• 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.
N

NeoXChaos

Member
welp
But Sanders admits that virtually all of his plans for reform have no chance of being approved by a Congress that bears any resemblance to the current crop of federal lawmakers. This is why, he says, voters can’t simply elect him president, but must instead spark a “political revolution.”

Easier said than done. Congress has the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929-31.

A successful Sanders presidency would hinge on his ability to remake Washington in his own image. It’s almost inconceivable that such a transformation could take place, even with Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress.

As for Martin O’Malley, the data-driven, wonkish former Maryland governor who has gained little traction in the campaign so far, he seems better suited to a Cabinet-level job in a Clinton White House.

In the final analysis, Iowa Democrats will have to choose between the lofty idealism of Bernie Sanders and the down-to-earth pragmatism of Hillary Clinton. For some, this will be a choice of whether to vote with their hearts or their heads.

Clinton has demonstrated that she is a thoughtful, hardworking public servant who has earned the respect of leaders at home and abroad. She stands ready to take on the most demanding job in the world.
Click to expand...
 
O

Ogrekiller

Member
Crab said:
This makes literally no sense. The US is a two-party system. It uses first past the post. Running two leftwing candidates and one rightwing candidate is recipe for electing rightwing candidates - see the UK in the 1980s. Yes, Sanders wants to be president. No, he doesn't want to be president so badly he'd risk the Republicans winning. Come on, this is elections 101 here.
Click to expand...

But IF the two party system is broken to the point that people don't believe in it anymore, then the third path is suddenly viable.

Already people are refusing to vote Democrat nor Republican because ideology trumps pragmatism. Who is to say one day a third party bid will not be viable?

Hell, Bloomberg is considering a bid if it is Trump/Sanders. This isn't 1980 anymore.

Coriolanus said:
Im curious. What would be the move he could perform that would be equivalent to a split?
Click to expand...

It isn't him, it's the Democrat voter. The split represents Hillary, the safe bet.

Sanders doesn't really have a way out at this point. Either he snowballs or he's done. He can drag it out though... and waste everyone's time and resources. Let's hope I'm wrong.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
I really dont believe newspaper endorsements mean much nowadays. Highly doubt they even move the needle. Maybe in the age of pre-television and internet.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Ogrekiller said:
But IF the two party system is broken to the point that people don't believe in it anymore, then the third path is suddenly viable.

Already people are refusing to vote Democrat nor Republican because ideology trumps pragmatism. Who is to say one day a third party bid will not be viable?

Hell, Bloomberg is considering a bid if it is Trump/Sanders. This isn't 1980 anymore.
Click to expand...

The two party system doesn't work because people believe, it works because of maths. Bloomberg would do jack shit as an independent, I'd be surprised if he even got Perot level support. While in many respects 2016 is different to the '80s, the voting system (FPTP) is exactly the same.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Crab said:
I mean, DMR are pretty establishment. They backed Romney, McCain, Bush, Bush, and Romney, Clinton/Romney, Kerry, Al Gore/Bush in the primaries.
Click to expand...

Supporting mainstream candidates does not necessarily make the endorser part of the "establishment." That word seems to have lost all meaning. It's the same error Sanders made when criticizing PP, everyone not endorsing him is "establishment". Apparently establishment now means something that has been around for more than 10 years. Next thing you know we are going to be hearing about the "bourgeois."
 
T

teiresias

Member
NeoXChaos said:
welp
Click to expand...

QdU5EvP.gif


His supporters will get over this delusion at some point, either now or after his first compromise to actually go into a second year saying he actually passed any legislation.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Iolo said:
Supporting mainstream candidates does not necessarily make the endorser part of the "establishment." That word seems to have lost all meaning. It's the same error Sanders made when criticizing PP, everyone not endorsing him is "establishment". Apparently establishment now means something that has been around for more than 10 years. Next thing you know we are going to be hearing about the "bourgeois."
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. But DMR is establishment, in the sense that it's readership is older than the American average, wealthier than the American average, whiter than the American average; and when the political editors are part of the same chattering classes as the people who dominate the political groups.

Mind you, I don't actually think "bourgeois" is that bad a replacement for "establishment" in most of Sanders' speeches.
 
O

Ogrekiller

Member
Crab said:
The two party system doesn't work because people believe, it works because of maths. Bloomberg would do jack shit as an independent, I'd be surprised if he even got Perot level support. While in many respects 2016 is different to the '80s, the voting system (FPTP) is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

But people believe in lost causes as long as the cause is true. It's the very reason Sanders is surging despite the DNC keeping him down.
 
I

Iolo

Member
RustyNails said:
I really dont believe newspaper endorsements mean much nowadays. Highly doubt they even move the needle. Maybe in the age of pre-television and internet.
Click to expand...

Probably true.

I did enjoy this quote from the Clinton endorsement:

The presidency is not an entry-level position.
Click to expand...

juxtaposed with the endorsement of Rubio.

yes I know you could have made a similar argument about Obama, but they didn't endorse him
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Ogrekiller said:
But people believe in lost causes as long as the cause is true. It's the very reason Sanders is surging despite the DNC keeping him down.
Click to expand...

No, the people supporting Sanders do not think he is a lost cause. An unlikely one, but not a lost one.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Crab said:
Yes, I know that. But DMR is establishment, in the sense that it's readership is older than the American average, wealthier than the American average, whiter than the American average; and when the political editors are part of the same chattering classes as the people who dominate the political groups.

Mind you, I don't actually think "bourgeois" is that bad a replacement for "establishment" in most of Sanders' speeches.
Click to expand...

It's strange that you say that because Iowa is also much whiter than the American average, will Sanders then be the establishment choice should he win Iowa?
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
DMR is a corporation, not a collectively-funded organization with a moral reason or an union that its supposed to represent and protect the will of their members. Not even a humorless attempt at sarcasm can change such fact.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Ogrekiller said:
But people believe in lost causes as long as the cause is true. It's the very reason Sanders is surging despite the DNC keeping him down.

Why is it so hard to believe that Sanders cannot win without the help of the establishment to begin with when he is doing so right now?
Click to expand...

Because people can work out the difference between an unlikely longshot that could nevertheless pull off the upset, and a literal impossibility that would guarantee a Republican win. This is a really boring conversation now because the point is obvious and your ability not to understand it baffling.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Manmademan said:
If he can't win the nomination (which he can't) then the only positive benefit period to running was to promote his particular pet positions and control the conversation, moving the nominee more leftward than she would have otherwise.

That's been accomplished. Everything after this is just wankery and time wasting.

His final "great act" would be starting a conversation, and engaging those who might have otherwise tuned out completely into paying attention. again, this has been done. Dropping out before or after new hampshire to endorse hillary and campaign changes nothing.
Click to expand...

Nah, dropping out prematurely would undermine his message to those who supported him. He at least has to stick it out until Super Tuesday.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Iolo said:
It's strange that you say that because Iowa is also much whiter than the American average, will Sanders then be the establishment choice should he win Iowa?
Click to expand...

I mean, the establishment is white, generally speaking. That's not to say everyone who is white is establishment. That's some pretty basic logic.
 
O

Ogrekiller

Member
Crab said:
Because people can work out the difference between an unlikely longshot that could nevertheless pull off the upset, and a literal impossibility that would guarantee a Republican win. This is a really boring conversation now because the point is obvious and your ability not to understand it baffling.
Click to expand...

The point is that they cannot.

That is why Sanders is still in the race against Clinton.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I'm getting bored of the primaries now that everything seems already decided. We need to start filling out the statewide presidential polls.

I could see this being the sort of map we're looking at, with Ohio reclaiming the spot as the tipping point state. Not saying that'll be the final map, just that all the blue on that map will be more democrat than ohio, and all the red states will be less democratic than ohio.

This means Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire move right, Ohio and Virginia move left, just as a gut feeling about the types of swing voters those states have.

I don't see demographical turnout rates changing much. That change already happened in 2008.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Ogrekiller said:
In blackjack the house has 17 and you have 16.

Split, or double down?
Click to expand...
In blackjack you would split because now you have two 8s, you could get two 10s and win.

That doesn't work in electoral politics because bar the revolution that Bernie likes talking about (which I don't think will come) you're not getting anymore voters. Party lines split roughly 48-48 with 4% who could go either way. All that split accomplishes is that the election result now looks like 24-24-48, doesn't matter where the other 4% goes because it's already decided.

This would be like playing two hands and staying on 8. Sure, there's a chance you might win if the house busts, but you've greatly reduced your chances in case the GOP actually makes a hand.

Tl;dr this metaphor is bad and you should feel bad. And Bernie has already said he's not doing it.

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-on-why-he-wont-run-as-in-independent/

Also I like blackjack. Think I'll play some right now (free, of course)
 
I

Iolo

Member
Crab said:
I mean, the establishment is white, generally speaking. That's not to say everyone who is white is establishment. That's some pretty basic logic.
Click to expand...

You said that DMR is establishment in the sense that it is old and white. In that sense Bernie could be the most establishment politician running.

That's why I said "establishment" has ceased to have a coherent meaning, except for "everything that does not support us."
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Iolo said:
You said that DMR is establishment in the sense that it is old and white. In that sense Bernie could be the most establishment politician running.

That's why I said "establishment" has ceased to have a coherent meaning, except for "everything that does not support us."
Click to expand...

No, I think you were more or less right when you said bourgeois. The key element of establishment is wealth and influence; the establishment is only white insofar as white people tend to have more wealth and influence, but it is necessarily wealthy and influential because those are the defining characteristics.
 
O

Ogrekiller

Member
Aaron Strife said:
In blackjack you would split because now you have two 8s, you could get two 10s and win.

That doesn't work in electoral politics because bar the revolution that Bernie likes talking about (which I don't think will come) you're not getting anymore voters. Party lines split roughly 48-48 with 4% who could go either way. All that split accomplishes is that the election result now looks like 24-24-48, doesn't matter where the other 4% goes because it's already decided.

This would be like playing two hands and staying on 8. Sure, there's a chance you might win if the house busts, but you've greatly reduced your chances in case the GOP actually makes a hand.

Tl;dr this metaphor is bad and you should feel bad. And Bernie has already said he's not doing it.
Click to expand...

Bernie's campaign manager has just gone on record saying they could get more voters, and it's the central campaign theme. The surge, feel the Bern, and all that.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Crab said:
No, I think you were more or less right when you said bourgeois. The key element of establishment is wealth and influence; the establishment is only white insofar as white people tend to have more wealth and influence, but it is necessarily wealthy and influential because those are the defining characteristics.
Click to expand...

Ok then. Let's just hope Sanders does not start talking about "billionaires and bourgeoisie."
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Kangi said:
Do you?

CMFmEPT.png
Click to expand...
That's the look on his face when.. oh nevermind..

{*whistles while reading that sketchy WP article..*}

And that Hillary portrait is really flattering.

And Bernie may lose here in 2016, but his causes will live on. November will determine the timeline for those causes.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Iolo said:
Ok then. Let's just hope Sanders does not start talking about "billionaires and bourgeoisie."
Click to expand...

Well duh. that's exactly why he says "establishment". Ain't nobody trying to get elected on Marxist jargon.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Melkr_ said:
DMR is a corporation, not a collectively-funded organization with a moral reason or an union that its supposed to represent and protect the will of their members. Not even a humorless attempt at sarcasm can change such fact.
Click to expand...

So this is the new line against the endorsement? K. Cool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom