• 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 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chichikov

Member
Is that new? I don't think it was there the last time I had a look at his issues page, shortly after the debate.

Larry David was kind of right about the webpage.

Policy releases seem to be randomly inserted and or updated into existing pages without any changelog. It's good that more detail is being added, but it's impossible to tell what's new.

(Clinton's page has its own problems, namely, that her policy release pages seem to be disconnected from her main page - with no navigational links between. EDIT: oh there is a link, it's just a bit non-obvious)
I think you're too focused on the website, the main point is that Sanders have a reasonably actionable plans.
It's not a ready made legislation that just need an up and down vote, of course it isn't, no candidate has them, but I don't think he stand our from candidates as lacking details.
People paint him as this idealistic pie in the sky candidate who has fantasies rather than plans, but I think the facts don't really support that narrative.
 

DOWN

Banned
I think you're too focused on the website, the main point is that Sanders have a reasonably actionable plans.
It's not a ready made legislation that just need an up and down vote, of course it isn't, no candidate has them, but I don't think he stand our from candidates as lacking details.
People paint him as this idealistic pie in the sky candidate who has fantasies rather than plans, but I think the facts don't really support that narrative.

His narrative supports that narrative
 

Wilsongt

Member
So that Fox News/Captain America thread...

Pretty much a more news at 11, but holy shit at them actually equating themselves to white supremacist comic book villains.
 

East Lake

Member
Yeah that's better but for myself (who basically stick to debates/interviews/speeches until we get into the last couple of month's before the actual election) his own presentation is important and I'm not surprised that even Webb remarked during the debate "Bernie I don't think the revolution is gonna come and I don't think the Congress is going to pay for a lot of this stuff." Bernie has a complete overhaul for everything. Even getting specific like that site, it seems unmanageably unchecked in his own presentation.
Congress isn't going to pay for Hillary's ideas either, so I don't know why that would be a Bernie specific problem. If you think they're totally unworkable policies even if you could get them through congress that's another story. If that's the issue then you have to be careful in thinking economically centrist always = realistic, when it can often be the opposite. You'll find a lot of fairly mainstream economists that'll agree with Bernie's approach.
 
Yeah that's better but for myself (who basically stick to debates/interviews/speeches until we get into the last couple of month's before the actual election) his own presentation is important and I'm not surprised that even Webb remarked during the debate "Bernie I don't think the revolution is gonna come and I don't think the Congress is going to pay for a lot of this stuff." Bernie has a complete overhaul for everything. Even getting specific like that site, it seems unmanageably unchecked in his own presentation.

Most of Hillary's ideas are equally as vague just nicer sounding, but in reality are probably worse. Using your own examples;

Give regulators power to break up at-risk banks - How does one define an "at-risk bank"? Either you change the rules so they need to be broken up or you're basically saying "too big to fail" is alright. Obviously it's not because it's already caused problems in the years since the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

Make college tuition free by lowering university costs and developing reasonable work programs for students - Bernie has already released his entire plan for funding, Hillary's solution is basically an attempt to address the issue while not committing any actual ideas. On top of that, where will these "work programs" come from? Is she advocating some kind of work for free and the government will pay your tuition instead? That will inflate the cost of college drastically without heavy regulation, and if you're giving students jobs where are the low skilled workers supposed to get jobs? You would break the working class.

Enable coalitions for conflict and a no-fly zone in Syria - If I'm not mistaken that's already what Obama has in effect. She's basically saying give guns to groups in the area and keep planes out of the sky--just copy Obama. Bernie's main thing is improving the conditions at home and spending less time delving into every other countries issues.

Focus on improving social security for its poor and struggling recipients - That's literally what every politician says they want to do. Nobody runs on the platform of "Cut Social Security spending and make the poor and struggling work harder!" because that's political suicide. She just worded Bernie's idea more politically. It's kind of like how big corporations use big elaborate words to explain simple concepts; 'We're doing layoffs in departments that are doing badly' becomes 'We're working with our management teams to develop forward thinking streamlining policies to help our existing sites while developing impact oriented changes to improve work efficiency in heavily profit-driven sectors."
 
So, I'm kind of curious, is it The Newsroom's fault that the only thing the more liberal base of the Democrats seem to be obsessed with in terms of bank regulation is Glass-Steagall? Is it just because Elizabeth Warren likes it?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...glass-steagall-is-debate-democrats-don-t-need
http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-about-glasssteagall
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/03/24-myth-politics-banking-elliott

I mean this is probably the sort of thing that DOWN is referring to, "breaking up the banks" is not a policy platform, it's just a rhetorical slogan.
 

dramatis

Member
So, I'm kind of curious, is it The Newsroom's fault that the only thing the more liberal base of the Democrats seem to be obsessed with in terms of bank regulation is Glass-Steagall? Is it just because Elizabeth Warren likes it?
Elizabeth Warren admitted Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the lunacy that exploded in 2008.
 

Chichikov

Member
So, I'm kind of curious, is it The Newsroom's fault that the only thing the more liberal base of the Democrats seem to be obsessed with in terms of bank regulation is Glass-Steagall? Is it just because Elizabeth Warren likes it?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...glass-steagall-is-debate-democrats-don-t-need
http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-about-glasssteagall
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/03/24-myth-politics-banking-elliott

I mean this is probably the sort of thing that DOWN is referring to, "breaking up the banks" is not a policy platform, it's just a rhetorical slogan.
I think because it's easy to understand what it is and it's easy to understand why it's a good idea.
It's harder for people to get excited about things like liquidity requirements and proprietary trading desk regulation, and I don't blame them, that shit be crazy boring (and that's how the fuckers get away with it, they make their crimes soooooooooooooo fucking boring).
 

"Guys, it's that Obama's fault. That man has just obstructed justice to keep Hillary from going to prison with her secret lover Huma.."

This is ridiculous. They are looking more and more like clowns.
 
Vox wonders if Obama's personal success is covering up that the Democratic Party as a whole is really fucked up right now:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

70% of state legislators are Republican :/
I agree with most of this, but I think Yglesias is overstating the amount of denial in the party over it. I think there are plenty of Democrats who have acknowledged the massive hole the party finds itself in.

Though when you consider that Debbie Wasserman Schultz still has her job somehow, it's hard to argue that the party doesn't need a massive wake-up call.
 
CNN/ORC post-debate poll is out. Last poll in brackets. Biden seems to have slipped to the other two's gain, but it's all kind of moe territory.

Clinton - 45 (42)
Sanders -29 (24)
Biden - 18 (22)

Without Biden
Clinton - 56
Sanders - 33

Majority say Clinton won debate; plurality Chafee lost, followed by Webb.
 

Owzers

Member

eh, i think what Gowdy did worked though, democrats aren't pushing back hard enough and the news media doesn't really follow through and hold anyone accountable. I'm browsing some of the articles linked, the new york times for example, is just a he said/he said between Gowdy and Cummings, not going after Gowdy for anything he did. Both sides are equal.
 

Diablos

Member
Biden is doing more harm than good to his possible candidacy. He needs to make up his mind and announce his decision by the end of the week or no one is going to take him seriously.
 

Diablos

Member
SCOTUSblog: #SCOTUS apparently does not act on #gunrights case

Sorry, not trying to flood the thread but these two tidbits are of importance imo
 

DOWN

Banned
Most of Hillary's ideas are equally as vague just nicer sounding, but in reality are probably worse. Using your own examples;

Give regulators power to break up at-risk banks - How does one define an "at-risk bank"? Either you change the rules so they need to be broken up or you're basically saying "too big to fail" is alright. Obviously it's not because it's already caused problems in the years since the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

Make college tuition free by lowering university costs and developing reasonable work programs for students - Bernie has already released his entire plan for funding, Hillary's solution is basically an attempt to address the issue while not committing any actual ideas. On top of that, where will these "work programs" come from? Is she advocating some kind of work for free and the government will pay your tuition instead? That will inflate the cost of college drastically without heavy regulation, and if you're giving students jobs where are the low skilled workers supposed to get jobs? You would break the working class.

Enable coalitions for conflict and a no-fly zone in Syria - If I'm not mistaken that's already what Obama has in effect. She's basically saying give guns to groups in the area and keep planes out of the sky--just copy Obama. Bernie's main thing is improving the conditions at home and spending less time delving into every other countries issues.

Focus on improving social security for its poor and struggling recipients - That's literally what every politician says they want to do. Nobody runs on the platform of "Cut Social Security spending and make the poor and struggling work harder!" because that's political suicide. She just worded Bernie's idea more politically. It's kind of like how big corporations use big elaborate words to explain simple concepts; 'We're doing layoffs in departments that are doing badly' becomes 'We're working with our management teams to develop forward thinking streamlining policies to help our existing sites while developing impact oriented changes to improve work efficiency in heavily profit-driven sectors."
You on the Bernie train, that's fine. But you've basically highlighted that Bernie talks in revolutionary absolutes and Hilary doesn't. Hilary's rhetoric came off as more realistic to me in the debate, which I see is somewhat personal (though common among the actual crowd who votes and less-so to the social media Sanders following). The vast majority of college students already do have the part time jobs so let's not act like that will break the working class without more information. It simply sounds more feasible to "not pay for Donald Trump's kids tuition" and require "reasonable contribution while ensuring the debt-free attendance" than to say "free for everyone." Tax this, everybody gets this happily ever after with Bernie. Half the time, he doesn't even remember to mention we'll need the "tax this" part. And is it wrong for Hillary to agree with Obama's approach to a Syrian no-fly zone?

"Bernie's main thing is improving the conditions at home and spending less time delving into every other countries issues."
Less Iraq, more resolving inequality here. Many candidates including Hillary fit that statement, but Bernie tried to make it sound more absolute while Hillary again includes more of what sound like limitations she sees.

And again, Bernie said more than once that he'll expand social security benefits without mention of any group or limit. Just everyone gets better. If that were so feasible to accomplish, I would imagine we would have heard this simplicity outside of Bernie.
So, I'm kind of curious, is it The Newsroom's fault that the only thing the more liberal base of the Democrats seem to be obsessed with in terms of bank regulation is Glass-Steagall? Is it just because Elizabeth Warren likes it?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...glass-steagall-is-debate-democrats-don-t-need
http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-about-glasssteagall
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/03/24-myth-politics-banking-elliott

I mean this is probably the sort of thing that DOWN is referring to, "breaking up the banks" is not a policy platform, it's just a rhetorical slogan.
I was literally discussing rhetorical slogans from only the debate, in which Sanders said "break up the banks" and Clinton said "give regulators the power to break up at-risk banks"

I wasn't going much deeper than the difference between hearing absolutes over and over from one candidate and not the other. I didn't say a thing about what I actually think is needed or Glass-Steagall or how breaking up the banks in concept seems to me beyond curiously noting a lack of what I perceive as realistic limitations of overhaul in Bernie's debate rhetoric.
 
You on the Bernie train, that's fine. But you've basically highlighted that Bernie talks in revolutionary absolutes and Hilary doesn't. Hilary's rhetoric came off as more realistic to me in the debate, which I see is somewhat personal (though common among the actual crowd who votes and less-so to the social media Sanders following). The vast majority of college students already do have the part time jobs so let's not act like that will break the working class without more information. It simply sounds more feasible to "not pay for Donald Trump's kids tuition" and require "reasonable contribution while ensuring the debt-free attendance" than to say "free for everyone." Tax this, everybody gets this happily ever after with Bernie. Half the time, he doesn't even remember to mention we'll need the "tax this" part.

Both aren't getting anything passed in congress, tho, so there really isn't a "more realistic" speech. Pies in the sky all around.
 
Gowdy responded:
[M]y understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted [. . . ]
Our Committee has access to career civil servants, former federal prosecutors, former intelligence experts as well as military experts who are uniquely well suited to gauge intelligence information and how it should be handled. Although the Executive Branch is ultimately responsible for classification, we remain concerned with the naming of sources and methods and will continue to protect that information now and going forward where it is readily apparent to us. As such, we will continue to redact certain information to protect sensitive information regardless of how others treat that information
Dude basically admits he did the redaction because...well, he knows better than the CIA what information is sensitive.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Both aren't getting anything passed in congress, tho, so there really isn't a "more realistic" speech. Pies in the sky all around.

And Hillary's debt free college plan is totally going to get passed in congress?
 
eh, i think what Gowdy did worked though, democrats aren't pushing back hard enough and the news media doesn't really follow through and hold anyone accountable. I'm browsing some of the articles linked, the new york times for example, is just a he said/he said between Gowdy and Cummings, not going after Gowdy for anything he did. Both sides are equal.

It's early, so it's hard to say where it will go.

The McCarthy comments, on the other hand, got MASSIVE headlines, so I'm optimistic that this story will gain traction as well. The media now has ample evidence of massive malfeasance in the Benghazi select committee. There's a lot to work with.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I agree with most of this, but I think Yglesias is overstating the amount of denial in the party over it. I think there are plenty of Democrats who have acknowledged the massive hole the party finds itself in.

Though when you consider that Debbie Wasserman Schultz still has her job somehow, it's hard to argue that the party doesn't need a massive wake-up call.

So depressing though.

Winning a presidential election would give Republicans the overwhelming preponderance of political power in the United States — a level of dominance not achieved since the Democrats during the Great Depression, but with a much more ideologically coherent coalition. Nothing lasts forever in American politics, but a hyper-empowered conservative movement would have a significant ability to entrench its position by passing a national right-to-work law and further altering campaign finance rules beyond the Citizens United status quo.

*shivers.
 
Vox wonders if Obama's personal success is covering up that the Democratic Party as a whole is really fucked up right now:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

70% of state legislators are Republican :/

This is what happens when you have land vote and not people.

The country has more democrats, more people tend to vote for democrats. But we have a system that mandates that we draw districts that overlap. This allows voter disenfranchisement, and outsized influence. Economic liberalism isn't coming back in a major way unless the country changes its voting or districting system (multimember districts, at-large) there's not much the party can do.

That being said he also ignores how Dems run pretty much every major city which can set a progressive agenda. Look at the places raising minimum wage. Or New York's expansion of family leave.

Of course because they control the states, they try to role this back which is disgusting. Because it further highlights this disproportionate control rural interests have.

Dems more than creating some grand electoral plan should start but building coherent policy proposals on the local and state level, its got to be more than just raise taxes and spending. They need to really start to find ways for spending to, in Machiavellian terms, capture local interests.

Unlike what many on the internet think the GOPs electoral power has been their capture of local and regional interests, not really just wall street and billionares. The people who own car dealerships, who have a few restaurants, own small businesses. This is who their state level policies are targeting, the dems need to steal this support base and not just the urban elite. These are the people who respond to the regulation stuff. Dems need to be in the business of not getting out of the way but actively supporting these businesses.
 
Having just watched the debate in full finally...

Honestly, it surprises me that people feel there is realistic substance to Bernie as a candidate (though it seems his landslide polling only happens on social media among people who aren't active in the primaries whatsoever). He sounds as revolutionary and broad as a high school class president with a good attitude. Break up the banks, make college tuition free, no combat, expand social security benefits and medicare. Nice things, but he rarely gets more specific for me to believe he realizes how monumentally different America would look in several measures after all that compared to now or a few years ago. They are incredible challenges in my mind, so his promises seem to lack any sort of reality check.

What does this paragraph even mean?

So what if America will look "monumentally different" if we stop bombing around the world, expand healthcare and make college free? So what?

Secondly, you actually believe Bernie Sanders doesn't realize that what he's suggesting will make America look "monumentally different"? A guy suggesting major changes to things and raving about how much needs to change doesn't realize that his changes will make America look different? What kind of logic is that?

As for the "reality check": it sounds like this is the first election you've ever followed.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Vox wonders if Obama's personal success is covering up that the Democratic Party as a whole is really fucked up right now:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

70% of state legislators are Republican :/

I would say that he's completely right about the problem that Democrat's need to be more concerned, but he's wrong if he thinks the loses are because the Democrats weren't moderate enough. It's like everyone keeps forgetting that 2014 was the worst turnout since World War 2. Turnout is clearly what democrats need to get, and being even more like the other guy isn't going to solve that problem.

That doesn't mean every governor has to be as far left as even Hillary, but they need to find something to boost turnout among democrats. Maybe simply getting everyone to acknowledge the democrats terrible position outside of the presidency is the solution to getting people out to vote. I don't know.

I'm sure part of the denial is from democrats saying that the president always loses midterms, but statistically the Democrats are doing far worse even than the lowered expectations that should come with the president's party midterms.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Turnout certainly would help immensely. Even in rural states with no chance of going blue for president it would help down ballot races.

Democrats held the house for all but four years between 1932-1994 with that "president always lose midterms" narrative. -Different era and circumstances though.
 

DOWN

Banned
What does this paragraph even mean?

So what if America will look "monumentally different" if we stop bombing around the world, expand healthcare and make college free? So what?

Secondly, you actually believe Bernie Sanders doesn't realize that what he's suggesting will make America look "monumentally different"? A guy suggesting major changes to things and raving about how much needs to change doesn't realize that his changes will make America look different? What kind of logic is that?

As for the "reality check": it sounds like this is the first election you've ever followed.
I want to know what past administration gives you that much hope that Bernie could be elected and do the things he says.
 

Averon

Member
I would say that he's completely right about the problem that Democrat's need to be more concerned, but he's wrong if he thinks the loses are because the Democrats weren't moderate enough. It's like everyone keeps forgetting that 2014 was the worst turnout since World War 2. Turnout is clearly what democrats need to get, and being even more like the other guy isn't going to solve that problem.

That doesn't mean every governor has to be as far left as even Hillary, but they need to find something to boost turnout among democrats. Maybe simply getting everyone to acknowledge the democrats terrible position outside of the presidency is the solution to getting people out to vote. I don't know.

I'm sure part of the denial is from democrats saying that the president always loses midterms, but statistically the Democrats are doing far worse even than the lowered expectations that should come with the president's party midterms.


The Democrats repeated the same strategy in 2014 as they did in 2010. That is, run away from their accomplishments and away from Obama. That's not really conducive to getting your people out to vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom