• 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.
Sanders beats anyone from the GOP by such a margin it would take them decades to actually process the ass kicking. Republicans might fall in line but sadly for them their only chance to win is low voter turnout. Rubio guarantees low voter turnout on their side - the same sort of voter turnout Mitt Romney had, Trump actually has a chance to lead to a higher voter turnout for Republicans but they'd still lose but it would be closer.

I hope you're aware that in current GE polling, Ben Carson is the strongest GOP candidate. After 3-4 months of SOCIALISM/HONEYMOON IN THE USSR/TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS/90% TOP TAX RATE ads, Bernie's unfavorable numbers will go through the roof with the general electorate. Hillary is not fighting dirty right now, but the Republicans sure will. And that WILL swing independent voters, especially people over 45 years old.
 

pigeon

Banned
You know how we always talk about a large bloc of this country voting against their interests, and why thats irrational?

I realized today after reading Rubio's zero capital gains tax - that would be in my best interest to vote for.

In fact, the entire Republican platform benefits me greatly financially - and yet I'm voting against my own interests.

Is this rational? Is this good? Should everyone just vote in their best interests, and let the country work it out, almost in the way our justice system works?

I mean why are you voting against it? Presumably it's because you have interests other than purely financial ones, and you feel that Democrats will fulfill those interests better, and you've made a cost-benefit analysis and determined that you prefer your non-financial interests.

That all seems pretty rational to me. Rational doesn't need to mean, like, maximizing financial benefit!
 

PBY

Banned
I hope you're aware that in current GE polling, Ben Carson is the strongest GOP candidate. After 3-4 months of SOCIALISM/HONEYMOON IN THE USSR/TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS/90% TOP TAX RATE ads, Bernie's unfavorable numbers will go through the roof with the general electorate. Hillary is not fighting dirty right now, but the Republicans sure will. And that WILL swing independent voters, especially people over 45 years old.

You didn't even hit on Bernie's worst public attribute: atheist.

I have no doubt that months of atheist/socialist would tank him. An atheist/socialist (or someone portrayed as such) wont be our president, full stop.
 
it's sad, really sad that the stupid Democrats sabotaged Dean and picked that softy Kerry.

Dean was the real deal.

The media has screwed up way of warping perceptions and picking who they want.

Kerry is a Vietnam War hero (both in combat and in opposing the war), was a damn fine senator, is doing a great job as Secretary of State after negotiating the Iran deal, and was a good friend of Hunter S. Thompson. He also elevated Obama to national prominence by giving him the keynote speech in 2004 and endorsing him in 2008 (and serving as his mock debate opponent in 2008 and 2012). He would have been a great president.
 

PBY

Banned
I mean why are you voting against it? Presumably it's because you have interests other than purely financial ones, and you feel that Democrats will fulfill those interests better, and you've made a cost-benefit analysis and determined that you prefer your non-financial interests.

That all seems pretty rational to me. Rational doesn't need to mean, like, maximizing financial benefit!

I actually don't have other personal interests outside of financial ones that directly would benefit me - I'm not gay, I'm not a woman, I'm a minority but not one typically marginalized...

The democratic platform speaks to me most regarding guns, and even then these candidates have waffled somewhat on this issue and its unclear how much would get done. Really it comes down to the fact that I don't think the GOP candidates are "good people" for what its worth, and I'm also scared by their foreign policy. Putting aside this, there is an altruistic aspect of my vote for the minorities of this country and the poor - I do think that policies that benefit them will make this country overall better, even if they don't benefit me directly.

I understand this is a crass way to put it, but its also crass to analyze a vote from the view of: what does this candidate get me, and me only. I do find it to be an interesting thought exercise.
 

"...(Favorables) 27/23 for Sanders. That does suggest some possibility for Sanders to improve his position- part of his problem is just that black voters don’t really know him yet- but he’s starting at a tremendous disadvantage that will make the upcoming run of Southern primaries very difficult for him."

Those numbers are very in sync with my anecdotal experience.

The community isnt just very aware of him. And those who are have a negative opinion (probably fueled by the Sanders zealots and the BLM debacle in July). This is really going to be a struggle for Sanders. He needs to let it all out in South Carolina.

PPP is still a terrible pollster, though :p
 

Yoda

Member
Interesting; I had thought that Dodd-Frank, while it was obviously never going to be perfect given the nature legislating, was largely viewed as a relatively meaningful positive step.

I skimmed a Brookings presentation from a bit over a year ago that highlighted some clear wins, losses and trade-offs made that suggested a reasonably positive assessment.

The capital ratio for banks holdings to assets is 5:100. If 2008 happened again, we'd be bailing out the banks again. If socialize the losses and privatize the gains is STILL a possible scenario, I'd argue it wasn't enough.
 

Effect

Member
I hope you're aware that in current GE polling, Ben Carson is the strongest GOP candidate. After 3-4 months of SOCIALISM/HONEYMOON IN THE USSR/TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS/90% TOP TAX RATE ads, Bernie's unfavorable numbers will go through the roof with the general electorate. Hillary is not fighting dirty right now, but the Republicans sure will. And that WILL swing independent voters, especially people over 45 years old.

This needs to be repeated again and again. Sanders has not been attack. He's likely never been attacked in an election in a significant manner and that's something many Sanders supports need to get. Disagreements aren't attacks. We've seen how Hillary Clinton has withstood attacks. They've been happen for years and she comes out on top. Sanders likely has never faced an onslaught that he would face if he ended up the nominee. He's never had the media vilify him or give credit to the worst lies just to make sure their ratings are good. I honestly and completely do not believe he could withstand it. His favorables would skyrocket and it would mean a republican becoming President for sure.

Now I did not believe Obama could either at first but he had more street cred that he possibly could though coming from Illinois and being able to weather that political system. I think that's why many people were more open to seeing what he could do. I'm sorry Sanders is not Obama. Not by a long shot. No matter how many times one wants to keep making the comparisons as for why Sanders can win. What Obama was able to do and what worked for him worked because of who he was and how he presented himself. You can't just search and replace the names.

On another note I still find it annoying that only now does Sanders want to classify himself as being a democrat. Didn't give a damn about it before until he thought he could benefit. I wonder how quickly he'll switch back to being an independent once this is over.
 

PBY

Banned
The capital ratio for banks holdings to assets is 5:100. If 2008 happened again, we'd be bailing out the banks again. If socialize the losses and privatize the gains is STILL a possible scenario, I'd argue it wasn't enough.

That isn't incorrect. People don't talk about what happens if speculation does slow down tho - like... investment and banking activity would significantly decrease.

Maybe not a bad thing, but its something that should be discussed.
 
Has this been posted?

The Des Moines Register is calling for the Democratic Party to audit the Iowa Caucus

Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party

Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.
 
Sorry if this is a strange question but on Primary day I just go down to my normal precinct and vote? Virginia holds open Primaries so I don't have to register as one party or another.
 
Hillary is not a progressive. She feels for which way the wind is blowing and she follows the crowd and races to the front..

Remember, this is the same Hillary Clinton that blamed homeowners for the 2008 crash at a Wall Street speech.

More deceptive bullshit.

HRC said:
Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers, who irresponsibly lowered underwriting standards, pushed risky mortgages, and hid the details in the fine print.

Responsibility belongs to the Administration and to regulators, who failed to provide adequate oversight, and who failed to respond to the chorus of reports that millions of families were being taken advantage of.

Responsibility belongs to the rating agencies, who woefully underestimated the risks involved in mortgage securities.

And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy.

But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn't have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.

Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse.

Calling out irresponsible borrowers buried in the middle of a speech laying the blame mostly elsewhere.

It's shit like this that gets BernieBros a bad name.
 

Gruco

Banned
So, this is going to be a sort of rambling post that I am writing mostly to explore my own thoughts on the matter. Watching the Bernie/Hillary fight is incredibly surreal to see, and I'm still not entirely sure how to react to it. I really don't want Bernie to become president. Not in a "I appreciate the sentiment, but the supreme court is too important to take risks on" sense. I don't think he'd be good at it. He's too one-dimensional, and seems mostly indifferent to any number of issues. And he's too ideological to get into the weeds of crafting good policy.

And yet, his candidacy has reached a level of support I really never saw coming. And as it was growing over the summer, I was basically thinking "oh, that's cool, he'll probably pull Hillary to the left. It's good for the election not to be a cakewalk." I still think Hillary will crush him in March. But it's also past the point of being a healthy issues insurgency. People REALLY fucking dislike Hillary. A lot of people I know and respect are deeply invested in Bernie's campaign, and it's kind of shocking to me. Not least of all because amazing to me to see how earnestly people believe I can't be a "true liberal" while supporting Hillary.

On some level, it shouldn't be shocking, and it's weird for me to be on the side that I am on. I was very pro-bama and anti-Hillary in 2008. And a lot of the reasons I felt that way then are still true now. I think it sucks to have a dynastic presidency on any level. I am still really not cool with the fact that Hills supported the Iraq war. So, I guess the question is, why was I so on board with the anti-Hillary campaign in 2008, while 8 years later being completely on board with her? It seems there are a bunch of reasons for that. And some of it has to do with the differences between Bernie and Obama, but more of it, I think, is simply an acknowledgement that quite a lot has happened over the last 8 years.

I am a huge Obama fan. To the point where I don't think I will in my lifetime see another president I am as ideologically aligned with. And I am SO HAPPY with the progress that I've seen in this country over the last 8 years. Part of that is the still woefully underappreciated work of the 111th Congress. Part of it is the the dramatic swing in national mood we've seen for equality, and the Supreme court's willingness to accept that. And there has also been the last four years of Obama working the levers of executive power, and the current Congress's realization that they can actually govern without facing a revolt from their base, as long as they're quiet about it.

Which comes back to a question often raised in 2008. Which was the real Obama: the one who ran to Hillary's left, or the one who wanted to be a pragmatic dealmaker? The answer, I think, is either and both: it was just a matter of what the situation required. The reality of that is how Obama can simultaneously be a traitor to the left and a tyrant king to the right.

Looking over the 16 year span of the Bush and Obama presidencies, which span my entire adult life, I don't know how any person who calls themself a liberal can't look on that be proud of the overall direction. If you're want more, want more, and if you're mad about certain compromises along the way, be mad. My point is that I've seen in the last sixteen years the country rapidly swing from some really unfortunate, dark years, to some incredibly promising ones.

All of which is to say, I don't want, and don't need, a revolution. I want continuation. I want to see a democrat pick the successor for RBG, Scalia, and Kennedy, and think that will do more for campaign finance the just about anything else. I want someone who was in the state department to continue the reconciliation with Cuba and Iran, and who will continue Obama's ISIS policy. I want someone who is not disinterested in foreign policy being the one to interact with the rest of the world. I want someone who cares about less politicized topics like autism and Alzheimer's, and I want a person who cares more about the practical details than grand sweeping ideas.

I want someone who gets the reality that the 111th Congress isn't showing up in DC again anytime soon. Any idiot can look at a map, see where congressional districts are, see where Bernie fans a located, and recognize all of Bernie's talk about a political revolution is insane claptrap nonsense. Continuing to support Obamacare and making the most of the ACA is more important than pushing for single payer. There's a real window to have criminal justice reform in america, but the last 8 years of party relationships in congress should make it obvious that Bernie's outside in approach to politics make him the least likely candidate to get anything done successfully.

I definitely don't want someone who thought it would be a good idea to primary Obama four years ago.

It's a shame to see how heated things have become. But I also think it's an interesting, strange window into 8 years ago. Seeing the sexism directed to Hillary lately reminds me of the racism in 2008, but also makes me wonder how much sexism I was blind to back then. Seeing the (what I see as) naivety of the Bernie camp makes me wonder how much of that was going on in team Obama back when. Probably a lot.

Anyway, I really look forward to having this all resolved. I think it's too bad that a lot of his supporters are so determined to stop Hillary, or not support her in the general, because I'm convinced a Hillary presidency is the best case scenario for the majority of their policy positions. I mean in a sense it's great that there are so many passionately liberal young voters, but there's also a lot of ways I really don't get the way that passion manifests itself. I think that means I'm old now?
 
You know how we always talk about a large bloc of this country voting against their interests, and why thats irrational?

I realized today after reading Rubio's zero capital gains tax - that would be in my best interest to vote for.

In fact, the entire Republican platform benefits me greatly financially - and yet I'm voting against my own interests.

Is this rational? Is this good? Should everyone just vote in their best interests, and let the country work it out, almost in the way our justice system works?

Welcome to my world. I'm a straight white male in his late 40's who's somewhere in the top 5% income-wise.

Superficially, my best interests are served by the GOP. However... I want the world around me to prosper too. I want my friends working retail to have good health insurance and not live check to check. I want my gay friends to have equal protection under the law. I want my black friends to not fear the police. I want the South side of my city to be as safe as the North side I live in.

So I am not voting against my own interests-- unless you define those interests very narrowly and selfishly. Selfishness has been pushed as a virtue in recent decades, with all sorts of pop pysch and pop social science rationalizations floating around the upper-middle-class mindshare. It's bullshit. Vote in the interest of your fellow humans, that's in your best interest in the long run.
 
i feel like theres gonna be a racial civil war between the clinton and sanders camps when it comes to the south and super tuesday states and even worse on social media amongst supporters. BLM/Police reform will come up big again i feel there will be alot of uneasiness unleashed.
 

PBY

Banned
Welcome to my world. I'm a straight white male in his late 40's who's somewhere in the top 5% income-wise.

Superficially, my best interests are served by the GOP. However... I want the world around me to prosper too. I want my friends working retail to have good health insurance and not like check to check. I want my gay friends to have equal protection under the law. I want my black friends to not fear the police. I want the South side of my city to be as safe as the North side I live in.

So I am not voting against my own interests-- unless you define those interests very narrowly and selfishly. Selfishness has been pushed as a virtue in recent decades, with all sorts of pop pysch and pop social science rationalizations floating around the upper-middle-class mindshare. It's bullshit. Vote in the interest of your fellow humans, that's in your best interest in the long run.

A1 post.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Welcome to my world. I'm a straight white male in his late 40's who's somewhere in the top 5% income-wise.

Superficially, my best interests are served by the GOP. However... I want the world around me to prosper too. I want my friends working retail to have good health insurance and not live check to check. I want my gay friends to have equal protection under the law. I want my black friends to not fear the police. I want the South side of my city to be as safe as the North side I live in.

So I am not voting against my own interests-- unless you define those interests very narrowly and selfishly. Selfishness has been pushed as a virtue in recent decades, with all sorts of pop pysch and pop social science rationalizations floating around the upper-middle-class mindshare. It's bullshit. Vote in the interest of your fellow humans, that's in your best interest in the long run.

*applause*

In political theory class, we discussed how there's a divide between voting out of (perceived) self-interest and voting for the good of the collective. When they overlap, there's little issue.. but when they don't, voters tend to pick self-interest.

I wish I knew if this were the same as in other countries. I wonder if it's some sort of American individualism thing.
 

PBY

Banned
*applause*

In political theory class, we discussed how there's a divide between voting out of (perceived) self-interest and voting for the good of the collective. When they overlap, there's little issue.. but when they don't, voters tend to pick self-interest.

I wish I knew if this were the same as in other countries. I wonder if it's some sort of American individualism thing.

I actually wish people would just come out and say that they're voting in their self interest though. That's soooo much better than "no, trust us - this will help the economy", or "no, welfare just hurts everyone"
 
it's sad, really sad that the stupid Democrats sabotaged Dean and picked that softy Kerry.

Dean was the real deal.

The media has screwed up way of warping perceptions and picking who they want.

On the other hand, president dean would have probably guaranteed that we didn't get Obama in 2008. And given that the collapse would have probably happened in 2008 regardless, Dean would be a one-term president and we'd be on year 7 of president McCain right now.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Welcome to my world. I'm a straight white male in his late 40's who's somewhere in the top 5% income-wise.

Superficially, my best interests are served by the GOP. However... I want the world around me to prosper too. I want my friends working retail to have good health insurance and not live check to check. I want my gay friends to have equal protection under the law. I want my black friends to not fear the police. I want the South side of my city to be as safe as the North side I live in.

So I am not voting against my own interests-- unless you define those interests very narrowly and selfishly. Selfishness has been pushed as a virtue in recent decades, with all sorts of pop pysch and pop social science rationalizations floating around the upper-middle-class mindshare. It's bullshit. Vote in the interest of your fellow humans, that's in your best interest in the long run.

Well, that's just it. You are voting for your own interests, those interests just happen to be community-based and what you see as long-term interests versus your short term (monetary) ones.

Selfishness and responding to incentives *is* how human beings (and basically all life on earth) is structured. That doesn't mean the people are all secretly trying to knife each other in the back, but it's worth pointing out that "we're right, and this is just and fair!" has never really gotten many people to do that right thing.

Also.... why is it more often than not the south side of a city that's economically depressed? Always wondered if there was actually some quantifiable reason or it was just happenstance and random factors that assembled themselves into something that looks like a pattern.
 
I think you can be a moderate or liberal on certain issues. Hillary I would describe as a liberal overall. She's also a pragmatist.

People have their on definition on what a "moderate" , " progressive ", or "liberal" is. I think the reason people consistently claim she isn't one probably think she isn't liberal enough or liberal as is much as they are. It could also it is mostly a one drop rule. She is more assertive when it comes to foreign policy , and therefor she is a Republican lite despite many many other policies that are not even remotely close to being that of a typical Republican . It could also very well be that some of the liberal policies she did take they just don't care about it so it is dismissed. Lastly, it comes down to distrust and dislike, no matter what they don't trust her regardless of facts you put in their face. She isn't talking exclusively about issues that is mostly about wall street, income inequality, and the economic liberalism in general.

Most young people could give less of a shit about anything else besides college debt . Since she isn't focusing on as much as the economic liberalism, they don't trust her to do it and they trust Bernie's word because he has been talking about it no stop since for ever and my opinion young people don't value certain aspects that older people do or do not. I think is mostly "passion" and hype. There even is no guarantee that Bernie is will get any of it done, but they trust him to do something. The issue is that once he doesn't do some of the things he and the supporters want they will be very upset. I do not think some people actually fully understand that. They want a fighter, but I do not think they prepared for him to not win most battles; it seems like a short and narrow minded mindset.

Also, the word pragmatic is being overused I feel. The thing is almost any politician will act like Hillary is because they see that Congress has not been productive and any real change comes through there and not the president Bernie and Hillary both know this, but they are approaching it in different ways. Bernie will be pragmatic if the "political revolution" doesn't even happen or not enough for it to change the balance in the progressives favor, simply because they are bills and laws that must happen. In a Congress that the GOP has some sort of large influence over HAS to make deals and compromise or must pass bills and laws won't be considered and the political backlash and pressure would hurt him immensely. I really think many progressives voters are just living in a bubble and don't really fully understand how everything might play out especially the young ones who barely even know anything about politics.
 
Kerry is a Vietnam War hero (both in combat and in opposing the war), was a damn fine senator, is doing a great job as Secretary of State after negotiating the Iran deal, and was a good friend of Hunter S. Thompson. He also elevated Obama to national prominence by giving him the keynote speech in 2004 and endorsing him in 2008 (and serving as his mock debate opponent in 2008 and 2012). He would have been a great president.
Sure, but he ran a terrible campaign and brought no energy at a time when the Democratic Party needed it. Dean would have beaten Bush in the general.

Kerry just felt so robotic and always looked uncomfortable. People say Hillarys pandering is bad, but no dabbing or whatever on her part comes close to the MTV "Hello Fellow Children" stuff Kerry attempted.
 

kirblar

Member
it's sad, really sad that the stupid Democrats sabotaged Dean and picked that softy Kerry.

Dean was the real deal.

The media has screwed up way of warping perceptions and picking who they want.
I liked Kerry, but I had no idea why on earth people were voting for him after it was really obvious early he was a weak candidate.
 
Also saying how much he loved the Red Sox and made them practically part of his political campaign was a bizarre/bad decision. Why pick a team that literally everyone outside of New England hates if you are trying to pander

At least Hillary picks popular stuff.. Like Star Wars, Katie Perry and Selfies and shit
 

kirblar

Member
*applause*

In political theory class, we discussed how there's a divide between voting out of (perceived) self-interest and voting for the good of the collective. When they overlap, there's little issue.. but when they don't, voters tend to pick self-interest.

I wish I knew if this were the same as in other countries. I wonder if it's some sort of American individualism thing.
"All animals are equal...but some are more equal than others."

Not unique to America, it's a people problem. People say they want "Equality" but what a large proportion really want is to be top dog.
 

Brinbe

Member

Absolutely nailed it. Great post I feel the exact same way in all respects. I too was a huge Obama supporter and was extremely anti-Hillary at the time but I have gained a lot of respect for her over the past eight years and I support her exactly because I think she'd be an amazing President. I believe what she says and she'll work to get a lot of great things done, just like Obama did. And as much as I respect Bernie and his work, I honestly don't think he'd be a good President at all.

This is probably exactly how Clinton supporters felt in 2008 and yeah, we're old.

And maybe the difference is that Sanders simply isn't Obama and it's not even close.
 
FYI A snowstorm is brewing that looks to possibly directly impact the NH primary.

post-16-1454602608_thumb.jpg
 
So, this is going to be a sort of rambling post that I am writing mostly to explore my own thoughts on the matter. Watching the Bernie/Hillary fight is incredibly surreal to see, and I'm still not entirely sure how to react to it. I really don't want Bernie to become president. Not in a "I appreciate the sentiment, but the supreme court is too important to take risks on" sense. I don't think he'd be good at it. He's too one-dimensional, and seems mostly indifferent to any number of issues. And he's too ideological to get into the weeds of crafting good policy.

And yet, his candidacy has reached a level of support I really never saw coming. And as it was growing over the summer, I was basically thinking "oh, that's cool, he'll probably pull Hillary to the left. It's good for the election not to be a cakewalk." I still think Hillary will crush him in March. But it's also past the point of being a healthy issues insurgency. People REALLY fucking dislike Hillary. A lot of people I know and respect are deeply invested in Bernie's campaign, and it's kind of shocking to me. Not least of all because amazing to me to see how earnestly people believe I can't be a "true liberal" while supporting Hillary.

On some level, it shouldn't be shocking, and it's weird for me to be on the side that I am on. I was very pro-bama and anti-Hillary in 2008. And a lot of the reasons I felt that way then are still true now. I think it sucks to have a dynastic presidency on any level. I am still really not cool with the fact that Hills supported the Iraq war. So, I guess the question is, why was I so on board with the anti-Hillary campaign in 2008, while 8 years later being completely on board with her? It seems there are a bunch of reasons for that. And some of it has to do with the differences between Bernie and Obama, but more of it, I think, is simply an acknowledgement that quite a lot has happened over the last 8 years.

I am a huge Obama fan. To the point where I don't think I will in my lifetime see another president I am as ideologically aligned with. And I am SO HAPPY with the progress that I've seen in this country over the last 8 years. Part of that is the still woefully underappreciated work of the 111th Congress. Part of it is the the dramatic swing in national mood we've seen for equality, and the Supreme court's willingness to accept that. And there has also been the last four years of Obama working the levers of executive power, and the current Congress's realization that they can actually govern without facing a revolt from their base, as long as they're quiet about it.

Which comes back to a question often raised in 2008. Which was the real Obama: the one who ran to Hillary's left, or the one who wanted to be a pragmatic dealmaker? The answer, I think, is either and both: it was just a matter of what the situation required. The reality of that is how Obama can simultaneously be a traitor to the left and a tyrant king to the right.

Looking over the 16 year span of the Bush and Obama presidencies, which span my entire adult life, I don't know how any person who calls themself a liberal can't look on that be proud of the overall direction. If you're want more, want more, and if you're mad about certain compromises along the way, be mad. My point is that I've seen in the last sixteen years the country rapidly swing from some really unfortunate, dark years, to some incredibly promising ones.

All of which is to say, I don't want, and don't need, a revolution. I want continuation. I want to see a democrat pick the successor for RBG, Scalia, and Kennedy, and think that will do more for campaign finance the just about anything else. I want someone who was in the state department to continue the reconciliation with Cuba and Iran, and who will continue Obama's ISIS policy. I want someone who is not disinterested in foreign policy being the one to interact with the rest of the world. I want someone who cares about less politicized topics like autism and Alzheimer's, and I want a person who cares more about the practical details than grand sweeping ideas.

I want someone who gets the reality that the 111th Congress isn't showing up in DC again anytime soon. Any idiot can look at a map, see where congressional districts are, see where Bernie fans a located, and recognize all of Bernie's talk about a political revolution is insane claptrap nonsense. Continuing to support Obamacare and making the most of the ACA is more important than pushing for single payer. There's a real window to have criminal justice reform in america, but the last 8 years of party relationships in congress should make it obvious that Bernie's outside in approach to politics make him the least likely candidate to get anything done successfully.

I definitely don't want someone who thought it would be a good idea to primary Obama four years ago.

It's a shame to see how heated things have become. But I also think it's an interesting, strange window into 8 years ago. Seeing the sexism directed to Hillary lately reminds me of the racism in 2008, but also makes me wonder how much sexism I was blind to back then. Seeing the (what I see as) naivety of the Bernie camp makes me wonder how much of that was going on in team Obama back when. Probably a lot.

Anyway, I really look forward to having this all resolved. I think it's too bad that a lot of his supporters are so determined to stop Hillary, or not support her in the general, because I'm convinced a Hillary presidency is the best case scenario for the majority of their policy positions. I mean in a sense it's great that there are so many passionately liberal young voters, but there's also a lot of ways I really don't get the way that passion manifests itself. I think that means I'm old now?

Great great post.

I agree completely. I think a lot (most?) of liberal Clinton supporters were former Obama supporters who didn't tune out over the last 8 year. They watched the health care fight. The town halls that they lead to. The Dodd Frank debates, the schlacking in 2010. The shift from grand bargains to brinkmanship and executive action. The Supreme Court dismantling universal health care with its gutting of the Medicaid but also its legalization of gay marriage.

We have the knowledge these victories aren't inevitable or permenate and don't want to risk going backwards for the impractical probability of some giant jump forward that faces impossible odds right now.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
So, this is going to be a sort of rambling post that I am writing mostly to explore my own thoughts on the matter. Watching the Bernie/Hillary fight is incredibly surreal to see, and I'm still not entirely sure how to react to it. I really don't want Bernie to become president. Not in a "I appreciate the sentiment, but the supreme court is too important to take risks on" sense. I don't think he'd be good at it. He's too one-dimensional, and seems mostly indifferent to any number of issues. And he's too ideological to get into the weeds of crafting good policy.

And yet, his candidacy has reached a level of support I really never saw coming. And as it was growing over the summer, I was basically thinking "oh, that's cool, he'll probably pull Hillary to the left. It's good for the election not to be a cakewalk." I still think Hillary will crush him in March. But it's also past the point of being a healthy issues insurgency. People REALLY fucking dislike Hillary. A lot of people I know and respect are deeply invested in Bernie's campaign, and it's kind of shocking to me. Not least of all because amazing to me to see how earnestly people believe I can't be a "true liberal" while supporting Hillary.
This is exactly how I feel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom