• 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.
Are we really sure Bernie won't run as an independent if he loses to Hillary? With all this talk about revolutions and conspiracy theories about unfair treatment, and constantly attacking Obama, it's like he setting himself up to run as an Independent already.

He was never a Democrat and only became one because that was the only way he could get media attention. He doesn't need to be a Democrat anymore to get media attention or funding.

He ruled out running as an independent when he first jumped in, reaffirmed it several times since then, and has never reneged on it(unlike Trump). He's not delusional.

Not to mention the Senate Democratic Caucus would shun into being a lame duck senator if he helps hand the Republicans the most federal power they've held since the pre-WWII era(something he does not want to be responsible for)
 

kirblar

Member
I agree generally, but I don't find the argument as compelling for 2016. Who's going to corral moderates on the Republican side? Donald "rapists and drug dealers" Trump? Ted "bomb them till the sand glows" Cruz? Marco "even in cases of rape and incest" Rubio? Jeb "please clap" Bush? They don't have a single candidate who excites moderate voters.
If the GOP is conceding the center, you take it and win.
True, but unless I'm mistaken, 2014 was an exceptionally egregious example of this rule of thumb.
Everyone hates the boss. Same as the old boss, and the new boss will be no different.
 

dramatis

Member
Has anyone ever volunteered at the polls before? I'm thinking about doing it.
I did last November.

It was off year election in NYC, which means not many people showed up. The process is relatively simple, but I can see how it would get hectic if turnout is higher.

I was literally there from 5 in the morning until 10 at night though, due to the incompetence of our coordinator. And while we volunteered for the polls, we actually got paid.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
He ruled out running as an independent when he first jumped in, reaffirmed it several times since then, and has never reneged on it(unlike Trump). He's not delusional.

Not to mention the Senate Democratic Caucus would shun into being a lame duck senator if he helps hand the Republicans the most federal power they've held since the pre-WWII era(something he does not want to be responsible for)
He was even expressly ruling it out back when he was openly considering/teasing a run.
 

kirblar

Member
Right on time, from VOX- (source article on Bernie's tweets)

8lobi9xmc0i2_lg2jui6sa.png


If you don't keep the center, you can't win.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Yes, although we can also see the proportion of moderates decreasing over time (relative to the number of conservatives and liberals)

Sure, but that doesn't mean that we can discount them now. There just aren't enough self-described liberals (or self-described progressives, which probably polls a few points higher) to win an election on their own.
 

dramatis

Member
[Vox] Americans want limits on their presidents — even the ones they voted for
The prevailing consensus is that Americans will support the power grabs of the presidents they already support and disapprove power grabs when they already disapprove of the president.

A new strain of academic research, however, suggests this may not be the case. It shows that Americans do, in fact, care about how presidents exercise their authority — and that they want limits on it, even when they support the individual at the helm.

"Above and beyond their partisan attitudes, Americans have specific beliefs about the nature of presidential power," said Andrew Reeves, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis and co-author of a new research paper, in an interview. "They're naturally hesitant on the nature of these unilateral actions."
Wonder how that fits with the authoritarian strain in certain voting blocs.

I remember walking by a library that had a prominent vote now sign up, i was feeling tired and sad that day and was just like, I cant be arsed about this
Blastoise will never be in Pokken
 

dabig2

Member
Right on time, from VOX- (source article on Bernie's tweets)

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/40NVruG_oHU6dMrswKaodd_zsEo=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5995617/8lobi9xmc0i2_lg2jui6sa.png[IMG]

If you don't keep the center, you can't win.[/QUOTE]

This speaks more of how 'liberal' is treated as a bad word despite most Americans actually favoring liberal ideas.[URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/liberal-is-good/283617/"] I linked to an Atlantic article just earlier today in that OT thread about the subject[/URL] and it linked that Gallup poll. Here's the paragraph that puts this chart in more context:
[QUOTE]
But there’s reason to believe that today, many Americans eschew the term not because they associate it with any particular unpopular attitudes or issue positions, but merely because they’ve only heard it discussed negatively. In a thought-provoking 2013 paper, Christopher Claassen, Patrick Tucker, and Steven S. Smith of Washington University in St. Louis note that although most Americans prefer the term “conservative,” those same Americans are “remarkably consistent” in telling researchers that they prefer liberal policies. How come? One reason may be that “conservative” has positive “extra-political” associations. To many Americans, it connotes “caution, restraint and respect for traditional values,” positive attributes irrespective of one’s views on specific policies.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
But even more important, Claassen, Tucker, and Smith suggest, may be the negative way in which “liberal” is publicly discussed. “When certain labels are emphasized or favored by political and media elites,” they write, “the public is more likely to identify with them than others. [B]Public framing often promotes the term ‘conservative,’ while the term ‘liberal’ is used with much less frequency and has long had a more negative connotation.” Part of the reason Americans consider liberal an epithet, in other words, is because they mostly hear it used as an epithet.
[/B]
[B]When Obama disavows the term, he perpetuates that dynamic and allows conservatives like O’Reilly to continue tarring Democrats with a label most Americans consider negative, even if they’re no longer entirely sure why. It might be wiser, at least in the long-term, to explain why the specific policies many Americans support are liberal. And thus begin to reclaim the term.[/B]
[/QUOTE]

I highly suggest reading the paper this article discusses [URL="http://polisci.wustl.edu/files/polisci/imce/claasen_tucker_smith_spsa.pdf"]here[/URL]. In other words, Democrats largely have a messaging problem and an enthusiasm gap; it's not so much the issues themselves.
 
Imagine the GE being a four way race of Rubio(R) vs Clinton (D) vs Trump (I) vs Sanders (I)...

While Sanders would never run as an independent, it would be possible to have a Sanders (D) v Bloomberg (I) v Trump (R) v [moderate republican] general election. And when the party allegiances are that divided, you might as well let Jill Stein (G) and Gary Johnson (L) join in on the general election debates.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
While Sanders would never run as an independent, it would be possible to have a Sanders (D) v Bloomberg (I) v Trump (R) v [moderate republican] general election. And when the party allegiances are that divided, you might as well let Jill Stein (G) and Gary Johnson (L) join in on the general election debates.

Bloomberg would run away with a field that large. He'd look like the grownup in the room, despite his skeletons. They'd all attack him for being rich or the soda ban that never was, stop and frisk would get no scrutiny, and they'd all look like children in comparison.
 
Bloomberg would run away with a field that large. He'd look like the grownup in the room, despite his skeletons. They'd all attack him for being rich or the soda ban that never was, stop and frisk would get no scrutiny, and they'd all look like children in comparison.

I think the stop & frisk policies and broken windows policing strategy would definitely haunt him, sort of like O'Malley and Baltimore. Ending mass incarceration and promoting criminal justice reform are, oddly, some of the only truly bipartisan issues today. He'd definitely have a strong chance, but I'm not sure he'd run away with it.
 

HylianTom

Banned
A GE with more than 3 contestants would be endlessly entertaining. They could put that on PPV and I'd pony up.
1992 was top-tier, as far as I'm concerned. Great characters. Scandals. Charts. Social media would've eaten it up.

(Hell, I'd love a miniseries of that one, too.)

---
Edit:
And it appears that the Hillary campaign is beginning its Twitter response..
 

tmarg

Member
I wouldn't consider anyone without a (D) or (R) a favorite, even if they are the best candidate. Way too hard to untrain voters in just one election.
 
Twitter fight? This is so lame. Save it for the debate.

And it's not even Hillary tweeting so it looks like she's speaking in the 3rd person.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Abuela Strikes Back!

EDIT: "called for president Obama to be primaried" ooooh shit. Thought just O'Malley was going to harp on that one.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I think the stop & frisk policies and broken windows policing strategy would definitely haunt him, sort of like O'Malley and Baltimore. Ending mass incarceration and promoting criminal justice reform are, oddly, some of the only truly bipartisan issues today. He'd definitely have a strong chance, but I'm not sure he'd run away with it.

The thing is, no one would hit him on this stuff. No one from the right will hit him on it and Bernie's gonna go on about the millionaires and billionaires, he'll be up against two of them so he won't be able to help himself. Bloomberg is gonna look like a damn rose in comparison to everyone else.
 
I really dislike that "word salad" jumble that her graphics person did for #2. It's too easy to glaze-over..

Sloppy messaging too, in my opinion. If you want to frame Bernie as being unrealistically progressive and therefore unelectable, that might work. If you want to frame him as being moderate on some issues, that might work. I can't imagine that doing both simultaneously will be very effective, though. They sort of counteract each other.
 
It's primary season. This is not that ugly. It's been far worse on the R side. All they fight about is who's more conservative. How is this different?
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
People have short memories.

Remember tony rezko
Or goddamn America
Or gun clinging
Or anything

The worst things have gotten for the democrats this cycle is "Hillary seems desperate."
 
The thing is, no one would hit him on this stuff. No one from the right will hit him on it and Bernie's gonna go on about the millionaires and billionaires, he'll be up against two of them so he won't be able to help himself. Bloomberg is gonna look like a damn rose in comparison to everyone else.

Also, criminal justice reform and ending mass incarceration is popular among right-leaning think tanks. Among right leaning voters, locking up brown people is still very popular and any kind of limits on incarceration has to be sold by conservative governors as a cost saving measure, not a strike against mass incarceration as a policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom