• 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.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.

SL128

Member
I had a nightmare set ten months in the future where the general election was replaced by a best-of-three Dota 2 match between a Clinton team and a Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump team, and the first game went to Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump.

Has anyone else had nightmares where a Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump presidency is extremely plausible and imminent?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
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?

12 pages ago a Bernie supporter wouldn't vote for Hassan over Ayotte. This is what's happening.

Precisely because Sanders is the figurehead. Again, Sanders supporters are very realistic about getting a congress that supports Sanders. They don't like Blue Dogs (although, again, there are only 2 Senate Blue Dogs and 14 House Blue Dogs left...), but they recognise that Blue Dogs are at least marginally more likely to support Sanders than Republicans. At the point Sanders wins, the establishment is fundamentally dead anyway. Every future Democrat running to be the nominee knows they *have* to court the Sanders' base at the very least. Every new member of the House planning their political ascent has to change the plan such that the Sanders' base is now in their calculations. The entire nature of the Democratic Party changes. You can tolerate the Blue Dogs under such a situation; they've not long left.
 
I had a nightmare set ten months in the future where the general election was replaced by a best-of-three Dota 2 match between a Clinton team and a Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump team, and the first game went to Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump.

Has anyone else had nightmares where a Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump presidency is extremely plausible?

To put it in Evo terms:

Trump wants to ban Thawk and Elf.

He wants to nerf Balrog and Dudley.

He wants to nerf Chun, Yun, Yang and Fei as well, even though he picks Yun anyway.

Wake up SRKs and is random as hell, yet he wins since he's been playing footsies for years.

Calls opponents scrubs and tier whores, yet calls them out on top tier privilege as well.

Yet NO ONE FUCKING BLOCKS WHEN HE WAKE UP ULTRAS.
 
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.

Hillary's argument is a bad one, though. I know you think I'm crazy, but if the nominee is Hillary, the Republicans will win the White House.

I'm a Marxist now, but I have been a life-long liberal Democrat before that. I'm absolutely not going to vote for Hillary. I don't believe everyone on team Bernie would have to go full Marxist to just stay away from the polls or vote Stein in the General.

She has a ceiling and it can only go down in the general.
 
James Madison and gang cleaned house for like 30 years straight.

Well, when I see everyone wearing white wigs again, maybe I'll be less pessimistic about the uphill climb for Democrats to hold the White House for a third term. Maybe.

I don't think Hillary's 'We can't really do anything so why even try?' message is going to help the Democrats do it, though.
 
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

Right, but Hillary's ceiling is sturdily in place. Independents won't vote for her and liberal left Democrats will find something else to do on election day. Not all of them—not even most of them, but enough of them.

Get used to saying 'President Trump'.
 

HylianTom

Banned
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.

I keep assuming that the GOP would react to a third loss in a logical manner. I've made that mistake before :p

And Crab: PoliGAF - including the Hillary brigade - has discussed the difficulty associated with winning a third consecutive term. Check the script.

I don't think Hillary's 'We can't really do anything so why even try?' message is going to help the Democrats do it, though.

I'm going to need a source on this.
 
To put it in Evo terms:

Trump wants to ban Thawk and Elf.

He wants to nerf Balrog and Dudley.

He wants to nerf Chun, Yun, Yang and Fei as well, even though he picks Yun anyway.

Wake up SRKs and is random as hell, yet he wins since he's been playing footsies for years.

Calls opponents scrubs and tier whores, yet calls them out on top tier privilege as well.

Yet NO ONE FUCKING BLOCKS WHEN HE WAKE UP ULTRAS.
Sweet Jesus, 2D fighter political analogies are what make GAF great again.
 
I keep assuming that the GOP would react to a third loss in a logical manner. I've made that mistake before :p

And Crab: PoliGAF - including the Hillary brigade - has discussed the difficulty associated with winning a third consecutive term. Check the script.



I'm going to need a source on this.

LOL, WUT? I'm not saying she said it verbatim, I'm saying that people on the left are hearing it. They hear it every time she attacks Bernie's platform as a pipe dream. They don't think, 'Oh yeah, that's true and realistic', they hear, 'Hillary doesn't really want progressive change. And honestly, I'm 50/50 on believing that before she even opens her mouth.
 

HylianTom

Banned
LOL, WUT? I'm not saying she said it verbatim, I'm saying that people on the left are hearing it. They hear it every time she attacks Bernie's platform as a pipe dream. They don't think, 'Oh yeah, that's true and realistic', they hear, 'Hillary doesn't really want progressive change. And honestly, I'm 50/50 on believing that before she even opens her mouth.

Just calling-out a blatant lie. You attributed that message to her. It was cheap, but I'm not surprised.

Carry on.

Hey, disastermouse raised that, not me. :( I was just answering when the last time it happened was.

Cool - that's my bad!
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
And Crab: PoliGAF - including the Hillary brigade - has discussed the difficulty associated with winning a third consecutive term. Check the script.

Hey, disastermouse raised that, not me. :( I was just answering when the last time it happened was.
 
Just calling-out a blatant lie. You attributed that message to her. It was cheap, but I'm not surprised.

Carry on.



Cool - that's my bad!

You mean it wasn't obvious that it was a paraphrasing of her message? Or are you being deliberately obtuse because that's just how you roll?

It's cheap (and ineffective) as a rhetorical tool, but I'm not surprised.
 

HylianTom

Banned
You mean it wasn't obvious that it was a paraphrasing of her message? Or are you being deliberately obtuse because that's just how you roll?

It's cheap (and ineffective) as a rhetorical tool, but I'm not surprised.

I'm taking it as the words lie.

If you wanted to communicate that this was the message that some on the Left are hearing from her, you communicated it rather poorly.

You now say that this is a paraphrasing of her message. How am I supposed to interpret these words? Am I supposed to somehow magically translate them into what you really intended?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Bloomberg would get roasted. He's not even Perot level.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
What a waste of money. He has no national appeal. Let Sarah Palin drink a big soda in front of him!
 
I'm taking it as the words lie.

If you wanted to communicate that this was the message that some on the Left are hearing from her, you communicated it rather poorly.

You now say that this is a paraphrasing of her message. How am I supposed to interpret these words? Am I supposed to somehow magically translate them into what you really intended?

Now I know that I can't win an argument with someone doggedly determined to be dense, but hey, I've got the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/18/bernie-sanderss-angry-unrealistic-call-for-revolution/

“Even during the Affordable Care Act debate,” she said, “there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy into Medicare, and even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that.”

“We have the Affordable Care Act,” she concluded. “Let’s make it work.”


So...how would you read that, as a liberal?

"Hillary Clinton: 'We couldn't get the votes for that.'" It gives me shivers. So inspiring!
 

HylianTom

Banned
Now I know that I can't win an argument with someone doggedly determined to be dense, but hey, I've got the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/18/bernie-sanderss-angry-unrealistic-call-for-revolution/

“Even during the Affordable Care Act debate,” she said, “there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy into Medicare, and even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that.”

“We have the Affordable Care Act,” she concluded. “Let’s make it work.”


So...how would you read that, as a liberal?

"Hillary Clinton: 'We couldn't get the votes for that.'" It gives me shivers. So inspiring!

Wait.

You made a general statement regarding a message for winning a third term: 'We can't really do anything so why even try?'

You're upscaling that from a statement made regarding one specific issue at-hand: "We couldn't get the votes for that."

You call me dense, but I call you dishonest. The latter statement doesn't translate/upscale into the first.

edit: And that statement about not being able to get votes? As a liberal, I like it. It shows that she isn't delusional about what's possible in the current political landscape.

I mean, they endorsed Clinton last time, it'd be weird if they didn't again. I'd be rather surprised if Rubio wasn't the GOP endorsement, as well.
Agreed. If it isn't Rubio, it'll be some other establishment pick. I can't fathom them picking Trump.
 
Now I know that I can't win an argument with someone doggedly determined to be dense, but hey, I've got the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/18/bernie-sanderss-angry-unrealistic-call-for-revolution/

“Even during the Affordable Care Act debate,” she said, “there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy into Medicare, and even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that.”

“We have the Affordable Care Act,” she concluded. “Let’s make it work.”


So...how would you read that, as a liberal?

"Hillary Clinton: 'We couldn't get the votes for that.'" It gives me shivers. So inspiring!

A reality check in many cases is the motivation most people need to start working. But saying we can do it without the effort, the team and the top to bottom approach is meaningless.


Where is Bernie's team? Where's his allies? His best friend in the senate was Jim Inhofe for crying out loud.
 
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.

Democrats were very close to winning a third term in 2000, and even won the poplar vote. Had Gore won back then, I'm not sure if he would have won a second term. The Dot Com Bubble burst would have happened under his watch, and had 9/11 happened under Gore, his chances of a second term would be near zero.

Hillary could face an uphill battle this November, but I truly think Gore's map in 2000 is Hillary's worst-case scenario, and not Kerry's. I can't see Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico going red because of the larger pool of Hispanic voters (and especially with a higher turnout against Trump), and New Hampshire has become more reliably blue in the past decade as well. That means she only has to pick up Iowa, Virginia, Florida, or Ohio.

If Hillary had to face a Rubio in the general election, I would be more concerned, but she likely won't. Hillary has problems with independent voters, but Trump is far worst, at least the last time I checked. Most people this November would be going out to vote against Trump rather than straight up supporting Hillary. This could be larger problem in 2020, especially if the GOP smarten up and nominate a semi-competent contender, plus they could contribute any problems this country is facing on a twelve year Obama-Clinton "dynasty", which they started doing back in 2012.

When the Democrats got their asses kicked in the 1980's, they had to push for a more center-right candidate, and they won. If the same happens to the GOP, they'll need someone more to the left of Trump or Cruz to take on the Democrats, but I truly don't think the Tea Party will ever allow this.

I'm still hoping Bernie pulls through. If he does become president, this will finally allow the Democrats to move more closer to the left, and transition from a centrist party to an actual liberal party. Also, regardless of whether or not Bernie or Hillary win in the GE, this will also strengthen the chances of an actual left-leaning SCOTUS. That's the biggest win I'm looking forward to.
 
Wait.

You made a general statement regarding a message for winning a third term: 'We can't really do anything so why even try?'

You're upscaling that from a statement made regarding one specific issue at-hand: "We couldn't get the votes for that."

You call me dense, but I call you dishonest. The latter statement doesn't translate/upscale into the first.

edit: And that statement about not being able to get votes? As a liberal, I like it. It shows that she isn't delusional about what's possible in the current political landscape.


Agreed. If it isn't Rubio, it'll be some other establishment pick. I can't fathom them picking Trump.
No, I was giving you an example of a message that comes across as 'why even try'. It's really not hard to see - you have to go out of your way to see it, really. And boy howdee, are you ever trying!

You see it as 'not delusional' - I see it as, 'If at first you don't succeed, never ever try again.'
 

Holmes

Member
Now I know that I can't win an argument with someone doggedly determined to be dense, but hey, I've got the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/18/bernie-sanderss-angry-unrealistic-call-for-revolution/

“Even during the Affordable Care Act debate,” she said, “there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy into Medicare, and even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that.”

“We have the Affordable Care Act,” she concluded. “Let’s make it work.”


So...how would you read that, as a liberal?

"Hillary Clinton: 'We couldn't get the votes for that.'" It gives me shivers. So inspiring!
Did liberals pay attention to what happened in Congress in 2009-2010, and in the 2010 and 2014 midterms? Clinton is correct. The voters weren't there with Democratic majorities, they're definitely not going to be there with Republican majorities, even if Democrats take back the Senate, so it's best work with what you have and improve it in ways that you can. Not fool people by promising the world and more, and having no plan to actually get any of it passed. Maybe 2010 and 2014 have made my cynical, but I'm not going to believe someone's bullshit, no matter how great it is, if it's just not feasible and I'm not going to throw my support behind a fantasy.
 

Armaros

Member
No, I was giving you an example of a message that comes across as 'why even try'. It's really not hard to see - you have to go out of your way to see it, really. And boy howdee, are you ever trying!

You see it as 'not delusional' - I see it as, 'If at first you don't succeed, never ever try again.'

No, thats what you twist the message as.

Bernie Supporters seem to have a very very very very short memory and cant even recall the massive fight over the ACA in Obama's First Term. And even with a Democratic Congress it barely passed as the current form, and even then Democrats got slammed in the mid-term elections.

Those Democratic votes were in very purple districts or in normally republican districts that rose into power due to Obama's massive 2008 upswelling. They almost all lost to republicans in 2012, a huge part of that was Republicans campaigning against the ACA in the mid terms.

You also forget that the ACA was the second try for national healthcare in the country in recent times. Guess who was the first? So somehow she came out for ACA after her's failed in the 90s but you said she said to never try again.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Democrats were very close to winning a third term in 2000, and even won the poplar vote. Had Gore won back then, I'm not sure if he would have won a second term. The Dot Com Bubble burst would have happened under his watch, and had 9/11 happened under Gore, his chances of a second term would be near zero.

Hillary could face an uphill battle this November, but I truly think Gore's map in 2000 is Hillary's worst-case scenario, and not Kerry's. I can't see Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico going red because of the larger pool of Hispanic voters (and especially with a higher turnout against Trump), and New Hampshire has become more reliably blue in the past decade as well. That means she only has to pick up Iowa, Virginia, Florida, or Ohio.

If Hillary had to face a Rubio in the general election, I would be more concerned, but she likely won't. Hillary has problems with independent voters, but Trump is far worst, at least the last time I checked. Most people this November would be going out to vote against Trump rather than straight up supporting Hillary. This could be larger problem in 2020, especially if the GOP smarten up and nominate a semi-competent contender, plus they could contribute any problems this country is facing on a twelve year Obama-Clinton "dynasty", which they started doing back in 2012.

When the Democrats got their asses kicked in the 1980's, they had to push for a more center-right candidate, and they won. If the same happens to the GOP, they'll need someone more to the left of Trump or Cruz to take on the Democrats, but I truly don't think the Tea Party will ever allow this.

I'm still hoping Bernie pulls through. If he does become president, this will finally allow the Democrats to move more closer to the left, and transition from a centrist party to an actual liberal party. Also, regardless of whether or not Bernie or Hillary win in the GE, this will also strengthen the chances of an actual left-leaning SCOTUS. That's the biggest win I'm looking forward to.

In the 80s, the DLC/Third Way formed right after the shellacking that Mondale took. They didn't get their pick of candidate in '88, but hit paydirt in '92. So it took two cycles for success.

I'm wondering if/when we'll ever see a similar group form on the right. I suspect we'll see more resistance on their side.
 
Btw I would strongly disagree that Democrats got wiped out in 2012 because they weren't cultivating progressive votes. Braley, Udall, Hagan and Begich were all very progressive aside from one or two pet issues usually related to their state. Even Landrieu and Pryor focused their campaigns on turning out minorities which backfired miserably.

Turnout during midterms sucks and furthermore Democrats are increasingly relying on less likely voters. That's really all there is to it.

Democrats are not going to stay home if Hillary is the nominee. She's immensely popular with the party base and has proven she can hold her own against Republican attacks. Y'all Sanderstans need a reality check. Furthermore I don't consider an unwillingness to step onto the political land mine that is healthcare reform to be "giving up," we've seen in Kentucky just this past year how people are willing to fuck themselves over on healthcare if it means those dirty minorities get it even worse. She's proposed very substantial legislative proposals on education, immigration, gun control and financial regulations, as well as issues no one is even really talking about (autism research and treatment for example). And if she can't get those through Congress, she's said she'll take even stronger executive measures than Obama has.

I mean, no, she's not promising anyone a free pony but it's a pretty good platform.
 

HylianTom

Banned
No, I was giving you an example of a message that comes across as 'why even try'. It's really not hard to see - you have to go out of your way to see it, really. And boy howdee, are you ever trying!

You see it as 'not delusional' - I see it as, 'If at first you don't succeed, never ever try again.'

I don't see the "never ever try again" part.
 
No, I was giving you an example of a message that comes across as 'why even try'. It's really not hard to see - you have to go out of your way to see it, really. And boy howdee, are you ever trying!

You see it as 'not delusional' - I see it as, 'If at first you don't succeed, never ever try again.'
Try? What? You don't think Obama tried? Dude couldn't even get bluedogs on his plan despite giving into all their demands. Oh he tried. He tried so much he even went to Olympia Snowe and other rinos. Something tells me you blocked out the entire first term of Obama from your memory. And I am to believe the magical socialist will wave the Волшебная палочка and will get his entire mandate passed. Delusion.
 
In the 80s, the DLC/Third Way formed right after the shellacking that Mondale took. They didn't get their pick of candidate in '88, but hit paydirt in '92. So it took two cycles for success.

I'm wondering if/when we'll ever see a similar group form on the right. I suspect we'll see more resistance on their side.

Two cycles. Because once all the boomers really start dying off things will have to change for better or for worse.

Millennials will have started their own families by this time, assuming 1990 as the cutoff point. They will be more realistic, more mature, more in tune with the realities of an average life instead of school and university culture. Having kids. Paying bills. Working through the rat race.

Communism will not work as a threat- these people will have NEVER lived through the ages where the Soviets were a threat.
 
No, thats what you twist the message as.

Bernie Supporters seem to have a very very very very short memory and cant even recall the massive fight over the ACA in Obama's First Term. And even with a Democratic Congress it barely passed current, and even then Democrats got slammed in the mid-term elections.

No, we remember. We remember that Obama was so desperate for a win that he wouldn't even give the Public Option an airing.

Of course they got slammed in the midterms. They're Democrats! They couldn't even remember that state houses were important for gerrymandering. They had a great 50 state strategy and abandoned it at the first opportunity.

Y'know, if I didn't know better, I'd say that Democrats don't really want to win a majority and get any of this done. Certainly, I know it would strain Hillary's Wall Street connections if she had to, you know, actually do anything that ruffled feathers. Heaven forbid!
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
In the 80s, the DLC/Third Way formed right after the shellacking that Mondale took. They didn't get their pick of candidate in '88, but hit paydirt in '92. So it took two cycles for success.

I'm wondering if/when we'll ever see a similar group form on the right. I suspect we'll see more resistance on their side.

The problem with the right is the religious voters. I doubt they'd allow moderation on women's reproductive rights and other issues that make them toxic to a general electorate. The GOP might have to jettison the religious right to make a move to the center and I'm not sure they'd be willing to throw away all those votes.

Btw I would strongly disagree that Democrats got wiped out in 2012 because they weren't cultivating progressive votes. Braley, Udall, Hagan and Begich were all very progressive aside from one or two pet issues usually related to their state. Even Landrieu and Pryor focused their campaigns on turning out minorities which backfired miserably.

Turnout during midterms sucks and furthermore Democrats are increasingly relying on less likely voters. That's really all there is to it.

Democrats are not going to stay home if Hillary is the nominee. She's immensely popular with the party base and has proven she can hold her own against Republican attacks. Y'all Sanderstans need a reality check. Furthermore I don't consider an unwillingness to step onto the political land mine that is healthcare reform to be "giving up," we've seen in Kentucky just this past year how people are willing to fuck themselves over on healthcare if it means those dirty minorities get it even worse. She's proposed very substantial legislative proposals on education, immigration, gun control and financial regulations, as well as issues no one is even really talking about (autism research and treatment for example). And if she can't get those through Congress, she's said she'll take even stronger executive measures than Obama has.

I mean, no, she's not promising anyone a free pony but it's a pretty good platform.

Yep. If you're on an icy road and you keep falling when you try to run, why would you not start to walk instead? You're still going to get where you are going in the end and you won't have nearly as many setbacks.
 
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.

An interesting argument with truth to it, however I hate to sound like a broken record when I say Bernie Sanders is a bad candidate and thus breaks those scenarios. Even if the GOP is a mess it's possible for a bad candidate to lose to them. The man is openly calling for tax increases on the lower and middle class. He cannot discuss any issue without pivoting back to telling us how the game is rigged for corporations and billionahs, as he would say. He has no interest or experience with foreign policy during a time when people are scared witless. He is 74 years old. He's not an effective debater.

Could Sanders beat Cruz? Perhaps. But I wouldn't take that chance, which I believe could boil down to a lot of suburban people deciding based on who will protect their family/country.
 
Try? What? You don't think Obama tried? Dude couldn't even get bluedogs on his plan despite giving into all their demands. Oh he tried. He tried so much he even went to Olympia Snowe and other rinos. Something tells me you blocked out the entire first term of Obama from your memory. And I am to believe the magical socialist will wave the Волшебная палочка and will get his entire mandate passed. Delusion.
He can get stuff passed! We just need to rally Congress! There will be millions of us!

Too bad those millions can't show up to the fucking polls in the first place!
 

Armaros

Member
No, we remember. We remember that Obama was so desperate for a win that he wouldn't even give the Public Option an airing.

Of course they got slammed in the midterms. They're Democrats! They couldn't even remember that state houses were important for gerrymandering. They had a great 50 state strategy and abandoned it at the first opportunity.

Y'know, if I didn't know better, I'd say that Democrats don't really want to win a majority and get any of this done. Certainly, I know it would strain Hillary's Wall Street connections if she had to, you know, actually do anything that ruffled feathers. Heaven forbid!

I'm done, there is no point discussing anything with you.

Everything, goes back to "EVIL HILARY AND HER WALL STREET" "DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT THE REALLY BE PROGRESSIVE"

When ironically is those super progressive voters that give up after one try and refuse to come out for midterm elections and then complain that democrats get nothing done. as if everything can be done 2 years into a presidency. And now have the gall to say people that have been trying for decades are just lazy.

I'm done.
 


As we review the achievements of this session of the 73rd Congress, it is made increasingly clear, that its task was essentially that of completing and fortifying the work, that had begun in March, 1933. That was no easy task, but the Congress was equal to it.

It has been well said, that while there were a few exceptions, this Congress displayed a greater freedom from mere partisanship, than any other peacetime Congress, in our history, since the administration of President Washington.

Substantial gains, well known to all of you, have justified our cause. I could site statistics to show you, as answerable measures of our national progress. Figures to show you average gain in the weekly pay envelope of workers in the great majority of our industry. Figures to show hundreds of thousands, of people re-employed in private industries, and other hundreds of thousands, given new employment, through the expansion of direct and indirect government assistance, of various kinds.

In the working out of a great national program, that seeks the primary good of the greater number, it is true that the toes of some people are being stepped on, and are going to be stepped on, but these toes belong to the comparative few, who seek to retain, or to gain, position, or riches, or both, by some short cut, that is harmful to the greater good.

...

A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing; sometimes they will call it fascism, and sometimes communism, and sometimes regimentation, and sometimes socialism, but in so doing, they are trying to make very complex, and theoretical, something that is really very simple, and very practical. I believe in practical explanations, and in practical policies, I believe what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment, of what Americans have always been doing, a fulfillment of old and tested American ideals.

When FDR came into office, in 1933, for the 73rd Congress, he had enviable majorities in both the Senate, and the House, of 23, and 194, respectively (in the previous session it was -2 and 0), and he was able to pass his legislation easily. Now, Bernie can probably only dream of getting those majorities, but if FDR was able to get the Democratic politicians of the time, to support his radical policies, why can't Bernie, when then, and now, their primary motivation is to seek or keep office?
 

Wow, that song is rather reminiscent of Billy Joel's We Didn't Start The Fire.

I can't believe Castro is 41
Dude looks young

Brown don't crack. Also twin powers.

And it would totally be pandering, but I'm down for Clinton picking Castro for VP. Or Amy Klobuchar, because an all woman ticket would blow people's minds.

Clinton/Castro 2016, just to get /all/ the Latinos, not just most.

Clinton/Klobuchar 2016, for all the white women, and for the alliteration.
 
Hillary got closer in 1994 to setting up single-payer than Bernie ever could.

But you're right, can't ruffle any feathers!

Daniel B are you seriously wondering why Bernie wouldn't be able to get his legislation through Congress like FDR did? I'll give you a hint look at the current composition of Congress. Even against Trump it's extremely unlikely that Democrats will regain the House. Hell not even the Senate is a certainty! So he unites all elected Democrats behind his agenda. Cool. Now tell that to Paul Ryan who has at least 218 No votes backing him up.

I'm so sick of this fantasy bullshit.
 
Btw I would strongly disagree that Democrats got wiped out in 2012 because they weren't cultivating progressive votes. Braley, Udall, Hagan and Begich were all very progressive aside from one or two pet issues usually related to their state. Even Landrieu and Pryor focused their campaigns on turning out minorities which backfired miserably.

Turnout during midterms sucks and furthermore Democrats are increasingly relying on less likely voters. That's really all there is to it.

Democrats are not going to stay home if Hillary is the nominee. She's immensely popular with the party base and has proven she can hold her own against Republican attacks. Y'all Sanderstans need a reality check. Furthermore I don't consider an unwillingness to step onto the political land mine that is healthcare reform to be "giving up," we've seen in Kentucky just this past year how people are willing to fuck themselves over on healthcare if it means those dirty minorities get it even worse. She's proposed very substantial legislative proposals on education, immigration, gun control and financial regulations, as well as issues no one is even really talking about (autism research and treatment for example). And if she can't get those through Congress, she's said she'll take even stronger executive measures than Obama has.

I mean, no, she's not promising anyone a free pony but it's a pretty good platform.

Too be fair, what you see with Obama is what you'll get with Sanders but magnified.

Everyone ran from Obama and he was reluctant to work with Congress to get its members reelected too.

Sanders could have been out there building support for his "revolution," but he just sat in his little independent corner, above it all.

Now he wants to sweep in on a wave of grassroots support with no immediate plan to flip the house and the senate, and no long term infrastructure in place after he goes, under a banner which he opposes.

He should have never run under a Democrat, and now's not his time.

Two cycles later would be his time. But he's too old.

Daniel B·;193054205 said:

When FDR came into office, in 1933, for the 73rd Congress, he had enviable majorities in both the Senate, and the House, of 23, and 194, respectively (in the previous session it was -2 and 0), and he was able to pass his legislation easily. Now, Bernie can probably only dream of getting those majorities, but if FDR was able to get the Democratic politicians of the time, to support his radical policies, why can't Bernie, when then, and now, their primary motivation is to seek or keep office?

The ultimate aim is build up the Democratic establishment into a force that CAN win those supermajorities. Bernie doesn't have the infrastructure in place for a long term plan to enact his policies even after he is gone. Even when the SCOTUS, ACA, gay rights, minority rights are at stake now people are still not unified enough to vote for Democrats wholesale when a non Bernie figure is on the ballot for the Senate or House, despite the fact that the government works as a team and you are not living under a dictatorship.

It's pick and choose. Would you prefer the Democrat or the Republican. One is going to win either way. There is no third option. Opting out doesn't count because your life will still be affected by the winner's policies. The only way of quitting is to leave the country.

Also FDR was at WAR. ACTUAL WAR. The whole country was unified against the Nazis, an external enemy. Today the enemies are INTERNAL. AMERICAN.

AND FDR was elected for 4 terms to enact his agenda. Bernie has 2.
 
Two cycles. Because once all the boomers really start dying off things will have to change for better or for worse.

Millennials will have started their own families by this time, assuming 1990 as the cutoff point. They will be more realistic, more mature, more in tune with the realities of an average life instead of school and university culture. Having kids. Paying bills. Working through the rat race.

Communism will not work as a threat- these people will have NEVER lived through the ages where the Soviets were a threat.

I'm looking forward to our first Millennial president. I wonder if such a person could actually be to the left of some of our current liberal politicians like Warren and Sanders. Hell, the oldest of Millennials should be able to run for office by 2020, though I don't think we'll see an actual Millennial run for president until 2024 or 2030.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
An interesting argument with truth to it, however I hate to sound like a broken record when I say Bernie Sanders is a bad candidate and thus breaks those scenarios. Even if the GOP is a mess it's possible for a bad candidate to lose to them. The man is openly calling for tax increases on the lower and middle class. He cannot discuss any issue without pivoting back to telling us how the game is rigged for corporations and billionahs, as he would say. He has no interest or experience with foreign policy during a time when people are scared witless. He is 74 years old. He's not an effective debater.

Could Sanders beat Cruz? Perhaps. But I wouldn't take that chance, which I believe could boil down to a lot of suburban people deciding based on who will protect their family/country.

Honestly, the more I see his team operate, constantly making dumb mistakes and setting themselves back for no reason, the more I am convinced he's doing well in spite of his campaign. He's just got the right message at the right time, but doesn't have the political machinery, or savvy, to harness that advantage in the same way Obama did in 2008.

Brown don't crack. Also twin powers.

And it would totally be pandering, but I'm down for Clinton picking Castro for VP. Or Amy Klobuchar, because an all woman ticket would blow people's minds.

Clinton/Castro 2016, just to get /all/ the Latinos, not just most.

Clinton/Klobuchar 2016, for all the white women, and for the alliteration.

They both have alliteration!
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, the more I see his team operate, constantly making dumb mistakes and setting themselves back for no reason, the more I am convinced he's doing well in spite of his campaign.

Do you reread what you write sometimes? I mean, seriously?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Do you reread what you write sometimes? I mean, seriously?

His campaign is run by utter morons. He should be doing better than he is with the message he has. Every time he talks about foreign policy he loops back to income inequality within 3 sentences, his team should be forcing him to study foreign policy every night. He should be doing more to try and reach african-american voters, Killer Mike ain't enough. They're constantly making unforced errors and their strategy is to turn out people who haven't voted before, and yet when we look at voter registration those numbers are generally static. His campaign manager is an idiot of the highest order, this is confirmed every time he opens his damn mouth. Why Bernie surrounded himself with the loons is beyond me. If he had a competent team behind him he'd be doing better.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
His campaign is run by utter morons. He should be doing better than he is with the message he has. Every time he talks about foreign policy he loops back to income inequality within 3 sentences, his team should be forcing him to study foreign policy every night. He should be doing more to try and reach african-american voters, Killer Mike ain't enough. His campaign manager is an idiot of the highest order, this is confirmed every time he opens his damn mouth. Why Bernie surrounded himself with the loons is beyond me. If he had a competent team behind him he'd be doing better.

If he was doing any better than he is right now, he'd essentially be winning. You're even more confident about socialist appeal in the Democratic party than I am!

But yes, the dude with the most effective political ads (http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-has-most-effective-political-ads-tv-2265338), most small fundraisers, most volunteers, etc has bad campaign staff.

ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom