• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gruco

Banned
Crab said:
So it's not a positive point for Clinton to say "some of Sanders' stuff won't get passed". Well, no shit. But neither will hers; Republicans aren't going to go "well, it's Clinton who got elected, let's allow her to pass stuff!". They hate her more than they hate Sanders!
Click to expand...

I think this is wrong. The 114th congress has shown in interest in both compromise and in passing stuff, just not giant stuff. It's hard to say what exactly to attribute this to - it could be because they've figured out how to be quiet enough not to rile up the base, it could be because Obama is a lame duck and they no longer have to worry about denying him "credit", or it could be because the revolutionary fever has partially abated. Point being, I think there is space for smaller bills and issues that aren't heavily politicized. The exact opposite of the Sanders agenda.
 
U

UltimaPooh

Member
adam387 said:
And Hillary's been to more countries than Bernie, therefore she's a map!

I just got an email from Hillary asking me if I can be one of the four people Hillary needs. I think my queen is wanting me to be a human sacrifice to help her campaign. I'll miss you all.
Click to expand...

d22NqpjOcXZ8Q.gif
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
There are nine southern states that will vote in March and where Clinton should be heavily favored -- assuming she is able to retain her large lead among black voters. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas will vote on March 1. Louisiana will vote on March 5, Mississippi on March 8, and Florida and North Carolina on March 15. Three more states -- Oklahoma (March 1), Virginia (March 1) and Missouri (March 15) -- should lean toward Clinton, demographically speaking.

Give Clinton, at a minimum, 10 wins in March -- including big, delegate-rich states such as Florida, North Carolina and Texas -- and you begin to grasp the daunting nature of Sanders surviving the month as a viable candidate.


Vermont seems like a no-brainer. Massachusetts should be another place where Sanders runs well -- although Clinton did beat Barack Obama in the state's primary in 2008. Colorado and Minnesota are caucus states -- more on that in a minute -- where Sanders's grass-roots strength will be a major asset. Michigan (March 8), Illinois (March 15) and Ohio (March 15) feel like a bit bigger stretches for Sanders, although I can see Devine's logic: Big-population states with not massive minority votes. And winning a big state such as Michigan, Illinois or Ohio matters from both a perception and a delegate perspective for Sanders.

But the key for Sanders to survive March almost certainly lies in his ability to win (and win convincingly) in the 10 states that hold caucuses in March. Colorado and Minnesota will hold caucuses on March 1 but the rest of the month's calendar is chock-a-block with other caucus votes: Kansas (March 5), Nebraska (March 5), Maine (March 6) Idaho (March 22), Utah (March 22), Alaska (March 26), Hawaii (March 26) and Washington state (March 26).
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...now-what/?postshare=291455225018318&tid=ss_tw
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
adam387 said:
And Hillary's been to more countries than Bernie, therefore she's a map!

I just got an email from Hillary asking me if I can be one of the four people Hillary needs. I think my queen is wanting me to be a human sacrifice to help her campaign. I'll miss you all.
Click to expand...

Did she ask you for a dollar though?

NeoXChaos said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...now-what/?postshare=291455225018318&tid=ss_tw
Click to expand...

Since when caucus are an advantage for Sanders? I thought it was the other way around.

We had Florida and Oklahoma polls today that show Clinton lead "narowing" (from +40s to high tens). So March may not wrap up things like some expect.
 
D

damisa

Member
Coriolanus said:
Citation needed.

Also ted kennedy sez hi.
Click to expand...

Yeah Ted Kennedy was Brutalhttp://tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/obama_endorsement:

But first, let me say how much I respect the strength, the work and dedication of two other Democrats still in the race, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They are my friends; they have been my colleagues in the Senate. John Edwards has been a powerful advocate for economic and social justice. And Hillary Clinton has been in the forefront on issues ranging from health care to the rights of women around the world. Whoever is our nominee will have my enthusiastic support.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same as

"Sanders supporters want "to dismiss the fact that none of his colleagues have endorsed him, but you can’t,” McCaskill said. “He hasn’t had the ability to get consensus or lead people.”
Click to expand...
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ugaboga232 said:
Do you have any proof that hillary will pass more or is it purely gut feeling (not trying to call you out it just seems that everything rests on our own opinions of the candidates)?
Click to expand...

I'm arguing an opinion here. Always have. I mean, there's no real way to prove who would pass more legislation in a hypothetical presidency, right?

As someone training in the healthcare field, little tweaks to ACA will not fix the large structural problems in place. A lot of people will suffer, its not just a casual thing (at least to me). If hillary put out some real details on a public option or some legit policy then I would be very happy but everyone says shes a policy wiz but i dont see anything.
Click to expand...

Look, I want there to be more than little tweaks. For instance, within keeping the ACA, I want illegal immigrants to have access. They don't. That's pathetic. But the truth is it will be hard to pass a measure to allow them access. I don't think either Hillary or Bernie will pull that off any time soon. I support it, but I'm being realistic.

I don't think Hillary is some policy wiz, but I think she knows how to build a coalition. I've never seen anything from Bernie to make me think the same and the last few months made me think otherwise.

In terms of health care policy, I have 3 choices. GOP fuckery, Hillary and the ACA, bernie and single payer. On its face, I choose Bernie. But at the same time, I know Bernie has on chance to change to it. Hillary or Bernie basically means the ACA, so for me, it's even.

My personal problems with Bernie go well beyond the health care issue. My main problem with Bernie is that he's mostly focused on only a couple topics and doesn't give a shit on a lot of others. Which is fine for Congress or a cabinet position, not President.

Crab said:
He did. It's called the American Health Security Act, S. 1782. You can read all 189 pages of it online.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that this is really Jim Mcdermott's bill.
 
C

CCS

Banned
My 5x5 Hillary sticker for my laptop arrived! Now I can annoy Bernie Bros and be productive at the same time! :p
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Melkr_ said:
Did she ask you for a dollar though?



Since when caucus are an advantage for Sanders? I thought it was the other way around.

We had Florida and Oklahoma polls today that show Clinton lead "narowing" (from +40s to high tens). So March may not wrap up things like some expect.
Click to expand...

Huge undecideds.
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Black Mamba said:
And again, I don't believe in the "bernie can't pass anything ever" argument. Not my problem with him.
Click to expand...

I'm not really saying it's your argument, I'm saying that it's the argument behind 'Sanders is promising crazy shit, y'all - he can't get any of this through congress."

The funny thing is though, if he can rally his supporters to get out and vote for the Democrats in congress and the Senate, and then do it again in the midterms...whoo boy, things change. It's a barometer for the mood of the country, and I think even in solid 'R' districts, it might inspire some moderate Republicans to give it a shot.

It would be hilarious to see Bernie stumping for moderate Republicans in 'R' captured districts in the midterms. I don't think you'd ever see it, but it would be fun to watch. 'Bernie Republicans'!
 
C

CCS

Banned
Crab got banned after arguing with me once too I think. When he gets over excited the Australian in him comes out :p
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Black Mamba said:
I'm arguing an opinion here. Always have. I mean, there's no real way to prove who would pass more legislation in a hypothetical presidency, right?



Look, I want there to be more than little tweaks. For instance, within keeping the ACA, I want illegal immigrants to have access. They don't. That's pathetic. But the truth is it will be hard to pass a measure to allow them access. I don't think either Hillary or Bernie will pull that off any time soon. I support it, but I'm being realistic.

I don't think Hillary is some policy wiz, but I think she knows how to build a coalition. I've never seen anything from Bernie to make me think the same and the last few months made me think otherwise.

In terms of health care policy, I have 3 choices. GOP fuckery, Hillary and the ACA, bernie and single payer. On its face, I choose Bernie. But at the same time, I know Bernie has on chance to change to it. Hillary or Bernie basically means the ACA, so for me, it's even.

My personal problems with Bernie go well beyond the health care issue. My main problem with Bernie is that he's mostly focused on only a couple topics and doesn't give a shit on a lot of others. Which is fine for Congress or a cabinet position, not President.



I was under the impression that this is really Jim Mcdermott's bill.
Click to expand...

I agree on all your points with regards to bernie and hillary. I do wish she would put out some more details simply because they will greatly affect how i practice medicine (after 8 years of my program and 4++ years of residency and fellowship and postdoc...). Lets hope bernie can show his flexibility which I agree is sorely lacking for reasons I don't understand (i feel like maybe hes been instructed to keep on message? he seems to offer tastes of more nuance and stuff but who knows).
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
disastermouse said:
I'm not really saying it's your argument, I'm saying that it's the argument behind 'Sanders is promising crazy shit, y'all - he can't get any of this through congress."

The funny thing is though, if he can rally his supporters to get out and vote for the Democrats in congress and the Senate, and then do it again in the midterms...whoo boy, things change. It's a barometer for the mood of the country, and I think even in solid 'R' districts, it might inspire some moderate Republicans to give it a shot.

It would be hilarious to see Bernie stumping for moderate Republicans in 'R' captured districts in the midterms. I don't think you'd ever see it, but it would be fun to watch. 'Bernie Republicans'!
Click to expand...

The "sanders is promising crazy shit y'all" is my argument for why he's resonating with voters. People like being told they matter, they'll be part of something, that he will change everything for the better.

Hillary's campaign is basically "I'm going to be Obama II," and it's boring.

My issue with him is I don't think he's really letting supporters understand how difficult his candidacy is. I don't mean he can't pass his stuff in Congress. I mean, how organized they have to be, how hard they'll have to fight. Bernie is trying to reform the entire political system, economic systems of this country. Obama tried one small area and got bombarded like crazy.

His supporters believe if they show up and vote, everything will work out. That's my criticism of his campaign. He's not being real with them. Not that this change is impossible but rather that this change is going to take an immense amount of work to get done.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
UltimaPooh said:
Well because it's not a generality? Again he outlines what that means.

You go to the doctor or the pharmacist. You get what you need. You don't pay for anything because the government will pay for it.

Is that pretty simplistic for a plan? Yeah, but that's the point... that's ho straight forward single payer is supposed to be. Where he will get the funds for such a thing is where the rest of the plan kicks in.
Click to expand...

Unless the government doesn't approve of the treatment you choose and without the freedom to get private health care, you die like that poor teenager in Canada who couldn't get a transplant in time to save her from leukemia.

(Note - I don't believe this, but if you don't think half the country will think single payer health care will mean less access to health care for _them_ thanks to helpful 30 second commercials with attractive "victims" of single payer health care, I've got a bridge in Kansas to sell you.)
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
eBay Huckster said:
i was actually infuriated enough about that emissions regulation ruling to make two separate FB posts about it

that everyone promptly ignored because environmental policy is boring
Click to expand...

On Point on NPR was discussing it and apparently a lawyer against the EPA actually stated that States are the "laboratories of democracy." I nearly choked on my coffee by that bullshit.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
JesseEwiak said:
Unless the government doesn't approve of the treatment you choose and without the freedom to get private health care, you die like that poor teenager in Canada who couldn't get a transplant in time to save her from leukemia.

(Note - I don't believe this, but if you don't think half the country will think single payer health care will mean less access to health care for _them_ thanks to helpful 30 second commercials with attractive "victims" of single payer health care, I've got a bridge in Kansas to sell you.)
Click to expand...

"if you think rationing is bad now, just you wait until berniecare"
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
damisa said:
Yeah Ted Kennedy was Brutalhttp://tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/obama_endorsement:



Pretty much the same as
Click to expand...

You do realize that youve just contradicted your point that senators dont usually endorse primary candidates?

And again, my point is very simple: why would career democrats support an independent that recently joined the party? And why would the do that when the strongest democrat in recent history is running? That they didn't is fully expected.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
adam387 said:
No. It would be the absolute stupidest line of attack anyone could possibly level at her in the history of the world. There is no one in their right mind who doesn't believe Hillary freaking Clinton is a Democrat. People may think she's a soulless, neo-liberal, corporate, she-witch murderer, but she's a Democratic soulless, neo-liberal, corporate she-witch murderer.
Click to expand...

So first you say that^ in defense of Hillary...

adam387 said:
I mean, I see it differently. Bernie's AA outreach spiel for months has been that he marched with Dr. King. How many times has he trotted out that damn pony? Someone who was deeply involved in the actual running of SNCC simply said he had no knowledge of him being there. Bernie's campaign has a track record of overselling things. Bernie was one of thousands of well meaning activists who wanted to make a difference. That's admirable. However, it doesn't make him some expert on the AA community or the ways in which race is perceived in this country. I think it's completely fair to point out that his involvement wasn't super impactful.

Actually, not being super impactful is like a mantra for Bernie's entire political career....
Click to expand...


And then you say this as a means of legitimizing John Lewis' critique. There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. If Hillary's support for Goldwater does not call into question her democrat credentials, then Bernie failing to become MLK Jr's right-hand man does not call into question his civil rights credentials. That seems to be the more consistent view, in my mind.

Also, I don't hear Bernie talking about the march on Washington much. His supporters seem to ride that horse more than Bernie does. And when exemplifying his devotion to civil rights over the course of his life, it absolutely makes sense to bring that up. It's only when someone argues that marching with MLK is in itself justification to win over black voters that it's problematic.
 
D

damisa

Member
Coriolanus said:
You do realize that youve just contradicted your point that senators dont usually endorse primary candidates?

And again, my point is very simple: why would career democrats support an independent that recently joined the party? And why would the do that when the strongest democrat in recent history is running? That they didn't is fully expected.
Click to expand...

you seem to be missing my point, it's not that it's surprising they support Hillary, it's that they actively say bad things about Bernie. Senators don't normally insult the candidates of their own party. Normal endorsements are X is great by I like Y more, that's not what is happening with Bernie, and it's bernie's own fault for being so critical of democrats and Obama
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Black Mamba said:
Damn it, Crab got banned for telling me to go fuck myself?

I forgive him, let him back! It was a momentary lapse. I don't mind.

:(
Click to expand...
Personally I have never seen anyone survive saying something like that, joking or not. So when he said it, I was confused and slightly shocked. And I like the guy! He's really smart and is not a mindless drone.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
damisa said:
you seem to be missing my point, it's not that it's surprising they support Hillary, it's that they actively say bad things about Bernie. Senators don't normally insult the candidates of their own party. Normal endorsements are X is great by I like Y more, that's not what is happening with Bernie, and it's bernie's own fault for being so critical of democrats and Obama
Click to expand...

...you do realize that there have been articles on how bernie aint no democrat for quite a while now, yes? Weiner even penned one last year, if memory serves. Of course he's fair game. Why wouldnt he be?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
UltimaPooh said:
Well because it's not a generality? Again he outlines what that means.

You go to the doctor or the pharmacist. You get what you need. You don't pay for anything because the government will pay for it.

Is that pretty simplistic for a plan? Yeah, but that's the point... that's ho straight forward single payer is supposed to be. Where he will get the funds for such a thing is where the rest of the plan kicks in.
Click to expand...

But again, this is not a plan. It's an ideal.

I agree with the ideal. Everyone should be able to get the treatment they need irrelevant of the costs (with some limitations, of course...ala Terry Schiavo). That's all Bernie is saying. It's a concept.


Okay, okay. Maybe Bernie doesn't have a clear path to get there. I'll give you that.

But I also believe that Hilary doesn't have a clear path with her tweaks. Again her plan is essential devoid of any real details and again is just generalities as you would put. She wants to tweak ACA and bring down costs but I don't see her plan to do that.

In any case it's clear neither of us are budging on this because we both believe that either party's plan doesn't provide enough info on how to do things. I'm willing to admit that Bernie's plan doesn't outline a lot of things but it is clear in what it proposes it wants to do. Is it achievable in this political climate, most likely not... but it is something that I do want and that's how I vote. If you're cool with just tweaking ACA more power to you.
Click to expand...

FTR, I'm not looking for super specific details. The technical stuff is for later. But I'd like to know what type of single payer system Bernie is talking about. Is he going to allow more people to become doctors? What will happen to doctor pay? Things like that. And those can be answered somewhat generally, but just "single payer" isn't enough.

Tweaking the ACA is just technical stuff, more or less, so it doesn't bother me. She's also talked about an initiative for autism and alzheimer's (the latter being very important to me due to personal experience). Though I'm sure Bernie would support this (in fact I'm a bit saddened by how little attention these get...if anything should be bipartisan, sigh).

And I have no problem voting for Bernie because this is his position. I was merely reacting to, I believe you, saying Bernie has an actual plan. He really doesn't, yet. I am just asking for a sketch, not a technical one.

I support Hillary for numerous reasons over Bernie. Single payer issue isn't actually one of them.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Coriolanus said:
...you do realize that there have been articles on how bernie aint no democrat for quite a while now, yes? Weiner even penned one last year, if memory serves. Of course he's fair game. Why wouldnt he be?
Click to expand...

Yup, if Bernie becomes the face of the democratic party, that calls into question a looooot of current democrat's political careers. They don't like the prospect of having to defend themselves from both the right (GOP) and the left (New Dems, so to speak). Naturally, they aren't cozy with the amount of influence Bernie's gained.

Not an attack against any of them, I'm just saying it's not at all surprising that they don't support him.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
OrangeGrayBlue said:
Yup, if Bernie becomes the face of the democratic party, that calls into question a looooot of current democrat's political careers. They don't like the prospect of having to defend themselves from both the right (GOP) and the left (New Dems, so to speak). Naturally, they aren't cozy with the amount of influence Bernie's gained.

Not an attack against any of them, I'm just saying it's not at all surprising that they don't support him.
Click to expand...

It is worth comparing this behavior, incidentally, to the behavior of the GOP establishment with regards to the Tea Party.
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
OrangeGrayBlue said:
Yup, if Bernie becomes the face of the democratic party, that calls into question a looooot of current democrat's political careers. They don't like the prospect of having to defend themselves from both the right (GOP) and the left (New Dems, so to speak). Naturally, they aren't cozy with the amount of influence Bernie's gained.

Not an attack against any of them, I'm just saying it's not at all surprising that they don't support him.
Click to expand...
I dunno...a lot of these folks are pretty good at getting on a train once it's obvious that they can't stop it.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
pigeon said:
It is worth comparing this behavior, incidentally, to the behavior of the GOP establishment with regards to the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

There are parallels, certainly. I think the GOP is a lot more fucked though. There's like 4 different strains of ideology that fall under the GOP umbrella.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
disastermouse said:
I dunno...a lot of these folks are pretty good at getting on a train once it's obvious that they can't stop it.
Click to expand...

Thing is, they're already on one train. Hopping off to catch another is a good deal of effort they'd rather avoid. Once you've built a constituency that you can rely on to win elections, it's a scary prospect to alienate a chunk of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
103
7K
rofif replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
78K
zephiross replied
Top Bottom