Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

Oh man that Ben Carson rap ad lmao.

 

[HylianTom]

I don't see any tendency for Clinton to unite the party, lead to higher voter turnout than Obama 08/12, win over (I), or stop Democratic losing streak in the midterms. The people in this thread are pretty much proof of that, they are so vehemently against Sanders that they look for anything to latch onto, yet fail to address the big Clinton Problems.

I want to make something clear, although I'm pretty certain it's been stated numerous times:
I'm not against Bernie.

"Bernie is not my first preference" is not equivalent to "I am against Bernie."

Now go back and re-read that. Slowly.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You entered HillaryGAF Crab. Be ready to debate.

Heh.

I'm also miffed, I just typed up the longest response to pigeon and then lost it all by closing the tab accidentally.

 

[FiggyCal]

His Politifact file has zero true or mostly true statements!

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/

I don't know if we're going to be breaking new ground if we find out that Ben Carson is a liar since it's already clear that he's a massive liar.

It's not like politifact reports on everything that is true that he says.

I don't know why he feels the need to lie so much though. He's already really well liked and now he wants the bad boy persona too?

 

[pigeon]

Heh.

I'm also miffed, I just typed up the longest response to pigeon and then lost it all by closing the tab accidentally.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...covery/loljledaigphbcpfhfmgopdkppkifgno?hl=en

I got sick of this happening to me.

 

[Lucky Forward]

CNN finds Ben Carson's violent past completely at odds with reality after talking to his former classmates and neighbors. All of them expressed shock that Carson did those things because in their words, he was a nerdy, bookish guy who wouldnt dare cross a street without his mom, and that something as simple as a brawl (let alone a stabbing) would be all over the school grapevine...this could be the biggest campaign story of the election.

Yay investigative journalism!!

I've heard it said that a lot of Christian fundamentalists like to exaggerate the stories of their sins before they found Jesus...they almost revel in describing the lies, the crimes, the debauchery they committed because it makes their conversion seem all the more dramatic and it becomes an even greater testimony to the power of God to change a life. I'm guessing that's what's going on with Carson. He's probably stretched his stories so much over the years that, like Brian Williams and his tall tales, he's forgotten what's true.

 

[Manmademan]

I don't see any tendency for Clinton to unite the party, lead to higher voter turnout than Obama 08/12, win over (I), or stop Democratic losing streak in the midterms. The people in this thread are pretty much proof of that, they are so vehemently against Sanders that they look for anything to latch onto, yet fail to address the big Clinton Problems.

Clinton is still the Democratic Pro-War Candidate/Patriot Act Candidate
One of the reasons she lost was because she appeared Pro War next to Obama. Right now as tensions in Syria escalate and Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq continue to be chaotic states with failed national building schemes - which Russia uses to gain international acceptance, this will become an even larger issue in the race. The fact that democrats are so quick to jump in with someone who has been behind these types of failed strategies has shown that they haven't learned anything. That people scoffed at the idea that Syria is a quagmire and said the no-fly zone position of Clinton is sensible - is frightening. Obama ran on a transformative foreign policy away from nation building, yet fell into the very same place where he was adamant he wouldn't want to go. Bush won against Gore also based on an more sensible foreign policy.
The fact that Democrats want to prop up a nominee that is calling for no fly zones over Syria is like living in a Bizarro World where Bush didn't happen and Obama didn't get the nom ahead of Hillary.
Once again confounding her problems with the Hawkish stance she takes on foreign policy she is also at odds with Veterans who fail to see how her pro-regime change position and lack of stance of improving VA health care
It's been proven that the Patriot act is another racist tool to target minorities. And Clinton believes that it should stay in place and it's only a problem when the wrong people are in the White House.

Obama got people to turn up because they wanted a change from nation building, war, surveillance, racial profiling - sadly all these issues he not only compromised with but failed to address in any meaningful way. There is a reason why Clinton won't have the widespread support and it's not because of her favorability ratings or appearing cold. The positions she has taken are at odds with how a lot of people view war, government and corporate surveillance, and legislation that could easily be abused by the wrong person in the White House.

It's at this point that we should probably point out that Clinton won the popular vote over Obama in 2008. Her ability to "turn people out" was better.

Edit: this result is also heavily reliant on Michigan where she appeared on the ballot and he didn't, but without Michigan but including Florida, the two are virtually tied in popular vote, to a tenth of a percentage point or so.


Obama won that primary due to vastly superior strategy in regards to the caucus states that Hillary's team overlooked in favor of a strategy that leaned heavily on racking up electoral votes on super Tuesday.

 

[noshten]

I want to make something clear, although I'm pretty certain it's been stated numerous times:
I'm not against Bernie.

"Bernie is not my first preference" is not equivalent to "I am against Bernie."

Now go back and re-read that. Slowly.

I'm not sure why you replying - I'm talking about the general theme of far-fetched reasons to bash Sanders while not applying the same standards to Clinton. If you haven't bashed Sanders for his supporters, positions, campaign staff etc than you obviously don't fall into that spectrum.

It's at this point that we should probably point out that Clinton won the popular vote over Obama in 2008. Her ability to "turn people out" was better.

Obama won that primary due to vastly superior strategy in regards to the caucus states that Hillary's team overlooked in favor of a strategy that leaned heavily on racking up electoral votes on super Tuesday.

So are you saying you expect a Clinton nomination would lead to higher voter turnout than what voted Obama in 08/12? If not I'm not sure what you are implying, since a Primary result is far different than the GE, where you need to make inroads with people outside of your core and turn enthusiasm into votes.

 

[pigeon]

Clinton is still the Democratic Pro-War Candidate/Patriot Act Candidate
One of the reasons she lost was because she appeared Pro War next to Obama. Right now as tensions in Syria escalate and Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq continue to be chaotic states with failed national building schemes - which Russia uses to gain international acceptance, this will become an even larger issue in the race. The fact that democrats are so quick to jump in with someone who has been behind these types of failed strategies has shown that they haven't learned anything. That people scoffed at the idea that Syria is a quagmire and said the no-fly zone position of Clinton is sensible - is frightening. Obama ran on a transformative foreign policy away from nation building, yet fell into the very same place where he was adamant he wouldn't want to go. Bush won against Gore also based on an more sensible foreign policy.
The fact that Democrats want to prop up a nominee that is calling for no fly zones over Syria is like living in a Bizarro World where Bush didn't happen and Obama didn't get the nom ahead of Hillary.

Sure. this is a reasonable criticism of Hillary. Unfortunately Sanders is not a great candidate to make it. His argument about Syria in the debate is pretty muddled. We shouldn't get involved in Syria, we should put together a coalition. Except that's what we're doing. Syria's dangerous, but Kosovo and Afghanistan were appropriate US interventions for some reason (because Sanders voted for both). Then he says we should respond when America is threatened. How did Kosovo threaten America? We should support the Syrian rebels without deploying there. Sure. Again, we've been doing that. It's like the one thing we absolutely know isn't going to work. Putin will respond to democratic pressure by the Russian people when the Syrian intervention doesn't work. This is kind of a disturbing misunderstanding of how Russia is currently governed.

If there were a candidate that was "Hillary, but dovish," I would vote for them. Unfortunately that slot in the roster got filled by Lincoln Chafee instead. Sanders has neither a coherent rhetoric or coherent record on foreign policy.

 

[Cheebo]

I'm not sure why you replying - I'm talking about the general theme of far-fetched reasons to bash Sanders while not applying the same standards to Clinton. If you haven't bashed Sanders for his supporters, positions, campaign staff etc than you obviously don't fall into that spectrum.

The most common "bash" is he is not electable. And there is no way you can say that is far fetched.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I don't see any tendency for Clinton to unite the party, lead to higher voter turnout than Obama 08/12, win over (I), or stop Democratic losing streak in the midterms. The people in this thread are pretty much proof of that, they are so vehemently against Sanders that they look for anything to latch onto, yet fail to address the big Clinton Problems.

Clinton is still the Democratic Pro-War Candidate/Patriot Act Candidate
One of the reasons she lost was because she appeared Pro War next to Obama. Right now as tensions in Syria escalate and Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq continue to be chaotic states with failed national building schemes - which Russia uses to gain international acceptance, this will become an even larger issue in the race. The fact that democrats are so quick to jump in with someone who has been behind these types of failed strategies has shown that they haven't learned anything. That people scoffed at the idea that Syria is a quagmire and said the no-fly zone position of Clinton is sensible - is frightening. Obama ran on a transformative foreign policy away from nation building, yet fell into the very same place where he was adamant he wouldn't want to go. Bush won against Gore also based on an more sensible foreign policy.
The fact that Democrats want to prop up a nominee that is calling for no fly zones over Syria is like living in a Bizarro World where Bush didn't happen and Obama didn't get the nom ahead of Hillary.
Once again confounding her problems with the Hawkish stance she takes on foreign policy she is also at odds with Veterans who fail to see how her pro-regime change position and lack of stance of improving VA health care
It's been proven that the Patriot act is another racist tool to target minorities. And Clinton believes that it should stay in place and it's only a problem when the wrong people are in the White House.

Obama got people to turn up because they wanted a change from nation building, war, surveillance, racial profiling - sadly all these issues he not only compromised with but failed to address in any meaningful way. There is a reason why Clinton won't have the widespread support and it's not because of her favorability ratings or appearing cold. The positions she has taken are at odds with how a lot of people view war, government and corporate surveillance, and legislation that could easily be abused by the wrong person in the White House.

What makes you think that Sanders wouldn't be forced into making tough choices about the Middle-eastern quagmires like Obama was? He made it as clear as Sanders is now in his opposition towards getting involved in the middle-east. But whether we like it or not people expect us to do something now because we are responsible for a lot of the mess that is happening over there. We can play the blame game all day and repeat how wrong Bush and Cheney were for getting us in there but we are there now. Sanders hasn't offered much in terms of practical policy how he would handle the situation in the Middle-east differently than Obama has or Clinton has said she would.

Him saying he would force countries in that region like Saudi Arabia to fight ISIS for us is as unrealistic as Trump saying he's going to get the mexicans to pay for the wall.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Missouri keeps trying to execute people that literally have missing brain matter and it's really kind of creepy...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sure. this is a reasonable criticism of Hillary. Unfortunately Sanders is not a great candidate to make it. His argument about Syria in the debate is pretty muddled. We shouldn't get involved in Syria, we should put together a coalition. Except that's what we're doing. Syria's dangerous, but Kosovo and Afghanistan were appropriate US interventions for some reason (because Sanders voted for both).

I think there's a reasonably consistent line there. If you follow the view that nations have a right to self-determination and intrinsic sovereignty (which is... pretty confusing and muddled when it comes to the edges, admittedly, but hey, international norms gonna international norm), then there's a case for intervention in Afghanistan because the Islamic State of Afghanistan, the officially recognized government of Afghanistan, requested for help against the Taliban. In other words, it isn't breaching state sovereignty to intervene. The officially recognized government of Syria is... Assad's administration.

Kosovo is less justifiable under that metric, but then Kosovo is tiny. The Kosovan campaign was little more than a repeated bombing run. The United States could fart and the Eastern Balkans would roll over. Syria would require a lot more active engagement and be a lot more difficult to resolve. If we were talking about civil war in Kuwait rather than Syria, then you might have a stronger point.

Then he says we should respond when America is threatened. How did Kosovo threaten America? We should support the Syrian rebels without deploying there. Sure. Again, we've been doing that. It's like the one thing we absolutely know isn't going to work. Putin will respond to democratic pressure by the Russian people when the Syrian intervention doesn't work. This is kind of a disturbing misunderstanding of how Russia is currently governed.

Let's be honest, though: no US foreign policy action short of a direct intervention with troops on the ground in significant numbers will resolve events in Syria right now. No US presidential candidate is *ever* going to advocate for that. I mean, we're all talking about electability and that is like the number 1 most surefire way not to get elected. A no fly-zone makes fuck all difference, especially in the face of Russian desire to be in the area. How exactly do we plan on stopping Russian jets? There is no American foreign policy line in Syria that is both a) politically feasible and b) effective. Just another shitastic part of the Bush legacy.

 

[AndyD]

It's not like politifact reports on everything that is true that he says.

I don't know why he feels the need to lie so much though. He's already really well liked and now he wants the bad boy persona too?

Well they report on the big bold statements they all make. He is just the only one who seems to be a pathological liar. The others all have a mix of statements.

 

[Wilsongt]

Looks like Carson lied about being a childhood thug.

Oops.

Incoming bump.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Jason Chaffetz: Still an embarrassment to Utah and the United States:

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/05...hairmanship-to-shield-his-big-pharma-backers/

Carson felt God's influence again at Yale when he went to bed feeling unprepared for a chemistry test he had to pass in order to continue his pre-med studies. A shadowy figure came to him in his dreams, he said, with most of the questions that would appear on the exam the following morning. He scored a 97.

Okay, the Christian god is just a fucking weirdo.

A guy who will obviously go on to be wealthy since he made into Yale and is studying STEM is someone God will help by helping him cheat on an exam, but the Christian God doesn't help starving kids in Africa.

This is more nonsensical than athletes thanking God for the victory.

 

[noshten]

Sure. this is a reasonable criticism of Hillary. Unfortunately Sanders is not a great candidate to make it. His argument about Syria in the debate is pretty muddled. We shouldn't get involved in Syria, we should put together a coalition. Except that's what we're doing. Syria's dangerous, but Kosovo and Afghanistan were appropriate US interventions for some reason (because Sanders voted for both). Then he says we should respond when America is threatened. How did Kosovo threaten America? We should support the Syrian rebels without deploying there. Sure. Again, we've been doing that. It's like the one thing we absolutely know isn't going to work. Putin will respond to democratic pressure by the Russian people when the Syrian intervention doesn't work. This is kind of a disturbing misunderstanding of how Russia is currently governed.

If there were a candidate that was "Hillary, but dovish," I would vote for them. Unfortunately that slot in the roster got filled by Lincoln Chafee instead. Sanders has neither a coherent rhetoric or coherent record on foreign policy.

That's your opinion on the matter, a rhetoric that doesn't involve World War 3 is far more sensible. No fly-zone over Syria is about as a serious position as bombing Moscow. You have a disturbing misunderstanding about Europe right now, millions of refugee are entering the EU, there is no coalition in Europe that would even entertain the notion of helping ISIS, Al Qaeda etc to topple Assad in fact that type of support especially with three years of proof there is no moderate opposition in Syria other than the Kurds. And Turkey would never stand for any assistance to Kurdish Opposition.

Hillary's foreign policy involves escalations within Libya and Syria and vote in the Iraq war shows she is a poor decision maker.

The most common "bash" is he is not electable. And there is no way you can say that is far fetched.

If that was the only issue I wouldn't bring it up.

What makes you think that Sanders wouldn't be forced into making tough choices about the Middle-eastern quagmires like Obama was? He made it as clear as Sanders is now in his opposition towards getting involved in the middle-east. But whether we like it or not people expect us to do something now because we are responsible for a lot of the mess that is happening over there. We can play the blame game all day and repeat how wrong Bush and Cheney were for getting us in there but we are there now. Sanders hasn't offered much in terms of practical policy how he would handle the situation in the Middle-east differently than Obama has or Clinton has said she would.

Him saying he would force countries in that region like Saudi Arabia to fight ISIS for us is as unrealistic as Trump saying he's going to get the mexicans to pay for the wall.

He would obviously making tough choices. But the essence of the matter is that unless there is a wide international pressure for the US to act as a World Police Force the US shouldn't get involved. Foreign interventions in the middle east have proven to be an exercise in futility. It might get worse before it gets better and it appears sectarian dictators are a better alternative than fundamental American hating masses and sharia law. If countries like Saudi Arabia continue to finance ISIS and Al Qaeda - middle east will continue to spiral into even more chaos, Saudies should be pressured into a more common sense policy where sponsoring terrorist organizations and a more secular domestic policy. As one of the main allies of the US in the region it's laughable what they are allowed to do.

"That's your opinion on the matter" is a great way to hand wave off actual inconsistencies without addressing them. Then right back to Clinton bashing.

Do point to where I haven't addressed the questions, it's quite easy to make drive by posts without contributing to the conversation.

 

[Fenderputty]

"That's your opinion on the matter" is a great way to hand wave off actual inconsistencies without addressing them. Then right back to Clinton bashing.

Do point to where I haven't addressed the questions, it's quite easy to make drive by posts without contributing to the conversation.

Why would I need to point out something pigeon already did? I merely pointed out that you didn't address his comments and sidestepped his points.

 

[Daniel B·]

Sorry guys; the recent NBC/WSJ poll flatly contradicts your assertion that Bernie Sanders isn't eminently electable:

Also, even CNN are doing a great job highlighting Hillary's Wall Street addiction:

Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.

"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has said on the campaign trail.

The idea that Hillary, who's in the 0.1% club, would actually be sufficiently tough on Wall Street and the big banks, to ensure they could never again threaten not just the American economy, but the worldwide economy, is laughable. Here's what one analyst wrote in response to Hillary's Wall Street plan:

We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms

 

[pigeon]

I think there's a reasonably consistent line there. If you follow the view that nations have a right to self-determination and intrinsic sovereignty (which is... pretty confusing and muddled when it comes to the edges, admittedly, but hey, international norms gonna international norm), then there's a case for intervention in Afghanistan because the Islamic State of Afghanistan, the officially recognized government of Afghanistan, requested for help against the Taliban. In other words, it isn't breaching state sovereignty to intervene. The officially recognized government of Syria is... Assad's administration.

Kosovo is less justifiable under that metric, but then Kosovo is tiny. The Kosovan campaign was little more than a repeated bombing run. The United States could fart and the Eastern Balkans would roll over. Syria would require a lot more active engagement and be a lot more difficult to resolve. If we were talking about civil war in Kuwait rather than Syria, then you might have a stronger point.

I mean, sure, there could be a somewhat consistent line there about officially recognized governments, although I don't think it really matches up with American foreign policy behavior or with real-world situations (designing diplomatic approaches by considering Assad the rightful government of Syria is a pretty problematic position). However, that's not the argument Sanders is making! The only point he advances is that we should take action when America is threatened or when America's allies are threatened. Neither of the interventions he actually voted for match those conditions.

ILet's be honest, though: no US foreign policy action short of a direct intervention with troops on the ground in significant numbers will resolve events in Syria right now. No US presidential candidate is *ever* going to advocate for that. I mean, we're all talking about electability and that is like the number 1 most surefire way not to get elected. A no fly-zone makes fuck all difference, especially in the face of Russian desire to be in the area. How exactly do we plan on stopping Russian jets? There is no American foreign policy line in Syria that is both a) politically feasible and b) effective. Just another shitastic part of the Bush legacy.

Right, I agree. To be clear, my position on Syria is that we should do nothing. We have no way to usefully contribute and the active parties in the region don't actually want us there.

Hillary is pretty explicit in the debate that she wants to suggest a no-fly zone not as an actual military goal in itself but as a negotiating tactic with Russia, so that we can give up our expressed desire for a no-fly zone in exchange for some concessions from Russia. (Admitting this in the debate does probably weaken its effectiveness.) Again her tactic is to advocate for specific policy actions that we could use to accomplish goals, even if those policy actions seem counterintuitive. I am generally against a no-fly zone because I think it's one of those things that sounds good but will just get us entangled in bullshit, but I am more or less okay with using the no-fly zone as a bargaining chip as long as it means we don't actually have to do it in any meaningful sense.

That's your opinion on the matter, a rhetoric that doesn't involve World War 3 is far more sensible.

Don't waste my time.

 

[Cheebo]

Sorry guys; the recent NBC/WSJ poll flatly contradicts your assertion that Bernie Sanders isn't eminently electable.
:

Show how well he is doing against an actual candidate who can win the GOP nomination and the white house like Rubio. No one is worried about Trump. The concern is if the GOP nominate one of the mainstream candidates and the Dems had Sanders.

 

[pigeon]

The idea that Hillary, who's in the 0.1% club, would actually be sufficiently tough on Wall Street and the big banks, to ensure they could never again threaten not just the American economy, but the worldwide economy, is laughable.

It's really tedious to constantly have the primary argument against Hillary be "OBVIOUSLY she'd be bad for finreg." If it was so obvious, probably you guys wouldn't have to repeatedly post it in every discussion. The fact that you do kind of suggests that it's not obvious and maybe you should consider some substantive arguments about her policy approaches.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Show how well he is doing against an actual candidate who can win the GOP nomination and the white house like Rubio. No one is worried about Trump. The concern is if the GOP nominate one of the mainstream candidates and the Dems had Sanders.

i'm not sure i would take this tack at this point - absent any evidence that he will somehow hemorrhage support in the first two months of 2016, i would expect trump to at least qualify as an "actual candidate" by now.

i would, however, call into question the reliability of any general election polls featuring sanders given that he hasn't even begun to face the firing squad that is the barrage of GOP attack ads he would be subjected to in the event that he was actually the frontrunner. especially relative to hillary (who is literally in year 22 of facing that), he's completely untested in that department and i'm not convinced he'll turn out better.

 

[Retromelon]

I saw Francis "end of history" Fukuyama talk yesterday and I'm happy to report he's still an idiot.

did he have any defense for how wrong his predictions have proven to be over all these years? and what did he say that gave you the impression in your report

 

[noshten]

It's really tedious to constantly have the primary argument against Hillary be "OBVIOUSLY she'd be bad for finreg." If it was so obvious, probably you guys wouldn't have to repeatedly post it in every discussion. The fact that you do kind of suggests that it's not obvious and maybe you should consider some substantive arguments about her policy approaches.

People repeat Sanders electability in every discussion, double standards? The fact that people do that kind of suggests it's not obvious and people should consider some substantive arguments about his policy approaches. Since all his positions and policies have as much chance of making it through the current political environment as Clinton's policy appraches.

 

[pigeon]

People repeat Sanders electability in every discussion, double standards? The fact that people do that kind of suggests it's not obvious and people should consider some substantive arguments about his policy approaches.

Maybe actually read the posts where people express their substantive reasons to think Sanders is not electable.

 

[RustyNails]

His Politifact file has zero true or mostly true statements!

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/

I don't know if we're going to be breaking new ground if we find out that Ben Carson is a liar since it's already clear that he's a massive liar.

That's the thing: we on gaf and reddit know that he's a lying scumbag. But people in general do not. He was ranked as 5th most trusted person in US in 2009. He is polling as generic R. The mainstream media uncovering his baloney is undoubtedly a net positive for everyone. His anti-Muslim comments unfortunately do not seem to matter to anyone, but they should.

 

[Cheebo]

i'm not sure i would take this tack at this point - absent any evidence that he will somehow hemorrhage support in the first two months of 2016, i would expect trump to at least qualify as an "actual candidate" by now.

I mean worried in terms of a general election.

 

[Daniel B·]

Show how well he is doing against an actual candidate who can win the GOP nomination and the white house like Rubio. No one is worried about Trump. The concern is if the GOP nominate one of the mainstream candidates and the Dems had Sanders.

My pleasure :

Marco Rubio vs Hillary Clinton: 44 / 47

Marco Rubio vs Bernie Sanders: 41 / 46

 

[HylianTom]

The Louisiana GOP (and its fans) are going nuts on Twitter this morning, and in general.

16 days. This will dominate the race's narrative until Monday.

 

[Maledict]

I honestly don't understand why theoretical general election poll match ups are being used at all. It's been shown time and time again they don't mean *anything* this far out - Herman Caine was ahead of Obama!

People argue for Hillarys electability not on pointless polls but because of her team, her assets, her ability to fight and play politics at the national level. People think Bernie is unelectable because of his independance, his socialist label, his debate performance and inability to craft a platform that appeals to more than white middle class young liberals.

It's nothing to do with poll numbers, and it's disingenuous to think that's why people say she's electable and he isn't.

 

[Manmademan]

I honestly don't understand why theoretical general election poll match ups are being used at all. It's been shown time and time again they don't mean *anything* this far out - Herman Caine was ahead of Obama!

People argue for Hillarys electability not on pointless polls but because of her team, her assets, her ability to fight and play politics at the national level. People think Bernie is unelectable because of his independance, his socialist label, his debate performance and inability to craft a platform that appeals to more than white middle class young liberals.

It's nothing to do with poll numbers, and it's disingenuous to think that's why people say she's electable and he isn't.

Excellent post.

 

[Teggy]

The Louisiana GOP (and its fans) are going nuts on Twitter this morning, and in general.



16 days. This will dominate the race's narrative until Monday.

He should write a one line response like that union did with Walker: "Vitter wears diapers when he visits his hookers."

 

[QuiteWhittle]

My pleasure :

Here are all of the results from the same poll. Notice how Dem beat everyone but Carson.

Clinton 47, Carson 47
Clinton 47 Rubio 44
Clinton 47 Bush 43
Clinton 50 Trump 42
Sanders 50 Trump 41
Sanders 46, Rubio 41

Here's a Quinnipiac that released less than twelve hours later. Notice how Dems lose to everyone except Trump

Carson 50 Clinton 40
Clinton 46 Trump 43
Rubio 46 Clinton 41
Cruz 46 Clinton 43
Christie 46 Clinton 41

Carson 51 Sanders 39
Sanders 46 Trump 44
Rubio 47 Sanders 41
Cruz 45 Sanders 44

I don't care about the debate going on but GE polling is absolutely crap before the conventions. And these are just national polls, the state polls are even more random and schizophrenic.

 

[Sianos]

re: people become more conservative as they grow older

As I've grown older, I've definitely become less conservative - although I think this is due to me also learning more about human psychology as I've grown older.

So many modern day conservative maxims and justifications for policy are based in what I call the "C in Psychology 101" effect and an entrenchment in 100 year old reductionist behaviorism. Especially the classic "welfare makes you lazy" assertion that is based on the reductionistic "it rewards people for not working!!" line of thought that is contradicted by so, so much modern psychology ranging from the hierarchy of needs to theories of self-worth and self-esteem to depression to learned helplessness to so much more.

 

[User 463088]

I'm not sure if this is on the allowed list of reasons that I'm allowed to not support Bernie, but one reason that I wouldn't support him is how absolutely shit his campaign has been and continues to be. They seem to forget that part of winning an election is optics. When the "shouting" thing became a thing, they made stupid ass, condescending comments about Hillary maybe being qualified to be VP. Then the story started circulating that Bernie's going to go negative. They fanned that flame too. I mean, this is Devine we're talking about. His ability to handle negative media narratives is legendary. Just ask President Kerry about his brilliant handling of Swift Boat Veterans.

Bernie's campaign is showing they can't even handle minuscule problems of their own making. These are the people that are qualified to turn public perception around over "socialism"? Bernie has never had anything thrown at him. He makes it to the general, they would literally tear him apart. Say what you will about Hillary. She's been through the shit millions of times, and comes out stronger.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This Rumsfeld stmt to NBC on Bush 41: “Bush 41 is getting up in years and misjudges Bush 43, who I found made his own decisions"

Lots of fondness and respect going on.

 

[RDreamer]

re: people become more conservative as they grow older

As I've grown older, I've definitely become less conservative - although I think this is due to me also learning more about human psychology as I've grown older.

Mine has partially been from learning more about business and marketing. Once I really started learning, using, and seeing the power of marketing my notion of what's "fair" really changed. The free market isn't "fair," and the best idea or product doesn't necessarily always succeed over the worse one when money is involved. Money can make a whole lot of power, opportunity, and mindshare.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not sure if this is on the allowed list of reasons that I'm allowed to not support Bernie, but one reason that I wouldn't support him is how absolutely shit his campaign has been and continues to be. They seem to forget that part of winning an election is optics. When the "shouting" thing became a thing, they made stupid ass, condescending comments about Hillary maybe being qualified to be VP. Then the story started circulating that Bernie's going to go negative. They fanned that flame too. I mean, this is Devine we're talking about. His ability to handle negative media narratives is legendary. Just ask President Kerry about his brilliant handling of Swift Boat Veterans.

Bernie's campaign is showing they can't even handle minuscule problems of their own making. These are the people that are qualified to turn public perception around over "socialism"? Bernie has never had anything thrown at him. He makes it to the general, they would literally tear him apart. Say what you will about Hillary. She's been through the shit millions of times, and comes out stronger.

This is partly why I feel the way I do, the other half being his stance on guns. I like Bernie and some of his policies, but the people he's chosen to surround himself with are, to put it kindly, morons. They can barely handle the level of scrutiny that comes from just being in the race, if he was actually competitive they'd be swallowed whole.

 

[ivysaur12]

My pleasure :

Maybe it's the headache, but can you stop doing the winky face? It comes across as super disrespectful and annoying when you add it to the end of every post.

 

[RustyNails]

Lots of fondness and respect going on.

I see the knives are out already


Letthemfight.gif

 

[theprodigy]

He should write a one line response like that union did with Walker: "Vitter wears diapers when he visits his hookers."

wait, what was the union's one-liner on Walker?

Maybe it's the headache, but can you stop doing the winky face? It comes across as super disrespectful and annoying when you add it to the end of every post.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Union response when Walker declared: "Scott Walker is a national disgrace."

 

[B-Dubs]

Union response when Walker declared: "Scott Walker is a national disgrace."

That still makes me smile.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm going to laugh if it isn't Nazi comparisons or gay prison comments that sink Ben Carson.. but a silly pyramid claim.

 

[PantherLotus]

I honestly don't understand why theoretical general election poll match ups are being used at all. It's been shown time and time again they don't mean *anything* this far out - Herman Caine was ahead of Obama!

People argue for Hillarys electability not on pointless polls but because of her team, her assets, her ability to fight and play politics at the national level. People think Bernie is unelectable because of his independance, his socialist label, his debate performance and inability to craft a platform that appeals to more than white middle class young liberals.

It's nothing to do with poll numbers, and it's disingenuous to think that's why people say she's electable and he isn't.

I'm not sure if this is on the allowed list of reasons that I'm allowed to not support Bernie, but one reason that I wouldn't support him is how absolutely shit his campaign has been and continues to be. They seem to forget that part of winning an election is optics. When the "shouting" thing became a thing, they made stupid ass, condescending comments about Hillary maybe being qualified to be VP. Then the story started circulating that Bernie's going to go negative. They fanned that flame too. I mean, this is Devine we're talking about. His ability to handle negative media narratives is legendary. Just ask President Kerry about his brilliant handling of Swift Boat Veterans.

Bernie's campaign is showing they can't even handle minuscule problems of their own making. These are the people that are qualified to turn public perception around over "socialism"? Bernie has never had anything thrown at him. He makes it to the general, they would literally tear him apart. Say what you will about Hillary. She's been through the shit millions of times, and comes out stronger.

Everyone please read these please. Knowing these and understanding politics and strategy does not mean I don't like Bernie or agree with his general sentiment. But you gotta understand the basics at play here.

 

[RDreamer]

I'm going to laugh if it isn't Nazi comparisons or gay prison comments that sink Ben Carson.. but a silly pyramid claim.

Or blatantly lying during the debates... Or basically everything he says.

The pyramid thing won't sink him though lol

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not sure if this is on the allowed list of reasons that I'm allowed to not support Bernie, but one reason that I wouldn't support him is how absolutely shit his campaign has been and continues to be. They seem to forget that part of winning an election is optics. When the "shouting" thing became a thing, they made stupid ass, condescending comments about Hillary maybe being qualified to be VP. Then the story started circulating that Bernie's going to go negative. They fanned that flame too. I mean, this is Devine we're talking about. His ability to handle negative media narratives is legendary. Just ask President Kerry about his brilliant handling of Swift Boat Veterans.

Bernie's campaign is showing they can't even handle minuscule problems of their own making. These are the people that are qualified to turn public perception around over "socialism"? Bernie has never had anything thrown at him. He makes it to the general, they would literally tear him apart. Say what you will about Hillary. She's been through the shit millions of times, and comes out stronger.

Sanders' campaign has gone from *% (between 0 and 0.5%) to 32.5% in about six months. I'm not worried about them.

 

[Sianos]

Mine has partially been from learning more about business and marketing. Once I really started learning, using, and seeing the power of marketing my notion of what's "fair" really changed. The free market isn't "fair," and the best idea or product doesn't necessarily always succeed over the worse one when money is involved. Money can make a whole lot of power, opportunity, and mindshare.

This is also a really good point as well.

Too often, it seems like mainstream conservative rhetoric is based on oversimplifications that leave out far, far too many key facets of reality and interactions between fields of study. I think this is also reflected in moments like Carly Fiorina calling for a three page tax code, which also seems to be a conflation of more efficient with more simple.

 

[B-Dubs]

Sanders' campaign has gone from *% (between 0 and 0.5%) to 32.5% in about six months. I'm not worried about them.

That's got nothing to do with the people running his campaign though, that's all on Bernie and the lack of other challengers in the field.