thread is both demeaning and ultimately wrong; and we have evidence for that.
Sanders supporters themselves aren't even ideologically pure. I'd put a pretty penny on Sanders having at least twice the ex-Republican support Clinton does, while at the same time attracting the hard left, and everything in between the two. They don't insist on ideological purity because they don't have it themselves. Heck, the vast majority of Sanders' support doesn't even like Sanders' stance on guns.
If there is one over-arching commitment between all supporters, it's anti-establishment feeling. It's the disgust at talentless politicians with no desire to help the communities they serve rising to the top by palming off other talentless politicians. It's disgust at lobbyists and the money in politics, at gerrymandering, at a political system that fundamentally does not respond to people. All the 'purity' you need is to make an effort not to be a part of this.
You haven't answered my question of how Bernie Sanders will get his base to support Establishment Congressional candidates in tight races all across the country. Both on election day and in the midterms.
His campaign so far has done zero outreach to any congressional members, raised zero money, and his campaign and supporters have spent most of the time demonizing the entire Democratic establishment.
So if Bernie wins everything and keeps on this path and finds himself a Republican Majority in Congress because only the top of the ticket won. What will he do, because if we logically plot out how his campaign rhetoric has been, we will end up with a majority republican government at all levels besides the Presidency.
I'm also operating under the assumption that any Democrat winning moves the country to the left and furthers the cause of forcing the GOP to undergo an actual evolution. Part of shifting the country's political center of gravity lies not only within the Democratic Party, but also in making the other side of the aisle change.This is me. I'm a liberal and I see the benefit of Bernie, but I think the republican weakness is over estimated. They are still very powerful in local and state elections. In a vacuum I'd likely be a Sanders person, but I think pushing the accelerator too hard on more leftward ideas runs the risk of doing more damage to the democratic cause than good.
Ogrekiller
Member
I'm also operating under the assumption that any Democrat winning moves the country to the left and furthers the cause of forcing the GOP to undergo an actual evolution. Part of shifting the country's political center of gravity lies not only within the Democratic Party, but also in making the other side of the aisle change.
After Obama, the money is on no. They had a report detailing exactly what they had to do after they lost and they let the whole thing slip away from them.
After whipping up the base against the Democrats for so long it would take the entire generation of voters to die off before they could sell the idea of working with them again.
So long as the self defeating anti establishment part of the establishment exists and holds sway over the Republican side, there will not be bipartisan effort without huge gridlock.
Thanks Gingrich.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You haven't answered my question of how Bernie Sanders will get his base to support Establishment Congressional candidates in tight races all across the country. Both on election day and in the midterms.
His campaign so far has done zero outreach to any congressional members, raised zero money, and his campaign and supporters have spent most of the time demonizing the entire Democratic establishment.
So if Bernie wins everything and keeps on this path and finds himself a Republican Majority in Congress because only the top of the ticket won. What will he do, because if we logically plot out how his campaign rhetoric has been, we will end up with a majority republican government at all levels besides the Presidency.
I think it is incredibly unlikely Sanders supporters turn up on election day for the presidency, tick "Bernard Sanders, Democrat" in the presidential box, and then leaves having done nothing else. They will also vote for their congressional and senate candidates, because why not? Takes all of three seconds to put another tick in the box; and the box they tick will be the Democratic one at the point Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee and has asked them to support Democratic candidates. That means if Sanders as a nominal figurehead is enough to get people to turn out who don't normally turn out, all of the down-ticket candidates benefit - more than they would under Clinton, because even if she gets them money, she doesn't have the potential to excite the sort of people (and therefore bring in the sort of votes) that Sanders does.
As for Sanders not raising money for the DNC, that's simply not true. He signed a fundraising pact with them, exactly the same as Clinton did. He's raised less money, yes, but almost all Clinton's money raised for the DNC was raised by corporate sponsors - look at the statements from the Hillary Victory Fund (the body which organizes the money Clinton raises for the DNC). A Cuban billionaire is responsible for about a quarter of it alone. Given Sanders doesn't get corporate sponsors for obvious reasons, his does worse. I don't have the exact numbers because I don't think they're released, but I'd be willing to bet that Sanders has raised more for the DNC from small donors than Clinton has.
disastermouse
Banned
I'm not the one proclaiming that a candidate has no chance in a GE, nearly an year away from a single vote being cast.
If that's the path for Trump I see no reason he wouldn't employee the same tactic against Hills.
It would work better against Hillary, actually.
Holding on to the White House after a two-term stint is an uphill battle already, something the Hillary brigade doesn't seem to acknowledge. Bush did it after Reagan (for one term). I don't remember when the earliest time before that was.
I think it is incredibly unlikely Sanders supporters turn up on election day for the presidency, tick "Bernard Sanders, Democrat" in the presidential box, and then leaves having done nothing else. They will also vote for their congressional and senate candidates, because why not? Takes all of three seconds to put another tick in the box; and the box they tick will be the Democratic one at the point Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee and has asked them to support Democratic candidates. That means if Sanders as a nominal figurehead is enough to get people to turn out who don't normally turn out, all of the down-ticket candidates benefit - more than they would under Clinton, because even if she gets them money, she doesn't have the potential to excite the sort of people (and therefore bring in the sort of votes) that Sanders does.
As for Sanders not raising money for the DNC, that's simply not true. He signed a fundraising pact with them, exactly the same as Clinton did. He's raised less money, yes, but almost all Clinton's money raised for the DNC was raised by corporate sponsors - look at the statements from the Hillary Victory Fund (the body which organizes the money Clinton raises for the DNC). A Cuban billionaire is responsible for about a quarter of it alone. Given Sanders doesn't get corporate sponsors for obvious reasons, his does worse. I don't have the exact numbers because I don't think they're released, but I'd be willing to bet that Sanders has raised more for the DNC from small donors than Clinton has.
So you are going to ignore the campaign rhetoric then? His entire platform is anti-establishment. Just about every democratic candidate running now and in the mid-terms will be establishment candidates put forth by the DNC. His campaign and supporters (even on this very forum) almost went to war and are still demonizing the DNC for something his campaign did wrong.
Ogrekiller
Member
I think it is incredibly unlikely Sanders supporters turn up on election day for the presidency, tick "Bernard Sanders, Democrat" in the presidential box, and then leaves having done nothing else. They will also vote for their congressional and senate candidates, because why not? Takes all of three seconds to put another tick in the box; and the box they tick will be the Democratic one at the point Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee and has asked them to support Democratic candidates. That means if Sanders as a nominal figurehead is enough to get people to turn out who don't normally turn out, all of the down-ticket candidates benefit - more than they would under Clinton, because even if she gets them money, she doesn't have the potential to excite the sort of people (and therefore bring in the sort of votes) that Sanders does.
As for Sanders not raising money for the DNC, that's simply not true. He signed a fundraising pact with them, exactly the same as Clinton did. He's raised less money, yes, but almost all Clinton's money raised for the DNC was raised by corporate sponsors - look at the statements from the Hillary Victory Fund (the body which organizes the money Clinton raises for the DNC). A Cuban billionaire is responsible for about a quarter of it alone. Given Sanders doesn't get corporate sponsors for obvious reasons, his does worse. I don't have the exact numbers because I don't think they're released, but I'd be willing to bet that Sanders has raised more for the DNC from small donors than Clinton has.
The simple answer is because they are voting for Bernie.
Look, Bernie is the figurehead. But he's not a Democrat. So when he talks about overthrowing the establishment, why would people vote for the establishment he is railing against?
If the democrat is a "blue dog" or a centrist, why would you vote for them? To add to that, Sanders' supporters didn't win against the people that lost in 2010. Republicans did.
12 pages ago a Bernie supporter wouldn't vote for Hassan over Ayotte. This is what's happening.
James Madison and gang cleaned house for like 30 years straight.It would work better against Hillary, actually.
Holding on to the White House after a two-term stint is an uphill battle already, something the Hillary brigade doesn't seem to acknowledge. Bush did it after Reagan (for one term). I don't remember when the earliest time before that was.
eBay Huckster
Member
It would work better against Hillary, actually.
the anti-clinton attacks most likely to resonate with the group specifically named in the post that's responding to were already used, to saturation points, 20 years ago
the anti-sanders attacks most likely to resonate with that group are still in the future
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It would work better against Hillary, actually.
Holding on to the White House after a two-term stint is an uphill battle already, something the Hillary brigade doesn't seem to acknowledge. Bush did it after Reagan (for one term). I don't remember when the earliest time before that was.
1932-1948 Roosevelt-Truman, although 4 of those 5 were Roosevelt and Truman was one-term. If you're looking for the last consecutive two-terms presidents from the same party, you're looking at 1860-1876 Lincoln-Grant.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.