Support NeoGAF

[FiggyCal]

I think he has? I'm not very well informed on this but I thought there was some sort of big rift going on in the Libertarians right now.

I misremembered it. What he actually said was that he doesn't want to take drone strikes off the table.

I just remembered there being some confusion when he did a Reason interview a while back and seemed to have some non-libertarian stances on foreign policy.

 

[shinra-bansho]

So... without sounding like too muck of a jerk... I'm not sure what kind of response you expect for that massive wall of text.

Like, I tried to read it in full. And then I eventually began skimming. And then kind of gave up and wanted an executive summary or something.

It might be better to boil it down to a few more succinct points...

From what I did get through. The idea that anyone should be reporting on there being a bunch of people on a reddit seems like the height of millennial entitlement. Blaming awful behaviour on some sort of 4chan conspiracy is a massive cop out. This week has shown how little vetting he's gotten and thus any claims about beating Trump by more continue to ring false. And the VP should not be decided on the basis of appeasing the remaining loonies.

 

[ampere]

This is my favorite

So... without sounding like too muck of a jerk... I'm not sure what kind of response you expect for that massive wall of text.

Like, I tried to read it in full. And then I eventually began skimming. And then kind of gave up and wanted an executive summary or something.

It might be better to boil it down to a few more succinct points...

The terrorist's law demands you read it or copulate with a dolphin

 

[gcubed]

I would have believed it was mostly bullshit until Nevada, but post Nevada it's just basically Bernie's base of support and that he coddles and encourages the bullshit.

I still think that the vast majority of his voters would vote for Clinton (we saw it in polls already at higher rates then Obama/Clinton) but after Nevada and the stories of his campaign directly encouraging the fuckery... no, he gets no pass

The crossover is enough, combined with facing someone who badly loses every demographic besides white men, I'd be willing to take my chances to tell him to go screw himself after that "or else" letter

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, the point of a VP generally is to cover demographic weaknesses. Obama picked Biden because he was white and experienced and so covered Obama being black and relatively new, McCain picked Palin because he was old and male and Palin being young and a woman broke up the whole "Republicans are an old man party" image. Clinton struggles with Sanders' demographic, and so will probably pick a VP that appeals to them - not as appeasement (or at least, only marginally) but just because it is the sensible thing to do.

 

[Teggy]

Why does anyone think Hillary has anything to do with that lawsuit? Hillary went to some lawyers that also hate her and told them to file a lawsuit against Bernie?

 

[royalan]

I mean, the point of a VP generally is to cover demographic weaknesses. Obama picked Biden because he was white and experienced and so covered Obama being black and relatively new, McCain picked Palin because he was old and male and Palin being young and a woman broke up the whole "Republicans are an old man party" image. Clinton struggles with Sanders' demographic, and so will probably pick a VP that appeals to them - not as appeasement (or at least, only marginally) but just because it is the sensible thing to do.

I agree. But good Lord anybody but Sanders at this point.

I'm really warming up to Warren lately. She's a better progressive than Bernie would ever be, with a name just as big (hell, bigger before he ran). And something tells me by her actions lately that she's on a very short list.

I just hope they have a plan for her Senate seat.

 

[FiggyCal]

I would have believed it was mostly bullshit until Nevada, but post Nevada it's just basically Bernie's base of support and that he coddles and encourages the bullshit.

I still think that the vast majority of his voters would vote for Clinton (we saw it in polls already at higher rates then Obama/Clinton) but after Nevada and the stories of his campaign directly encouraging the fuckery... no, he gets no pass

The crossover is enough, combined with facing someone who badly loses every demographic besides white men, I'd be willing to take my chances to tell him to go screw himself after that "or else" letter

I'm mostly out of the loop with Sander's campaign. I don't really follow it closely and I'm asking this earnestly: how did his campaign encourage what happened in Nevada?

Edit: Warren would convince a lot of the Bernie-or-busters, but are they really that large a group to even cater to? If Hillary does get 70-80% of the Sander's vote after he loses, maybe there's a better pick out there that goes after another demographic. Why not white men if that's Trump's winning audience?

 

[Y2Kev]

I think they should pick Warren, but barring Warren, someone who resembles Warren but is black or Latino. That could be Perez. I just feel like you don't get that name recognition bang. like OMG WARRNE!1111

How about someone gay?

Not really a bridge to a demo she is weak with, and may be too much for bigoted housewives in Wisconsin.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I agree. But good Lord anybody but Sanders at this point.

I'm really warming up to Warren lately. She's a better progressive than Bernie would ever be, with a name just as big (hell, bigger before he ran). And something tells me by her actions lately that she's on a very short list.

I just hope they have a plan for her Senate seat.

Why would you want Warren as VP? She is super valuable pushing the progressive agenda in the Senate. The VP has absolutely no power, it is a symbolic position that just indicates a particular willingness on the behalf of the President candidate in question to reach to a given demographic. There are many, many ways Clinton can reach out to Sanders supporters without selecting Warren, so why pick her when you incur such a massive opportunity cost? I just don't get it, it's really wasting her potential. Not to mention they're both white, elderly women from typically blue states that are associated with well-off, ivory tower Democratic elites; it just does nothing for Clinton.

The more I think about it, the more Perez is a *great* choice. He's Latino, but not so Latino that the white post-industrial working class will find him threatening, if you catch my drift. He has a long track record of doing sterling work on labour relations, he's someone that I think Sanders and Sanders supporters would very much approve of. He's a man and might help temper at least some of the misogynist vitriol. He speaks fluent Spanish. He's really smart and presents himself well, I think he'd absolutely crush a debate. He just ticks all the right boxes.

 

[Y2Kev]

I like her b/c she is being mean to trump

And clinton seems to be unable to do that so far!!!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I like her b/c she is being mean to trump

And clinton seems to be unable to do that so far!!!

She has a high enough profile she can be mean to Trump and it have impact regardless of whether she is VP or not, though.

 

[Teggy]

Does Perez have a birth certificate? Asking for a friend with bad hair.

 

[royalan]

Why would you want Warren as VP? She is super valuable pushing the progressive agenda in the Senate. The VP has absolutely no power, it is a symbolic position that just indicates a particular willingness on the behalf of the President candidate in question to reach to a given demographic. There are many, many ways Clinton can reach out to Sanders supporters without selecting Warren, so why pick her when you incur such a massive opportunity cost? I just don't get it, it's really wasting her potential. Not to mention they're both white, elderly women from typically blue states that are associated with well-off, ivory tower Democratic elites; it just does nothing for Clinton.

No. I agree. I was saying exactly this up until two weeks ago.

But since Bernie's not going to play nice, I think Hillary could use a big name on the ticket. A strong progressive. And there's no bigger name than Warren in that regard.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No. I agree. I was saying exactly this up until two weeks ago.

But since Bernie's not going to play nice, I think Hillary could use a big name on the ticket. A strong progressive. And there's no bigger name than Warren in that regard.

Bernie will play nice; you just have to be patient. Besides, there's at least a little tension between Sanders supporters and Warren after she failed to endorse him and he then lost Massachusetts so narrowly. I don't think she'll have quite as much draw as you expect, compared to Perez who is an unknown face and so when Sanders says "we can work with this guy", there's no history to suggest otherwise.

 

[ampere]

I just hope they have a plan for her Senate seat.

Unless there can be a 100% certain guarantee that the state legislature can successfully change the rules and make sure a Dem gets appointed, she's not viable at all in my mind.

I'm still on team Perez. Young and up and coming, groom him for the future

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Why would you want Warren as VP? She is super valuable pushing the progressive agenda in the Senate. The VP has absolutely no power, it is a symbolic position that just indicates a particular willingness on the behalf of the President candidate in question to reach to a given demographic. There are many, many ways Clinton can reach out to Sanders supporters without selecting Warren, so why pick her when you incur such a massive opportunity cost? I just don't get it, it's really wasting her potential. Not to mention they're both white, elderly women from typically blue states that are associated with well-off, ivory tower Democratic elites; it just does nothing for Clinton.

I think that Warren is like Sanders in that she has become a face of the Citizen United fight. She knows that breaking up the banks is a simplistic interpretation of a complex problem, but it's a better sell for the public.
Warren brings integrity, something that Clinton lacks.
I'm scared to death of what will happen with things like TPP and similar deals. I'd be much more comfortable that somebody who'd at least voice out her opinions for the little people. It'd be a good sparring partner for clinton, who compromises.
Warren ethics line up with Sanders, and she is a counter to military expansion, and shares many of his economic views. She has not endorsed Sanders so picking her is not rewarding Bernies craziness.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Obama and McCain picked running mates to cover perceived demographic or experience weaknesses for the general though. The mentality shouldn't be about the few privileged Jill Stein holdouts.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Obama and McCain picked running mates to cover perceived demographic or experience weaknesses for the general though.

sure, but Clinton and Trump are so far apart that I doubt there's any real VP Clinton could pick that would somehow siphon off Trump supporters. The number of genuine swing voters in this presidential is going to be absolutely tiny; it's going to be a contest of mobilization of existing voters and not a competition for the centre. That means finding someone that excites Sanders fans is covering a weakness in the general; they're one and the same.

 

[metalslimer]

Obama and McCain picked running mates to cover perceived demographic or experience weaknesses for the general though.

Which is honestly why I don't think she needs to go out of her way to pick another minority even though it would be awesome.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

This did make me chuckle a little.

Orange Gatorade and whipped vodka was as successful as Bernies campaign this week. Sad.

Adam.. You really need to take a mixology class or something..

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Perez is a thin-voiced, unengaging speaker. I don't think he's an up-and-comer possible future POTUS, unless he has deep pockets of charisma he discovers in the next few years.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Which is honestly why I don't think she needs to go out of her way to pick another minority even though it would be awesome.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. At one stage I thought she might need it to keep enthusiasm up amongst minority voters, but looking at polling we should be seeing higher turnout amongst minorities than non-minorities for a third presidential election running, plus she'll have Obama stumping for her. Obviously more minority representation is in and of itself a good thing, but I'm not sure it'll have that much electoral impact this time.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

I think that Warren is like Sanders in that she has become a face of the Citizen United fight. She knows that breaking up the banks is a simplistic interpretation of a complex problem, but it's a better sell for the public.

She knows that or is that something you mistakenly believe?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Perez is a thin-voiced, unengaging speaker. I don't think he's an up-and-comer possible future POTUS, unless he has deep pockets of charisma he discovers in the next few years.

I disagree, quite strongly, actually. You're right he's thin-voiced, but he can definitely be an engaging speaker, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byV_O_6C0gU Thin voice can be tackled by voice coaches these days, look at e.g. Ed Miliband's transformation in the UK for a relatively extreme example.

I mean, sure, he's no Obama or Biden, but who is?

EDIT: You're right he's no future POTUS, but I don't think future POTUS' will want to be tacked to Clinton as VPs anyway. It's not like the VP has a fantastic historical track record at becoming president later on and given historical trends there are strong reasons to suppose that Clinton will be a one-term president anyway.

 

[FiggyCal]

And even though libertarian party turnout might increase this year; I think it's noteworthy that their debates are still cringe worthy. Although still not as bad as green party debates somehow.

Edit: Elizabeth Warren is extremely soft-spoken, but she is an effective speaker that gets people excited. I'm not sure what counts as "thin-voiced", but I don't think that's as much an issue as what you're actually saying. Unless you're Jeb Bush and have zero charisma and can't finish one single sentence without stuttering and confusing your words. Barney Frank has a really terrible voice and still gets people whipped.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Giving Sanders the VP slot or any sort of meaningful position within the party or Hillary's administration would just be rewarding his behavior at this point. Attacking the DNC with lies and misinformation. Attacking long-standing Democrats and demanding their jobs for disagreeing with you. Purity tests. Tacit encouragement of doxxing by your supporters. Slandering AIDS activists and Planned Parenthood as corporate shills when they don't stump for you. list goes on. You don't reward behavior like that. You create the tea party when you reward behavior like that.

I'm not fully on the Drek train of "I'd rather Trump won than the DNC further capitulate to this man" yet (even though he's more right than wrong and his posts have been flawless). But I don't think the situation with Madman Bernie has gotten so out of hand that Hillary/DNC can't right the ship without giving into Bernie's shit.

A part of me understands where the resentment comes from. The scheduling of those debates fucked over Sanders. They really needed more than 6 debates, and they really needed them better scheduled. Almost everyone agreed that it seemed like foul play, but why the anger wasn't isolated to DWS, I do not understand.
I agree with you, and it was good that they didn't start negotiations like this by agreeing to remove those DNC committee members.

But I'd hope that they would sit down and negotiate on terms that make sense (optimism!). I really want to believe Sanders is only boosting and puffing his chest to try and Finnish strong and then compromise, but the superdelegate flip tactic has be worried.
It's a flipflop by bernie. Super delegates are bad, and they make for a confusing electoral system that helps create the circumstances for conspiracy theories to allow to exist. Him taking part in trying to gain power by circumventing them is sort of a "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

 

[gaugebozo]

I know there's already a plan for this, but my personal suggestion for Democratic convention thread:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ait_Fs6UQhQ

 

[FiggyCal]

A part of me understands where the resentment comes from. The scheduling of those debates fucked over Sanders. They really needed more than 6 debates, and they really needed them better scheduled. Almost everyone agreed that it seemed like foul play, but why the anger wasn't isolated to DWS, I do not understand.
I agree with you, and it was good that they didn't start negotiations like this by agreeing to remove those DNC committee members.

But I'd hope that they would sit down and negotiate on terms that make sense (optimism!). I really want to believe Sanders is only boosting and puffing his chest to try and Finnish strong and then compromise, but the superdelegate flip tactic has be worried.
It's a flipflop by bernie. Super delegates are bad, and they make for a confusing electoral system that helps create the circumstances for conspiracy theories to allow to exist. Him taking part in trying to gain power by circumventing them is sort of a "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

The obvious answer seems to be that it was likely due to Bernie himself calling the process rigged and pointing fingers at everyone in the establishment.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, DWS was Clinton's personal choice and only became DNC chair because it was one of Obama's concessions to Clinton; it's hardly surprising that if DWS fucks up some of the anger will spill over to Clinton.

 

[Makai]

Hillary/Romney 2016. Wrecked

 

[shinra-bansho]

What the shit is thin voiced and why the crap should it matter? Is this like the male equivalent of "shrill". I'm not necessarily sold on Perez but the pitch or volume of his voice as a disqualification is just stupid.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

She knows that or is that something you mistakenly believe?

Sorry, that was worded wrong. Regarding the banks; she, like Sanders have talked about the Glass–Steagall Legislation. Economists have said that it was simplistic interpretation and that it wouldn't have stopped it.
Basically she came out and said that she knows that, but people are more familiar with Glass-Steagall so she uses that as a sell to get people to tune into the problem.

It's very hard to talk about shadow banking without sounding crazy because there is so little on the books. It might as well be something you hear about on alex jones:d





What are the chances that Joe Biden would be a vice president again? Is he allowed to do that?

 

[sc0la]

I think he has? I'm not very well informed on this but I thought there was some sort of big rift going on in the Libertarians right now.

So there is precedent to having Bernie recommend someone. Also googling this I learned that based Donna Brazile was an interim DNC chair for one month before DWS.

I wouldn't mind having her do it again permanently, but maybe they want someone in elected office?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What the shit is thin voiced and why the crap should it matter? Is this like the male equivalent of "shrill". I'm not necessarily sold on Perez but the pitch or volume of his voice as a disqualification is just stupid.

Unfortunately, a reasonable large part of voting patterns can be predicted by physical characteristics of the candidates. Having a high-pitched voice is one of those characteristics associated with poorer electoral performance, although thankfully not as strongly as some of the others (like height). While nobody ought to care about it in and of itself, unfortunately some people do, which gives people concerned with electoral performance an instrumental reason to care about it.

tld;r politics sux

Thankfully I don't think Perez is a particularly bad example of this.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Warren actually knows things, Sanders just talks things.

Warren has also already been through national media scrutiny so that helps

 

[Mike M]

Had a dream last night that I woke up this morning and Sanders had suspended his campaign after the past few days of bad press with the demands of the DNC and the HIV/AIDS nonendorsement.

*Sigh* nope...

 

[kess]

I doubt Sanders would even want VP. It's a pretty big waste of a position.

No, this would not be a good thing. At all. If Democrats think bargaining with him is a pain now, imagine a guy like this blowing up delicate compromises every time there's a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

What the shit is thin voiced and why the crap should it matter? Is this like the male equivalent of "shrill". I'm not necessarily sold on Perez but the pitch or volume of his voice as a disqualification is just stupid.

Americans will always, always hone in on the superficial qualities of candidates as markers of character, judgment, etc. It's not fair, it's not a mark against the man as a policymaker (though I'm unfamiliar with him, honestly), but there's a reason why a dumb but cocksure guy like George W. Bush could get elected POTUS while a smart but passionless and stiff guy like Kerry couldn't make much of a case for himself (though of course those aren't the only factors at play in that win or that loss). You have to play by factoring in the electorate you have, not the electorate you'd like, and Perez, to me, has "flop" written all over him as some kind of future POTUS candidate as was suggested earlier in the thread.

 

[Maledict]

Americans will always, always hone in on the superficial qualities of candidates as markers of character, judgment, etc. It's not fair, it's not a mark against the man as a policymaker (though I'm unfamiliar with him, honestly), but there's a reason why a dumb but cocksure guy like George W. Bush could get elected POTUS while a smart but passionless and stiff guy like Kerry couldn't make much of a case for himself (though of course that's not the only factor at play in that loss). You have to play by factoring in the electorate you have, not the electorate you'd like, and Perez, to me, has "flop" written all over him.

It's not Americans - it's everyone. Thatcher had to have voice coach lessons after all. We all judge on superficial things like voice quality, height, lack of hair etc.

Worse are all the studies showing that good looking people get lighter sentences during court proceedings... ;-(

 

[ampere]

Perez is pretty fiery about helping the middle class, and his passion shows in his speech. I think even though he's not a household name, his message could resonate with a lot of voters

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Rubio was also asked if Trump should tone down his attacks on Hillary Clinton, which have recently included raising the conspiracy theory that she was involved in the death of Vince Foster. “I don’t think he should change if he’s been successful,” Rubio said.
.
He is also public apologizing to Trump for making a joke about his small hands.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...publicly-apologizes-trump-saying-small-hands/

spoilers: Rubio has a tiny, pencil dick.

 

[kess]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...publicly-apologizes-trump-saying-small-hands/

spoilers: Rubio has a tiny, pencil dick.

I'm getting shades of that guy who apologized to Cheney for getting shot in the face. Dick worship.

 

[benjipwns]

Worse are all the studies showing that good looking people get lighter sentences during court proceedings... ;-(

So do lighter looking people.

 

[Bowdz]

Perez is pretty fiery about helping the middle class, and his passion shows in his speech. I think even though he's not a household name, his message could resonate with a lot of voters

Agreed.

He has been working just as hard for working class families as Warren and would undoubtedly help with messaging in the rust belt. Either of them are great and will placate progressives to a certain extent, although Perez has the added bonus of being hispanic and speaking fluent Spanish.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

So do lighter looking people.

Benji, do you think Gary Johnson can still get the nomination even though he doesn't want to sell heroin to five year olds.

 

[Makai]

Benji is rooting for Macafee

 

[benjipwns]

Libertarianism has always fascinated me because it's such a uniquely American philosophy. As far as I can tell it's never gained support anywhere else in the world barring a few kookie individuals.

It shows that despite a similar language, there are some very fundamental differences between our two countries in terms of political thinking.

It's because European nations had distinctly classically liberal parties opposed by both the conservatives and socialists that existed for some time. Along with the distinctly social liberal parties and the parliamentary/PR/etc. systems it's allowed those parties to not be subsumed into two primary ones.

Some of them still outperform the LP and get elected though a few have been kneecapped in recent years compared to the 1990s:
Partido Movimiento Libertario (Costa Rica)
FDP.The Liberals (Switzerland)
Free Democratic Party (Germany)
Estonian Reform Party (Estonia)
ACT New Zealand (New Zealand)
Freedom and Solidarity (Slovakia)
VVD/D66 (Netherlands)

Nearly all the European Social Liberal Parties like D66 would be more acceptable to incrementalist libertarians.

The American system never has had distinct parties of any sort. The UK Liberals have sided with Labour, The Social Democrats (where they picked up the "Democrats" tagline) and recently the Tories in our lifetimes. Any kind of coalition movements like that were happening within the Democratic and Republican Parties, not as a separate electoral force.

Much like the frozen wasteland to the north, America's more successful third parties all had/have regional roots.

Benji, do you think Gary Johnson can still get the nomination even though he doesn't want to sell heroin to five year olds.

He should maintain the delegates, Weld is probably gone though.

I think the delegates are seeing Petersen more as a major future candidate since this is Gary's last go around anyway. It's funny that this story only got picked up in the last week when Petersen has been attacking Johnson over the 1964 CRA for months now.

But, stupider things have happened. Barr, Bob. Badnarik, Michael.

 

[Makai]

Jeb still has more endorsements than Trump

 

[benjipwns]

This started the flip of the party online polls for Petersen, but that's not representative of the delegates at the convention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg