Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

Sanders needs to have a come to Jesus moment about some of his interviews lately. It doesn't seem he is trying to be inclusive and almost seems like he is out for himself. He has a lot of support from smaller individuals, sure, but if he doesn't do something soon about trying to bring his coalition and Clinton's together, he's going to end up fracturing the Democratic party just like the GOP has been doing for years.

Clinton needs to try to be doing the same. At least be amicable. However, it seems difficult to change the average reddit, Neogaf, and Facebook Bernie supporter to be a Clinton supporter...

I just hope all of this nonsense with the Berniebros doesn't come back to bite the Dems in the ass this November.

 

[Thequietone]

My position isn't that they should be supporting Bernie its that it's silly to expect Bernie to act like a perfect Democrat while distinctly treating him as not. You can't logically expect Bernie to act like a good little Democrat while referring to Clinton as a real Democrat.

Why should the democrats support his revolution when he won't include them? He is a fraud and a snake oil salesmen. He feels only he can bring the revolution and excludes everyone else. He doesn't even thank his supporters! He sends his supporters' money to Devine! /drunk Rant

Peace out

 

[User 463088]

I don't think that's much of a counterargument. Are you saying he shouldn't spend money or something? Like since an ad buy in SC didn't work he should be doing something else?

No, no. He has to spend money, of course. No one is saying that. He should have been doing other things, but he is burning through a ton of cash. He's not bringing it in as quickly as he was. The only reason he's remotely competitive is that he's throwing a lot of money at a lot of states and hoping something sticks.

He's bringing in money. He agreed to fund down ballot Dems. He's not doing that. It's not because he's too poor to do it. He's electing not to, and admitted tonight he's not sure if he's ever going to do it.

 

[RastaMentality]

Yeah, redditors aren't going to come around for Hillary. I had a good friend who was fine with voting Clinton back in September come all the way now to loathing her with every fiber in his being and saying "she's a worse liar than Cruz". He's been defending Trump comments as of late too so clearly reddit's done one on him (while simultaneously making me want to completely end all ties :/). This election is shitty.

 

[East Lake]

No, no. He has to spend money, of course. No one is saying that. He should have been doing other things, but he is burning through a ton of cash. He's not bringing it in as quickly as he was. The only reason he's remotely competitive is that he's throwing a lot of money at a lot of states and hoping something sticks.

He's bringing in money. He agreed to fund down ballot Dems. He's not doing that. It's not because he's too poor to do it. He's electing not to, and admitted tonight he's not sure if he's ever going to do it.

You say he is burning through a ton of cash, isn't raising what he used to, and is only remotely competitive because he is still spending heavily. Seems like a good reason to keep his money right now!

 

[excelsiorlef]

Man Trump makes Cruz say wacky shit....

From Cruz's official webpage.

“Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention. On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother — and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life. Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.”

###

I mean total horseshit but still.

 

[User 463088]

You say he is burning through a ton of cash, isn't raising what he used to, and is only remotely competitive because he is still spending heavily. Seems like a good reason to keep his money right now!

He's burning through cash without getting much to show for it. On the last Super Tuesday, he outspent Hillary by $8 million dollars over 5 days and lost every state.

We're also not talking about his money. We're talking about raising money for other candidates. No one's asking him to take money out of his own coffer. He could do a fund raiser or send out an email blast asking people to donate.

What I think most of us are being critical of is not that he hasn't done it thus far (although I think that's ridiculous) but his comments tonight on Rachel Maddow. He wants a revolution, but he only seems to be worried about electing himself. Not anyone else. I hate to break this to him, but if he has to fight the Democratic caucus on everything, he's not going to be effective. He needs majorities to do anything, and saying "We'll see..." when asked if he'll help them is not a good look.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hugging progressive policies more wouldn't have done anything to help vulnerable Ds in 2010/2014.

Discuss.

 

[User 463088]

Hugging progressive policies more wouldn't have done anything to help vulnerable Ds in 2010/2014.

Discuss.

Because a midterm electorate isn't particularly progressive.

 

[Wilsongt]

Hugging progressive policies more wouldn't have done anything to help vulnerable Ds in 2010/2014.

Discuss.

Not running away from the leader of your party and trying to get active would have helped in 2014 at least. Couldn't help the fired up racists in 2010.

 

[User 463088]

Rachel is now corporate and being thrown under the bus for daring to ask Bernie questions in an interview.

: sigh :

 

[alternade]

I'm drunk posting, but as a former Sanders supporter I feel what I have to say about Bernie would get me banned, so I'll leave it at that. Cause even drunk I have more sense than Bernie.

I'd like to hear it

 

[CCS]

Hugging progressive policies more wouldn't have done anything to help vulnerable Ds in 2010/2014.

Discuss.

True. Dems don't turn out in mid terms pretty much universally, so all it would have achieved is getting a smaller share of the electorate that did turn out.

EDIT: Also Private Eye is so damn good

Cut-out-and-keep guide for American Voters

Things in which Donald Trump should be president:

An episode of The Simpsons where Homer runs for public office.
A low budget Hunger Games spoof starring Lindsey Lohan.
A bad dream you have after eating a whole baked camembert.
Legoland.

Thing in which Donald Trump should not be president:

Real life.

 

[titiklabingapat]

And just so everyone is aware that $1000 figure is literally the bare minimum need just to keep the account open.

Let that sink in

And it's not even his money. It's the DNC's.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Rachel is now corporate and being thrown under the bus for daring to ask Bernie questions in an interview.

: sigh :

I think MSNBC has shown that they're not exactly grassroots liberals though. They have their own interests to preserve.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Posting for easier viewing because I really cant stand his stance on this:



And him getting dragged, and rightfully so:



The sad thing is he cannot claim ignorance. He knows that he cannot do any of the things he wants to do alone policy wise, yet his attitude on these things is so ridiculous.

Sanders truly is the cancer of the Democratic Party.

 

[Farmboy]

Hugging progressive policies more wouldn't have done anything to help vulnerable Ds in 2010/2014.

Discuss.

It's one of those cases where what Dems actually did obviously didn't work, so in hindsight any fantasy scenario that follows a different strategy automatically becomes very attractive. Since it could scarcely be much worse than what happened, and could possibly have been much better.

And some would argue that doubling down on their ideology to excite their base is what helped the GOP in those elections, especially in 2010, so it might seem like a plan to emulate that. But in actuality their victory/base turnout of 2010 was probably more about the resentment of losing in 2008

Spoiler

to a black fella

, which is hard to emulate when you're the party with the sitting president. Closest dem version is probably 2006.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Rachel is now corporate and being thrown under the bus for daring to ask Bernie questions in an interview.

: sigh :

What did she ask?

 

[CCS]

What did she ask?

I think the one that produced the most anger was about fund raising for down-ticket races.

 

[Argyle]

Is there a demographic breakdown of the voters that participated in the Democratic caucus for Hawaii?

No. Caucuses only ever do "entrance polls" and even then they're either fact or incredibly inaccurate. It's basically useless information and they didn't do one for any of the states this past weekend.

Dang. Okay, thanks for the info. Well, if anyone who was there, I know at least one person posted about going, maybe they can tell us more, if they are so inclined. I'll go look for the post I'm thinking of.

My precinct is older and Asian. Turnout was strong but not outrageous. The way the polling worked, if you wanted to vote you had to be there at 1 PM or there was no guarantee that you would get to vote, as once everyone there finished voting then the poll would close and they would move on to other business. We definitely didn't get to standing room only and the poll reportedly closed kinda early, upsetting latecomers.

There were a lot of Bernie supporters (judging by stickers), of all demographics. But there were a lot of Clinton supporters too and she won my district by a small margin (reportedly by around a dozen votes out of around 1k cast if the numbers reported unofficially are accurate).

Apparently this is completely not what happened in other precincts so YMMV.

Also of note, this is Rep. Mark Takai's home precinct, he was there to support Clinton. Apparently the Sanders supporters are threatening to primary him because of that support (he is a superdelegate), and the guy that they are gonna run against him is some dude who apparently isn't even from Hawaii.

 

[Ecotic]

Quinnipiac NY:

Among likely Democratic voters, Clinton backed by 54%, Sen. Bernie Sanders 42%

Among likely GOP voters, it’s Trump 56%, Sen. Ted Cruz 20%, Ohio Gov. John Kasich 19%

 

[Y2Kev]

Wow if Q is saying a 12% hillary win then this is gonna be a blowwww out

 

[CCS]

Wow if Q is saying a 12% hillary win then this is gonna be a blowwww out

Wall Street 1-0 Sanders.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Sanders raised another $39M in March (so far)

Spoiler

to burn through

.

 

[Diablos]

When is Hillary going to be interviewed by the FBI?

 

[KtSlime]

He's burning through cash without getting much to show for it. On the last Super Tuesday, he outspent Hillary by $8 million dollars over 5 days and lost every state.

We're also not talking about his money. We're talking about raising money for other candidates. No one's asking him to take money out of his own coffer. He could do a fund raiser or send out an email blast asking people to donate.

What I think most of us are being critical of is not that he hasn't done it thus far (although I think that's ridiculous) but his comments tonight on Rachel Maddow. He wants a revolution, but he only seems to be worried about electing himself. Not anyone else. I hate to break this to him, but if he has to fight the Democratic caucus on everything, he's not going to be effective. He needs majorities to do anything, and saying "We'll see..." when asked if he'll help them is not a good look.

Wouldn't there at least need to be a candidate worth supporting? Who can he help raise money for? Who is a viable candidate who pledges not to take bribes? I think it would be message suicide to keep his hands clean in the race all the while helping politicians who do take corporate money get elected.

Edit: I'm working from the assumption that pretty much all the democrats have taken corporate money for their campaigns. Is there a list of those who have not been bought?

 

[gcubed]

Wouldn't there at least need to be a candidate worth supporting? Who can he help raise money for? Who is a viable candidate who pledges not to take bribes? I think it would be message suicide to keep his hands clean in the race all the while helping politicians who do take corporate money get elected.

Then I question why he is running for president if he thinks no one who actually passes laws is worthy.

He will just sit on TV for 4 years wagging his finger and lecturing us about wall Street?

 

[Officerrob]

Wouldn't there at least need to be a candidate worth supporting? Who can he help raise money for? Who is a viable candidate who pledges not to take bribes? I think it would be message suicide to keep his hands clean in the race all the while helping politicians who do take corporate money get elected.

Ahh, so down ballot Dems must pass a Bernie purity test in order to be part of his "revolution". Good luck with that.

 

[KtSlime]

Then I question why he is running for president if he thinks no one who actually passes laws is worthy.

He will just sit on TV for 4 years wagging his finger and lecturing us about wall Street?

To me it beats 4 years of bowing head to Wall Street and agreeing to whatever they want passed as law.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Wouldn't there at least need to be a candidate worth supporting? Who can he help raise money for? Who is a viable candidate who pledges not to take bribes? I think it would be message suicide to keep his hands clean in the race all the while helping politicians who do take corporate money get elected.

Edit: I'm working from the assumption that pretty much all the democrats have taken corporate money for their campaigns. Is there a list of those who have not been bought?

Nope. Not even Russ Feingold, a former senator who has done more to curb corporate money in politics than any other politician(certainly including Sanders)

 

[shinra-bansho]

Maybe he'll bow to Silicon Valley instead. Since his largest contributions come from companies there. ( ͡º ͜ʖ ͡º)

 

[noshten]

Ahh, so down ballot Dems must pass a Bernie purity test in order to be part of his "revolution". Good luck with that.

They must kiss the ring of our supreme leader who will bask in the blood of the establishment.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

To me it beats 4 years of bowing head to Wall Street and agreeing to whatever they want passed as law.

Like Dodd-Frank right?

 

[Kyosaiga]

To me it beats 4 years of bowing head to Wall Street and agreeing to whatever they want passed as law.

Why do people have this simplistic view of corporate influence?

Jesus

 

[KtSlime]

Like Dodd-Frank right?

Dodd-Frank is a poor-mans Glass-Steagall. It might have been the best we could do at the time, but it is a pretty compromised reform, especially when trying to cover up the hole made by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a much more comprehensive reform. I am of the opinion that reforms should get more air-tight over time.

The past few Democratic Presidents have been incredibly pro-Wall Street, let's not pretend they haven't.

Why do people have this simplistic view of corporate influence?

Jesus

It should be pretty simple. Corporations should have no influence.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Dodd-Frank is a poor-mans Glass-Steagall. It might have been the best we could do at the time, but it is a pretty compromised reform, especially when trying to cover up the hole made by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a much more comprehensive reform. I am of the opinion that reforms should get more air-tight over time.

The past few Democratic Presidents have been incredibly pro-Wall Street, let's not pretend they haven't.

Feingold agreed with you to the point that he didn't even vote for it. He was greatly disappointed how little it went.

Still not pure enough tho.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Dodd-Frank is a poor-mans Glass-Steagall. It might have been the best we could do at the time, but it is a pretty compromised reform, especially when trying to cover up the hole made by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a much more comprehensive reform. I am of the opinion that reforms should get more air-tight over time.

The past few Democratic Presidents have been incredibly pro-Wall Street, let's not pretend they haven't.



It should be pretty simple. Corporations should have no influence.

Ah, that's why Wall Street went on an all out assault against Dodd-Frank because it was very weak.

Also, the legislation could have been stronger if Democrats had majority, which they didn't at that time. That's why if Sanders wants his utopia to come to life he has to help down ballot Dems but he has shown ZERO interest in doing so.

I guess for Sanders nothing is good enough unless he wrote it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

What exactly is it about hard separation of commercial and investment banking that the left of the left are so enamoured with exactly? Other than it making for pithy meaningless catch phrases about breaking up things.

 

[CCS]

What exactly is it about hard separation of commercial and investment banking that the left of the left are so enamoured with exactly? Other than it making for pithy meaningless catch phrases about breaking up things.

It's the old simple solution to complex problem blinkers.

 

[KtSlime]

Nope. Not even Russ Feingold, a former senator who has done more to curb corporate money in politics than any other politician(certainly including Sanders)

Feingold agreed with you to the point that he didn't even vote for it. He was greatly disappointed how little it went.

Still not pure enough tho.

I am sorry, I'm probably a bit slow as I have been in a country without sarcasm for the past few years. Are these politicians who have not taken corporate money. If their hands are clean, they ought to be supported by Sanders. When they are brought to his attention, and he blows them off with a "well..." then I shall reconsider my stance.

 

[damisa]

What exactly is it about hard separation of commercial and investment banking that the left of the left are so enamoured with exactly? Other than it making for pithy meaningless catch phrases about breaking up things.

I don't get it either, Glass steagel would have done nothing to prevent the recession. I think a lot of Bernie fans don't actually understand how financial markets work, which is understandable since Bernie clearly doesn't

 

[User 406]

Since everyone loves making asparagus and it's in season, buy a couple pounds and make some creamy asparagus soup. Asparagus, a yellow onion, heavy cream, vermouth, lemon juice, and a Ninja is all it takes.

Ninja rox. I make my peanut butter and pie crust dough with it.

The Presidential election isn't really the concern anymore, it's the downticket races and Trump is still by far the most damaging there.

I'm not so sure. If the RNC decides to pick someone other than Trump, a lot of his more frustrated followers might just break with the GOP altogether, which would heavily change the downticket calculus as well. I really don't know which outcome would have the biggest effect.

It's insane, and it's getting to the point where I'd have a tough time supporting him in the general election if it came to that. I'd rather vote for Bloomberg than someone this delusional.

You guys are working yourselves into the same vicious cycle of outrage that leads to the same kind of intransigence you're complaining about. Calm down.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Dodd-Frank is a poor-mans Glass-Steagall. It might have been the best we could do at the time, but it is a pretty compromised reform, especially when trying to cover up the hole made by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a much more comprehensive reform. I am of the opinion that reforms should get more air-tight over time.

The past few Democratic Presidents have been incredibly pro-Wall Street, let's not pretend they haven't.



It should be pretty simple. Corporations should have no influence.

How can one actually exist in such a black and white world.

 

[Maledict]

What exactly is it about hard separation of commercial and investment banking that the left of the left are so enamoured with exactly? Other than it making for pithy meaningless catch phrases about breaking up things.

I honestly don't know. Glass-Seagall didn't cause the 2008 crisis, it wouldn't have prevented it, and re-enacting it won't stop the next crisis.

I guess it's a simple easy thing to talk about, with the added benefit that you can blame Clinton for repealing it as well.

 

[User 463088]

Wouldn't there at least need to be a candidate worth supporting? Who can he help raise money for? Who is a viable candidate who pledges not to take bribes? I think it would be message suicide to keep his hands clean in the race all the while helping politicians who do take corporate money get elected.

Edit: I'm working from the assumption that pretty much all the democrats have taken corporate money for their campaigns. Is there a list of those who have not been bought?

Let's say, for sake of argument, that I agree that donations are "bribes' and that those who take corporate money are "bought"

Who in the heck does Sanders think is going to work with him? If no one is worthy of him, why is he doing this again? And, if the purpose of his candidacy is to get these magical political unicorns elected, the fact that he's raising no money to help these people get elected is doubly troubling, no?

 

[QuiteWhittle]

I am sorry, I'm probably a bit slow as I have been in a country without sarcasm for the past few years. Are these politicians who have not taken corporate money. If their hands are clean, they ought to be supported by Sanders. When they are brought to his attention, and he blows them off with a "well..." then I shall reconsider my stance.

No, Feingold has taken corporate money...it just hasn't prevented him from being a visible force against corporate money as well. Things are complicated and I'd rather judge someone by their actual voting record and actions over their OpenSecrets.org financial profile.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm assuming that by "taking corporate money" we're referring to taking donations from people who work at... corporations...?

 

[User 463088]

I'm assuming that by "taking corporate money" we're referring to taking donations from people who work at... corporations...?

Ya, but working for a corporation is fraud, tho.

 

[Y2Kev]

Corporations do have their own PACs. But that's the only way corporations can actually directly give. Even corporate PACs are comprised of employee contributions tho.

 

[Officerrob]

Corporations do have their own PACs. But that's the only way corporations can actually directly give. Even corporate PACs are comprised of employee contributions tho.

Sorry, if you work for a corporation and want to contribute, you don't pass the Bernie purity test