• 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.
M

metalslimer

Member
That Bernie quote makes him sound crazy. He can't explain why he would be able to get any of his policies passed because he won't be able too. Are we really supposed to believe out of nowhere congress will support even more liberal policies than they did during this administration because some guy who doesn't even have the charisma of someone like Obama said so?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
metalslimer said:
That Bernie quote makes him sound crazy. He can't explain why he would be able to get any of his policies passed because he won't be able too. Are we really supposed to believe out of nowhere congress will support even more liberal policies than they did during this administration because some guy who doesn't even have the charisma of someone like Obama said so?
Click to expand...

He will have a mandate. Boehner would be resisting the will of the people and the issues he campaigned on.

Just a thought on his mindset. I may be wrong.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I do wonder what might have been if Obama kept OFA organized and active, demanding that people hold him and congress accountable. Still...would 500k student protesters convince Joe Lieberman to support single payer healthcare or Medicare for all? Probably not.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
pigeon said:
We do know!

Democrats need to win the national House vote by approximately 7% to win the House. That's how many votes you need for a political revolution.

Again, there's already an existing method for convincing politicians to enact your policies by demonstrating your popular support. That method is called an election. It's not like the GOP will enact Democratic policies in exchange for Democrats not trying to get them out of office. We're always trying to get them out of office! That's literally all we do! So either we remove them from office, or they know that we don't have the power to remove them from office. In which case, why would they change their behavior?
Click to expand...

When it comes to moving the GOP out of the way of progress, losing is the only thing that will compel them. They need to lose repeatedly, until they are broken and so scared of losing that they force themselves to adjust/adapt/evolve/triangulate/etc. We can plant 5 million young voters outside on the Mall for weeks, and the GOP is not going to budge.

This is why I advocate support for whomever the nominee is. The GOP losing means that the country's political center of gravity is pressured further leftward.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Yeah seriously. You know what would happen Berns? Boehner would laugh in your face, obstruct all of your proposals and then the Democrats would have their asses handed to them in the midterm election because dissatisfied liberals - who don't understand how Congress works and wonder why you didn't just wave your magic wand and give us free healthcare and education - decided to sit out.

Look I'm voting for him but if he genuinely believes that - as a sitting member of Congress - then that is incredibly naive.
Click to expand...

Not that you're wrong, you aren't, but... it's kinda sad that the overall point is "know what would happen? exactly what already happened. Heck, it'll happen again, regardless of who takes it".

i mean, heck, the consequences have been in play for a long time.

HylianTom said:
When it comes to moving the GOP out of the way of progress, losing is the only thing that will compel them. They need to lose repeatedly, until they are broken and so scared of losing that they force themselves to adjust/adapt/evolve/triangulate/etc. We can plant 5 million young voters outside on the Mall for weeks, and the GOP is not going to budge.
Click to expand...

the current primary runners being stark evidence to the contrary.

metalslimer said:
That Bernie quote makes him sound crazy. He can't explain why he would be able to get any of his policies passed because he won't be able too. Are we really supposed to believe out of nowhere congress will support even more liberal policies than they did during this administration because some guy who doesn't even have the charisma of someone like Obama said so?
Click to expand...

Well, to bernie's credit, he does have one huge advantage over obama in that regard.

metalslimer said:
That Bernie quote makes him sound crazy. He can't explain why he would be able to get any of his policies passed because he won't be able too. Are we really supposed to believe out of nowhere congress will support even more liberal policies than they did during this administration because some guy who doesn't even have the charisma of someone like Obama said so?
Click to expand...

You'd do well to remember that, despite his behaviour, bernie still is a politician, and a very seasoned old hat at that. He knows perfectly well what he'll face. He also knows what his movement needs to hear.

You sure won't see whoever is the democratic nominee going all "yeah, plz vote for me, but do keep in mind that i wont be able to do jack because you've left me with the saddest excuse for a congress we've seen in decades, you twats".
 
T

teiresias

Member
NeoXChaos said:
He will have a mandate. Boehner would be resisting the will of the people and the issues he campaigned on.

Just a thought on his mindset. I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

I hope you're wrong, because it means he hasn't been paying attention the past eight years. Then again, maybe I hope you're right, because I can't imagine what his alternative thought process would be because everything I come up with in my brain borders on or crosses the line into lunatic delusional thinking.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Holy shit. I was in the break room and CNN was playing and they were summarizing the high/lowlights from the debate, and they played that clip of Jeb saying that Dubya "kept us safe" and actually COMMENDED him for saying a line that "played well with the audience", while not bothering to point out why said line was in reality, really fucking stupid.

Your librul media, ladies and gentlemen.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
HylianTom said:
You're right, and every day during this process brings me at least one moment where I pause and am amazed at where their party is.
Click to expand...

losing could do the opposite and just compel them to double down like they did to Obama. That debate was just the beginning of the Hillary fanfare that would certainly continue into a Hillary Clinton Administration.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
losing could do the opposite and just compel them to double down like they did to Obama. That debate was just the beginning of the Hillary fanfare that would certainly continue into a Hillary Clinton Administration.
Click to expand...

Technically, if they kept that behaviour for the next cycle, it would be a quadruple down.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
They're always going to think it's because they didn't pick a true conservative. Happened with McCain, happened with Romney. Hell, I'm sure it was thrown around at Dole for a while too.

They're not extreme, the Republican candidates in the past weren't extreme enough.
 
U

User 406

Banned
It's really pretty simple. Vote your heart in the primaries. Vote the major party closest to you in the general. Vote for ALL the offices and issues on the ballot. Do your research on the ones you aren't familiar with ahead of time. And vote in every. single. election. Just show up for chrissake.

That's the bare minimum for competent US participatory democracy, and if Bernie could get the kids to start doing it consistently, that would be fabulous. But Obama got them excited as all hell too, and they still didn't show up for midterms. Bernie will do no better, much as we'd like him to.

It's just a structural flaw in Democratic demographics. We have shit turnout in midterms.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
FloydtheFathead said:
How much further could the GOP go in their rhetoric/"policies"? I am being totally serious here.
Click to expand...

Problem aint that. Were i to venture a guess, i'd say that the mixed signals are hurting them, in much the same way that they hurt democrats.

That is, republicans win midterms by running far right, then try the same approach on presidential elections and get rekt.

either way, the success in one period seems to define the agenda for the next, and the cycle continues.

then you factor those voting habits that yall have of wanting to screw the guy on top by voting to oppose him in midterms and everything becomes whatever.

point his that the feedback loop most likely could sustain their current approach for a long time.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Coriolanus said:
Problem aint that. Were i to venture a guess, i'd say that the mixed signals are hurting them, in much the same way that they hurt democrats.

That is, republicans win midterms by running far right, then try the same approach on presidential elections and get rekt.

either way, the success in one period seems to define the agenda for the next, and the cycle continues.

then you factor those voting habits that yall have of wanting to screw the guy on top by voting to oppose him in midterms and everything becomes whatever.

point his that the feedback loop most likely could sustain their current approach for a long time.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I'm talking about the Democratic party. I couldn't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about what keeps the Republicans in their death spiral of denial
it's racism.
I just took too long to hit the Submit Reply button, coz I started this post when the talk was about Bernie's master plan and political revolutions and all that sexy exciting shit that still doesn't get the youngins to the polls every time, but then I got into a side conversation with my wife. Sorry. :p
 
N

NobleXenon

Member
I remember back in 2007, before Obama even announced that he was running for President, there was discussion in the Great Lake States that he was going to do so. I remember my Mother telling me in Colbert-esque fashion, "This country won't vote for a Niggeroe, he is a Muslim and a terrorist." She was blending the "adorable racism" and general conservative paranoia to come up with that speech. Remind you, this was BEFORE the birth certificate nonsense, Sarah Palin going on about his pastor being a domestic terrorist, etc. Now if you poll the Republicans today, it'll show that a majority believes he is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States.

If she was for-real, she could easily cinch 35% of the Republican vote, lmfao.

Crazy.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
dramatis said:
Arguing on semantics does not bolster your argument. In fact, you haven't offered anything to answer the questions I asked. Hot air is not 'talking a lot without meaning'. It's an idiom used to indicate the lack of substance in something. So what is the substance of Bernie's plan? Hot air.

A 'concrete plan' is not "of a particular or exact sort". It's a plan that has detail, is realistic, and is specific. Did Bernie answer anything about what needs to be done to get the volume of voters you need to effect so-called political revolution? No. Did he offer details on how to do it? No. There's nothing specific. It's vague. Even under your own definitions, what he proposes is not specific, it has no details on how it's sustainable for the future (no enthusiasm lasts so long in so many), how effective it would be (it's not), how it will actually be a political revolution (it's not). There is nothing particular or exact about, "We'll just get a bunch of young voters to vote".

Did I say his plan was implausible and naive? I said nothing of that sort. I asked you a bunch of reasonable questions that would be the basis for a grassroots movement to change American government and cultural view. Where are Bernie's answers? What is the concrete plan? You can literally just try to answer me in this format:

Concrete plan to enact policies over four/eight/twelve years:
  1. The numbers we have now, and the numbers we can expand to
  2. How resources (manpower) will be distributed across the nation to gain and maintain majority in House/Senate
  3. How to maintain long-term engagement in politics amongst young voters
  4. How much funding will be needed for such an effort
  5. How will you get those voters to enthusiastically vote for candidates that they may have to hold their nose for
  6. And so on

You couldn't give me even vague details on any of those, you just walked around feeling insulted.

I haven't made any preconceptions about Bernie Sanders, and nothing in my post indicates any such preconceptions. None of those questions are based in "predispositions and assumptions", they're based on informed rationality of what actually makes a grassroots movement. I am asking you, how will this political revolution be done? Answer the question with specifics. Saying "YOU KNOW how exactly" is trying to shift the burden of knowledge on the person who wants to know but doesn't. Where's Bernie's concrete plan?

You replied to a poster earlier, "You're spouting conjecture at this point." Are you not doing the same?
Click to expand...

A semantical distinction is imperative if such a distinction completely changes the meaning of the subject. But I'm not going to delineate into a discussion about this, I've already identified the misunderstanding and we can move forward from there.

What you are arguing for is a DETAILED plan for how Bernie will accomplish this. I absolutely believe this argument has merit. However, I never argued against it in the first place, rendering your (and a few other posters') argument a straw man.

My original point has always been to point out that Bernie is not just shouting "political revolution" with no actual plan to carry this out. There is something specific he intends to do to attempt to accomplish this and we have already talked about it, though he has yet to provide extensive details that explain how he can successfully pull it off. My point was also to point out that IF the plan worked (meaning we somehow magically got this shiny new progressive congress), it would allow him to put his ideas into action.

That's it! That was the basis of my argument. It had nothing to do with how the plan would be effective, or how likely the plan would be to succeed, and this is where we get into the predispositions and assumptions.

I should first state that I misspoke when I said you had preconceptions about Bernie Sanders. What I should have said is that you have (or maybe I should say seem to have) preconceptions about Bernie Sanders supporters. My evidence lies in your response to my argument in the first place, which contested my statement that he wasn't just full of hot air, and reasoned that that was the case due to the lack of specifics regarding how he plans to successfully carry out the plan. I can only conclude that you presumed the basis of my statements incorrectly.

I believe that you assumed that I was arguing that Bernie has demonstrated why his plan would be effective, simply because it would seem like the natural stance of a person who supports Bernie, and seems to be in favor of his views. Because if you had followed what I actually said, you'd realize it had nothing to do with how he demonstrated how effective the plan would be, only that he's explained what he plans to do and how he plans to do it (attempt it).

Admittedly, I should have pointed this out the moment you did this, but I ended up getting side-tracked with an argument about the effectiveness of the plan, which is an entirely different discussion.

Having said that, I would like to discuss in great detail how Bernie can successfully execute this seemingly impossible task, but I'll need to prepare a mound of evidence before I could construct an argument in favor of it vs an argument against it, so stay tuned on that one...



pigeon said:
But the massive support he'd need to win the election in the first place isn't that massive.

In terms of winning the primary, Bernie needs a lot of support among Democrats, yes. But to win the general he needs exactly the same support Hillary would need, and exactly the same support Obama needed in 2012.

That support wasn't enough to get control of Congress in 2012. So first, why would it be enough in 2016, and secondly, why would Bernie do BETTER in a general election than Hillary would? Because that's the argument -- if Bernie is better equipped than Hillary to threaten politicians with his support network, he must, definitionally, have more supporters.

I feel like this mandate stuff is the Democratic equivalent of Republican dynamic scoring. Politicians aren't responsive to threats about elections, they're responsive to elections. If we win the White House in 2016 and don't win Congress, why exactly would any Congressperson be worried about losing their seat when we just tried to take their seat and failed?
Click to expand...

The difference hinges entirely on the notion that since Bernie is basing his entire campaign around a grassroots movement that is self-aware of the problems that they face and need to address, compared to Hillary or Obama who more than likely consider these kinds of political tactics as just another tool in the arsenal, Bernie's plan would be more effective, as his supporters would be more committed to the cause, since they are aware of how pivotal and crucial it is for them to participate.

HOW he will manage to amass such huge amount of diligent supporters, I do not know.

Also, I don't believe that Bernie or his supporters plan to stop at empty threats (he certainly hasn't been proposing that in the rallies so far). I believe that they intend to exercise their voting power to the fullest extent, if need be. Of course, that is merely my opinion, but that's just the impression I get.

Retromelon said:
.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your valuable and meaningful contributions to this discussion.

Abinash117 said:
There are no assumptions. They are augments with evidence that state why his plan doesn't work in this thread and augments that asked how would he do it. If you can't explain your plan on how exactly will you go about it then it is right to criticize it. Sander's plan is basically briganding Boenhar to do what he wants. How exactly that won't go wrong and addition to how he is going to get that much support, including maintaining that support.

Saying he is going to do what he said is similar to saying "I will change this great nation" with slight more detail or more like " I will send ground troops in Syria and Iraq" .



We all know they do. The issue is turnout in midterms, president elections, and get and remain engaged in politics among other things. I don't think young people as a whole are reliable constituents.
Click to expand...

The assumptions here have nothing to do with Bernie's plan specifically, they have to do with my argumentation regarding the plan. My argument isn't about how can Bernie carry out his plan effectively, it is about what he plans to do and merely how he plans to do it at all, since most people sneering at the thought of his "political revolution" had no idea how he'd even attempt this, regardless of its efficacy.
 
F

Farmboy

Member
HylianHistorian said:
So I'm watching a decent interview by Blitzer with Hillary on CNN, she's doing very well. No way she'll fold in the debates, I'm very confident she'll be fine in the end. Can't help but like her despite her perceived image.
Click to expand...

Been saying this for a while: Hillary is no Bill and no Obama, but she's no Kerry or Gore either. She is, as Obama once said, likeable enough.

Keeping her out of the spotlight for now, while her favorables sink, might actually be a sound strategy. Once she reappears at the debates, the consensus will be that hey, maybe she's not the she-beast the media has made her out to be.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Sea Manky said:
It's really pretty simple. Vote your heart in the primaries. Vote the major party closest to you in the general. Vote for ALL the offices and issues on the ballot. Do your research on the ones you aren't familiar with ahead of time. And vote in every. single. election. Just show up for chrissake.

That's the bare minimum for competent US participatory democracy, and if Bernie could get the kids to start doing it consistently, that would be fabulous. But Obama got them excited as all hell too, and they still didn't show up for midterms. Bernie will do no better, much as we'd like him to.

It's just a structural flaw in Democratic demographics. We have shit turnout in midterms.
Click to expand...
I think one thing people need to realize is that local politicians have far more control over what happens in your day-to-day life. But everyone would rather just talk about the presidency.

"I'm not voting because I don't know what's on the ballot! Lol!" Well whose fucking fault is that?

"I'm not voting because Obama and Romney both suck!" Alright I guess the 20 other elections on the ballot just aren't important.

If you can vote in this country and you don't then you are a fucking imbecile.

Speaking of PollGAF two (Democratic-affiliated) polls came out today showing Tammy Duckworth beating Mark Kirk 45-41, and Russ Feingold beating Ron Johnson 49-37. Also if you missed it a couple days ago, PPP polled Florida's Senate election and found that while Alan Grayson is winning the primary 33-27, he loses against 2 of the 3 GOP candidates they tested while Patrick Murphy beats all of them by 5-6 points.

But who caaaares about electability? Patrick Murphy used to be a Republican! Just like notorious conservadems Elizabeth Warren and Markos Mousilitas. What we need is a real progressive from a safe district who opposes the Iran deal and higher taxes!

If FL Dems fuck this up I'm blaming you ErasureAcer
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Farmboy said:
Been saying this for a while: Hillary is no Bill and no Obama, but she's no Kerry or Gore either. She is, as Obama once said, likeable enough.

Keeping her out of the spotlight for now, while her favorables sink, might actually be a sound strategy. Once she reappears at the debates, the consensus will be that hey, maybe she's not the she-beast the media has made her out to be.
Click to expand...
I'm really encouraged that she remains this competitive (in the general) after this summer's tone & topic selection of coverage.

---

And to the earlier discussion regarding parties doubling-down after multiple losses:
for years, I've made the fundamental mistake of assuming that all political actors are logical. A logical party (either Dems or GOP, at all levels) would look at its losses, evaluate opportunities to improve its odds for the next time, and then make adjustments accordingly. But not here! :p

It's a hard mistake to not make, hehe..
 
W

watershed

Banned
Predictably there are a bunch of articles today declaring yesterday the beginning of the end for Trump. Not posing the question, but declaring it as fact even before any legit polls have been done and (not that it matters in reality) even though he dominated most of the post-debate online polls. Trump was not the biggest loser from yesterday's debate but the GOP and media are really trying to end his candidacy here and now. Politico, because they can't actually point to an increase of support for Carly, instead have an article about "top GOP insiders" talking about how significant her debate performance was. The media narrative is so transparent.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
On that calendar chart about Hillary's bad news, what were the good news days about even? I don't recall her having a good news day after she announced.
 
U

User1608

Banned
Smh at the asshole who said Obama was a Muslim while trying to ask Trump a question. This whole thing is already a clusterfuck. Trump's response was predictably lame.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
I heard that. Not surprised when it comes to Trump supporters.

Muslim? Check

2nd Amendment? Check

Veterans? Check

Big Beautiful Wall? Check
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
I don't think they will, but agreed. And fuck Grayson!
Click to expand...
There's a small part of me that wishes abrasive asshole liberals could still be counted on to win elections (the media's expected level of discourse for liberals seems to be much higher than it is for conservatives i.e. Donald Trump is leading are you serious?) but

1) Florida is an R-tilting swing state anyway

2) it'd probably be worse for the party as a whole (MN Democrats for example loved having Michele Bachmann around because she was an effective boogeyman for fundraising purposes), and

3) Grayson himself isn't even that liberal that it's worth overlooking his vast personality flaws over someone like Murphy.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Well, CNN specializes in idiot prevaricating talking heads that refuse to take a side on any issue no matter how blatantly obvious which is right, so maybe they just didn't want the competition.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
See, but Walker didn't put him in his place. It was a terrible "joke."
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Trump will maintain his lead over the next few weeks and today's dumb thinkpieces declaring last night the beginning of the end will look even dumber in retrospect.
 
W

watershed

Banned
BertramCooper said:
Trump will maintain his lead over the next few weeks and today's dumb thinkpieces declaring last night the beginning of the end will look even dumber in retrospect.
Click to expand...

I seriously hope so. I want Trump to go as far as he can in the Republican primary, hopefully at least until Super Tuesday.
 
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
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu 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
Top Bottom