Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

To be fair, the push for a debate is only win/win for him. He gets her to agree, he can fundraise off it. He doesn't get her to agree, he fundraises off it. She doesn't do it, he can bash her for an hour in prime time. He gets her to do it, he can yell at her for an hour in primetime.

He has to do what he has to do to get those $27 donations to keep coming in...cause, he probably isn't making bank at the moment, and goodness knows how much he has to refund because they couldn't keep shit straight.

 

[Dominican Power]

Having not recently suffered a revolution or a foreign-military occupation, Americans haven't seen this phenomenon much, but the effortless treason of top-tier Republicans once Trump locked up the nomination was the most predictable part of this story. Politicians, particularly this group, are like crackheads: You can get them to debase themselves completely for whatever's in your pocket, even if it's just lint.

My god. Still reading it.

 

[BanGy.nz]

A debate on Fox News, at the end of the campaign, against a desperate opponent who can't accept he lost. What could possibly go wrong?

No kidding, she should avoid any and all contact with Bernie until after he concedes, If he takes it to the convention just crush him and pick Warren as VP.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If Hillary refuses I can see him going scorched earth on Shillary and crooked DNC

What else could he possibly say or do at this point that would matter? He's already gone scorched earth with NV's convention.

 

[Fuchsdh]

While I agree with your assessment that things like racial resentment matter more, I think a significant amount of Republicans, even those not well off, do believe in their bullshit economics. Dodd-Frank is killing corporations. Taxes killing America. Etc.

edit: But they believe them in generalities. When you ask specific policy questions, things change.

It's not much different with plenty of Democrats, as witnessed by this "free trade is a lie!" mantra Bernie's been hammering. It's like people got hit in the head with a tire iron and think we're back in the 1700s and Adam Smith is still relevant.

Anti-GMOs. Anti-vaccines. Anti-academic freedom. We've got a wonderful streak of "progressive" liberals who are as batshit insane as the gun-toting yokels they like to make fun of.

As for racial resentment, I think it's a much more general case of "give them an enemy." You can convince people to spite others pretty easily—"they're not real Americans!"

 

[Ophelion]

No kidding, she should avoid any and all contact with Bernie until after he concedes, If he takes it to the convention just crush him and pick Warren as VP.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Dominican Power]

Warren doesn't want to be VP. Why put all your eggs in one basket

 

[Cesare Borgia]

There's no way Clinton will debate Sanders. It's over. This seems like little more than one last talking point ("Hillary is scared to debate Bernie before the major CS primary, donate to force her to").

 

[mo60]

LMAO. At trump trying to turn the republican convention into a tv show. I can't wait until his idea backfires badly for the republicans.

 

[Frozenprince]

Willett is a hoot. He makes me miss Austin sometimes.

Yep. Guy's hysterical. Would make a pretty solid SC justice.

 

[AndyD]

I have to be totally honest - I've had a Come to Jesus moment this election in regards to this thanks to Bernie. ...
I still think they are wrong and have no issue voicing my opinion as such, but I've realized being patronizing isn't an appropriate strategy no matter how tempting.

Also as a white male living in the south I do think that a bit of prodding and condescension is appropriate when those people try to argue they are doing it for economic reasons when in reality it's social. They try so hard to not be viewed as racist or religious, they cling to any other sales lines the politicians espouse, even when that's proven it makes no sense.

Yeah, I've read a bit on Hedgehogs vs. Foxes before in Signal in the Noise, Nate Silver's book (good read btw). It's an interesting way of looking at the world. You certainly do see some people get super wrapped up in using a single concept to explain everything.

It's an old theory that this covers a large part of the world, with a few other sidelines types.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Warren doesn't want to be VP. Why put all your eggs in one basket

That's plan B, plan A is Bernie actively helps putting out the fires his campaign have started. Plan C is overturning the 22nd amendment and Obama running for a third term.

#GodKingObama

 

[Big Baybee]

So do people still think Bernie is going to stump for Hillary?

 

[B-Dubs]

So do people still think Bernie is going to stump for Hillary?

Nope. Not a chance of that happening. Dude's going to give, at most, a tepid endorsement, and the nope out back to Vermont.

 

[Ophelion]

So do people still think Bernie is going to stump for Hillary?

At this point, I would be shocked.

We'll be lucky if he even publicly admits he lost.

 

[User 463088]

So, this is going to be long(ish) and it's going to generalize people. Not in a negative sense, but just for me to make an argument about something.

I few months ago, I would have said Hillary's veep choice should be about building a candidate for 2024. I've changed my mind on that completely. If she wins in 2016 and 2020, there's going to be a direct administration line from 2008 through now. She was part of the 08 team and has tied herself so closely with Obama that she's not going to break that. If we've controlled the White House for 16 years, I feel like new blood is going to be needed to make the case that we should retain the keys, so to speak.

So, my argument before the bench one was that she should pick a candidate that fills a demographic hole she has. It's not with women, AA, LGBT voters and, because the right picked Trump, Latino voters either. We could argue it's young voters, but there is polling out there that shows she's leading like 60/30 with those under 30. So, again, I'm left with the realization that she's fine demographically.

Bernie's campaign has made her problem ideological. I feel like she's going to have to try to appease the far, far left Bernie supporters. I think we can divide them into three groups:

1) Democrats/Democratic leaning independents who prefer Bernie, but have no issue voting for Queen at all.

2) Democrats/Democratic leaning independents who have reservations about voting for Queen because corporations! Wall Street! Goldman Sach's! Fraud!

3) People who may or may not be Democrats who are far, far left, probably don't vote anyway (or haven't voted or voted Dem in a long time) who are anti-establishment pro-bandwagon.

She doesn't have to really worry about number the 1st. Number the 3rd doesn't matter because I think this group is relatively small and nothing you say or do is going to appease them anyway. She needs a pick that helps her with group 2.

I think she needs to raid the left(er) side of the party for the selection. Someone like Perez has the policy cred for that role. BUT, he doesn't have the image or the name recognition among this group of people. Group 2, I feel, is more about ideological purity than specific policy, since Bernie really doesn't have a ton of policy positions anyway.

So, she needs someone with name recognition and that purity, who has the experience and can be an effective attack dog. Bernie is out because LOLOLOLOLOL....so that leaves me with Warren. I wasn't on the Warren bandwagon before, but I really, really think it makes sense. The far left middle (aka Group 2) aren't totally pissed with her for not endorsing, those are the CT people in Group 3, an even smaller subset of the group. She has the experience. She's got the purity thing going...and I'll be damned if she's not an effective attack dog.

Thoughts?

 

[B-Dubs]

If her math has really changed that much, then I would agree. I'm not so sure it has, but you make a reasonable argument. If she were to take this route the party would need to work a lot harder to build the bench because right now you can count the potential nominees on one hand and two of them are from the same state.

 

[User 463088]

If her math has really changed that much, then I would agree. I'm not so sure it has, but you make a reasonable argument. If she were to take this route the party would need to work a lot harder to build the bench because right now you can count the potential nominees on one hand and two of them are from the same state.

I agree that I'm not entirely sure the math has changed. To me, it's more about the fast track to party unity. You don't have to bother with Bernie being Bernie at that point. No one in their right mind would argue that Bernie and Warren aren't ideologically in step. You put her on the ticket, Bernie can't be a voice against it. Plus, if he refuses to support her whole heartily....screw it. We have Warren.

The other reason I lean that way is Hillary doesn't have a ton of experience gaps. She doesn't need help on foreign policy. She doesn't need help with economic issues, so far as how the economy works. National security? Ready to lead? She's consistently great on that. I don't know that regional balancing is super important this time either.

A Warren pick is, in my opinion, the fast track to party unity.

 

[hawk2025]

I'm of a completely different mind.

I think running towards the left to try and court an increasingly irrational segment of the left that might not even show up is flirting with the possibility of losing the center.

 

[HylianTom]

Thankfully, Hillary has a few things going for her on the VP pick.
- she bats last, so she can see how she'd need to counter an odd or strong Trump selection
- she has a bit of time.

And time is important. Her campaign can test to see if the numbers settle between June 7th and the convention. They can see if a Warren pick would nudge the gender gap a bit more wide open, or the millennial margin, or if Warren's toughness on Wall Street would help perceptions of Hillary in that department. They can test to see if certain segments of voters would like or dislike a Kaine pick, and they can see if Kaine would move the needle in Virginia significantly. (Similar questions for other candidates.)

I used to be >90% on the Kaine train, and I still lean in his direction, but if research shows that Warren would move the numbers significantly, I wouldn't get upset at such a pick.

 

[royalan]

I think somebody needs to get the word out to one of the left PACs to show Bernie what it's like to really be attacked. He's acting untouchable now because he really hasn't been touched. He thinks he's playing with the big boys when really he hasn't left the kiddie table. He'd probably shut up and play nice if there was a real threat to his "legacy" put to him.

Bernie is now the schoolyard bully. And bullies only back down when an even bigger kid threatens to whoop their ass.

 

[Trouble]

Nope. Not a chance of that happening. Dude's going to give, at most, a tepid endorsement, and the nope out back to Vermont.

I'm holding out hope that he isn't actually that huge of an asshole.

 

[User 463088]

I'm of a completely different mind.

I think running towards the left to try and court an increasingly irrational segment of the left that might not even show up is flirting with the possibility of losing the center.

I can see that, and I don't entirely disagree. However, are there really any ideological differences between Hillary and Bernie? I think the gap between Warren and Hillary is even smaller than that, to be honest. I don't know if a centrist Veep is the answer...but maybe it is. Like, those that think Hillary is too liberal aren't going to be swayed by someone like Perez or Kaine. I feel like a quick fix is just give the far, far left a bone here. Plus, I think Warren would be a decent Veep. Not stellar, but not terrible either.

 

[itschris]

So, this is going to be long(ish) and it's going to generalize people. Not in a negative sense, but just for me to make an argument about something.

I few months ago, I would have said Hillary's veep choice should be about building a candidate for 2024. I've changed my mind on that completely. If she wins in 2016 and 2020, there's going to be a direct administration line from 2008 through now. She was part of the 08 team and has tied herself so closely with Obama that she's not going to break that. If we've controlled the White House for 16 years, I feel like new blood is going to be needed to make the case that we should retain the keys, so to speak.

So, my argument before the bench one was that she should pick a candidate that fills a demographic hole she has. It's not with women, AA, LGBT voters and, because the right picked Trump, Latino voters either. We could argue it's young voters, but there is polling out there that shows she's leading like 60/30 with those under 30. So, again, I'm left with the realization that she's fine demographically.

Bernie's campaign has made her problem ideological. I feel like she's going to have to try to appease the far, far left Bernie supporters. I think we can divide them into three groups:

1) Democrats/Democratic leaning independents who prefer Bernie, but have no issue voting for Queen at all.

2) Democrats/Democratic leaning independents who have reservations about voting for Queen because corporations! Wall Street! Goldman Sach's! Fraud!

3) People who may or may not be Democrats who are far, far left, probably don't vote anyway (or haven't voted or voted Dem in a long time) who are anti-establishment pro-bandwagon.

She doesn't have to really worry about number the 1st. Number the 3rd doesn't matter because I think this group is relatively small and nothing you say or do is going to appease them anyway. She needs a pick that helps her with group 2.

I think she needs to raid the left(er) side of the party for the selection. Someone like Perez has the policy cred for that role. BUT, he doesn't have the image or the name recognition among this group of people. Group 2, I feel, is more about ideological purity than specific policy, since Bernie really doesn't have a ton of policy positions anyway.

So, she needs someone with name recognition and that purity, who has the experience and can be an effective attack dog. Bernie is out because LOLOLOLOLOL....so that leaves me with Warren. I wasn't on the Warren bandwagon before, but I really, really think it makes sense. The far left middle (aka Group 2) aren't totally pissed with her for not endorsing, those are the CT people in Group 3, an even smaller subset of the group. She has the experience. She's got the purity thing going...and I'll be damned if she's not an effective attack dog.

Thoughts?

The founder of Daily Kos also recently changed his mind and started supporting Warren for VP.

I'm torn. I think Perez would be great, but Warren does have more name recognition and appeal to the left. On the other hand, there's at least some risk of losing that senate seat (the republican governor would appoint an interim replacement until the special election). Really, I would be happy with either of them. Someone like Tim Kaine would be the more moderate, "safer" choice, but that's not what I'd prefer as things stand (though he'd still be fine, most likely).

Also, it would be pretty exciting to have a two-women ticket!

 

[SheSaidNo]

The thing with the race vs class issues is that economic issues are much easier to make policy for and arguably have a larger benefit. Take the new overtime law for example, its not a race issue, but it has more of an impact on minorities than it does white people. It's hard to judge the impact of policies designed to reduce racial resentment

 

[Iolo]

I'm holding out hope that he isn't actually that huge of an asshole.

I held out that same hope, until yesterday.

 

[royalan]

So, this is going to be long(ish) and it's going to generalize people. Not in a negative sense, but just for me to make an argument about something.

I few months ago, I would have said Hillary's veep choice should be about building a candidate for 2024. I've changed my mind on that completely. If she wins in 2016 and 2020, there's going to be a direct administration line from 2008 through now. She was part of the 08 team and has tied herself so closely with Obama that she's not going to break that. If we've controlled the White House for 16 years, I feel like new blood is going to be needed to make the case that we should retain the keys, so to speak.

So, my argument before the bench one was that she should pick a candidate that fills a demographic hole she has. It's not with women, AA, LGBT voters and, because the right picked Trump, Latino voters either. We could argue it's young voters, but there is polling out there that shows she's leading like 60/30 with those under 30. So, again, I'm left with the realization that she's fine demographically.

Bernie's campaign has made her problem ideological. I feel like she's going to have to try to appease the far, far left Bernie supporters. I think we can divide them into three groups:

1) Democrats/Democratic leaning independents who prefer Bernie, but have no issue voting for Queen at all.

2) Democrats/Democratic leaning independents who have reservations about voting for Queen because corporations! Wall Street! Goldman Sach's! Fraud!

3) People who may or may not be Democrats who are far, far left, probably don't vote anyway (or haven't voted or voted Dem in a long time) who are anti-establishment pro-bandwagon.

She doesn't have to really worry about number the 1st. Number the 3rd doesn't matter because I think this group is relatively small and nothing you say or do is going to appease them anyway. She needs a pick that helps her with group 2.

I think she needs to raid the left(er) side of the party for the selection. Someone like Perez has the policy cred for that role. BUT, he doesn't have the image or the name recognition among this group of people. Group 2, I feel, is more about ideological purity than specific policy, since Bernie really doesn't have a ton of policy positions anyway.

So, she needs someone with name recognition and that purity, who has the experience and can be an effective attack dog. Bernie is out because LOLOLOLOLOL....so that leaves me with Warren. I wasn't on the Warren bandwagon before, but I really, really think it makes sense. The far left middle (aka Group 2) aren't totally pissed with her for not endorsing, those are the CT people in Group 3, an even smaller subset of the group. She has the experience. She's got the purity thing going...and I'll be damned if she's not an effective attack dog.

Thoughts?

I only have misgivings over Warren for two reasons:

1) She's so effective in the Senate.

2) She does nothing to help with conservative voters which, when the primary is over and she's no longer seen as "practically a Republican," she might actually need help with.

 

[hawk2025]

I can see that, and I don't entirely disagree. However, are there really any ideological differences between Hillary and Bernie? I think the gap between Warren and Hillary is even smaller than that, to be honest. I don't know if a centrist Veep is the answer...but maybe it is. Like, those that think Hillary is too liberal aren't going to be swayed by someone like Perez or Kaine. I feel like a quick fix is just give the far, far left a bone here. Plus, I think Warren would be a decent Veep. Not stellar, but not terrible either.

Yeah, and that's the weird part. There isn't.

Somehow the Bernie camp (and yes, I'm putting this squarely on the Bernie camp, and am purposefully not distinguishing between the campaign and the supporters because I don't understand the causality between them) has driven a giant wedge between the two that simply doesn't exist other than an Iraq vote.

Which may very well be a huge thing for some people, but I certainly don't see it justifying all of... this.

 

[pigeon]

The biggest fundamental problem with Warren, to me, is that she's old. Hillary Clinton is ALSO old. I mean they're like at the age where people die abruptly and it's not considered weird.

That is actually somewhat of a concern for a president, and I'm not sure the right pick is to have two very old people on the ticket.

Ultimately I believe that VP is mostly a downside risk. There's not a ton of evidence of good VP picks making tickets do better. There is a decent amount of evidence for bad VP picks making tickets do worse. So I don't want Hillary to do anything even remotely risky because there's probably no reward. Luckily that sounds like it's pretty much in her wheelhouse.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Just popping in here to see what PoliGAF thinks of this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ue-that-someone-would-make-a-great-president/

Very interesting, although I think there's more to being President than forecasting. Values for one, ability to form a coalition or group of advisors is another (touched on indirectly in that article).

 

[Adaren]

Hillary's biggest hurdle with a lot of independents isn't her ideology so much as the perception of her being untrustworthy, corrupt, etc. Warren's certainly got a pretty clean image in that regard. If she doesn't want to be VP, I would love if she were at least a high-profile campaigner for her.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Was just going to post this. It truly is a great article.



The entire article is just one truth bomb after another about the GOP.

Also, dying at this description of Ted Cruz:



Everyone, read this piece!

I hate his "investigatve" reporting (it's very intellectually lazy) but man, can he rant righteously.

 

[mo60]

I'm holding out hope that he isn't actually that huge of an asshole.

The question is if he will put his pride before the country. I'm about 50% sure he will do the later and ignore his pride despite this weekend's events. We are going to have to wait about three weeks to see what he does unless he decides to wait until the 14th or later to make a decision.

 

[Black Mamba]

Hillary's biggest hurdle with a lot of independents isn't her ideology so much as the perception of her being untrustworthy, corrupt, etc. Warren's certainly got a pretty clean image in that regard. If she doesn't want to be VP, I would love if she were at least a high-profile campaigner for her.

I'm fairly certain this is all but guaranteed at this point.

 

[Teggy]

I think for VP you need someone that Sanders supporters can get behind, but also someone who can appeal to minorities. Someone strong enough to stand up to Donald Trump, but who also has foreign relations and leadership experience.

There's only one guy who meets these criteria. John Stewart.

Spoiler

 

[royalan]

The question is if he will put his pride before the country. I'm about 50% sure he will do the later and ignore his pride despite this weekend's events. We are going to have to wait about three weeks to see what he does unless he decides to wait until the 14th or later to make a decision.

He put his pride before treating black voters with respect months ago. Bernie Sanders has already established that his pride is paramount.

 

[Wilsongt]

All this talk from Sanders supporters about a revolution... If these people saw what a real revolution looked like they'd shit their pants.

 

[thezerofire]

Is this post as crazy as it seems to be? I'm not actually sure how to respond http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204037884&postcount=308

 

[Dominican Power]

The upper echelon of the Republican Party got a heavy dosage of ether in that article. They've been exposed as the charlatans that they are by ironically a charlatan. It's so good.

 

[The Technomancer]

The mental gymnastics I'm seeing from Bernie Liberals on my Twitter feed is infuriating, especially because of how vocal so many of them were during GamerGate. This is inside your fucking house guys, I'm frankly disgusted at the disingenuous "but Bernie doesn't condone it" going on

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Is this post as crazy as it seems to be? I'm not actually sure how to respond http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204037884&postcount=308

Bill's emotionally complicated reaction to not killing Osama is extremely defensible and Trump supported the Iraq War, it's a dumb post.

 

[Paskil]

I mean....

I've seen this gif A LOT and this is probably the best use of it I've seen.

 

[User1608]

Christ that Douche and Turd episode from South Park is awful and intellectually lazy.

The upper echelon of the Republican Party got a heavy dosage of ether in that article. They've been exposed as the charlatans that they are by ironically a charlatan. It's so good.

Fantastic article. One of the best I've ever read.

The mental gymnastics I'm seeing from Bernie Liberals on my Twitter feed is infuriating, especially because of how vocal so many of them were during GamerGate. This is inside your fucking house guys, I'm frankly disgusted at the disingenuous "but Bernie doesn't condone it" going on

Delusion and cognitive dissonance is not a nice thing.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Is this post as crazy as it seems to be? I'm not actually sure how to respond http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204037884&postcount=308

It's not crazy but Bill's regrets about bin laden are neither here nor there. That won't have anything to do with anything. the rest is just grist for the mill really.

 

[BlastProcessing]

OT is a warzone.

Love is a battlefield.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm so old I can remember when awful elitist liberals sacrificed a decade of House majorities to expand health coverage for working people.

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/733016924800552960

 

[hawk2025]

Just a friendly reminder that we've been told before to not bring OT derision into this thread


I completely understand the temptation, trust me.

 

[mo60]

He put his pride before treating black voters with respect months ago. Bernie Sanders has already established that his pride is paramount.

Yep.If he campaigned in the south a lot more and cared about people besides his own supporters more he would have done better. I just hope nothing crazy happens at the convention and both campaigns are able to solve their issues before then.

 

[Wilsongt]

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/733016924800552960

Those comments...

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Christ that Douche and Turd episode from South Park is awful and intellectually lazy.

The worst piece of political 'satire' in quite some time. People like to reference it to seem 'above it all' and feel smart about 'both sides are the same!' but it just exposes the person as someone incapable of deep thought. And it always comes from a place of privilege. Fuck South Park.