PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.
royalan said:
Bernie was the most popular national politician...who got curbstomped by the second most disliked politician in the primary. Who then couldn't keep his support together enough to operate a simple PAC in the months after the primary. Who then couldn't get any of the candidates for lesser office he supported elected. So much for that popularity, the good it's doing him


Nobody should run from Bernie. And nobody is absolving Clinton of her obvious mistakes. But Bernie's campaign was a factor. And it's an important one to note, because the progressive wing is looking to once again get their dreams crushed when their 2020 darling, whoever that is, gets demolished by the candidate who actually takes the time to appeal to minorities and women.
Click to expand...

This... doesn't actually respond to anything I said. It's effectively 'we won the primary, ner ner ner' the post. Congratulations, Clinton won the primary. She lost the presidential. I don't see any minorities or women celebrating that.
 
Crab said:
This... doesn't actually respond to anything I said. It's effectively 'we won the primary, ner ner ner' the post. Congratulations, Clinton won the primary. She lost the presidential. I don't see any minorities or women celebrating that.
Click to expand...
Your "most popular politician" couldn't win a popular vote.
 
Plinko said:
Things seem to be moving faster than anticipated, and I am curious to know if this thing is being timed to coincide with the run-up to the 2018 elections.




This is true. Plus, Bernie did have a cult-like following.
Click to expand...

It helps that some work is already done by Preet Bharara already. So that will speed stuff up.
 
royalan said:
Because Bernie would have won that? Why? Because he was popular, right?
Click to expand...

This is just going to go into re-running the primaries. That would be boring. For the reference, I think Sanders would have won the presidential, yes, but I'm not going to bother responding to any conversation on this since we've done it so many times before.

What is important, right now, is that Sanders is the most popular person in national elected office. What happened in the primaries doesn't change that. The Democrats will do better the closer they hew to Sanders, and the worse the more they stick to Clinton. Running the argument 'it's Sanders' fault Clinton lost!' is literally the worst thing you could do. If you think it's a good idea, I think I can fairly objectively say: you have the political sense of an aardvark.

In kirblar's case, that's being unfair to the aardvark, too.
 
Crab said:
This is just going to go into re-running the primaries. That would be boring. For the reference, I think Sanders would have won the presidential, yes, but I'm not going to bother responding to any conversation on this since we've done it so many times before.

What is important, right now, is that Sanders is the most popular person in national elected office. What happened in the primaries doesn't change that. The Democrats will do better the closer they hew to Sanders, and the worse the more they stick to Clinton. Running the argument 'it's Sanders' fault Clinton lost!' is literally the worst thing you could do. If you think it's a good idea, I think I can fairly objectively say: you have the political sense of an aardvark.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is saying this.

And no, until Bernie Sanders gets over his penchant of applying unrealistic purity tests to some politicians (and, strangely, not the ones who kiss his ass), the party as a whole sticking to him would be a very bad idea. Bernie is not a leader.

How about this: we don't stick to any of the losers from last year.
 
Can we please stop.

Hillary isn't running again. Bernie might. Despite his age his favorables are higher than pretty much every other candidate we have. A lot of people went to vote in 2016 thinking favorables didn't matter and Hillary was the safe pick because she wasn't the crazy one. Turns out being crazy isn't a disqualifier.

Whether or not that would have helped Bernie win last time is irrelevant. But next primary people aren't going to vote because they think someone is a "safe" pick or is less of a "risk". So we'll see how that plays out next time.
 
VendettaRed07 said:
Can we please stop.

Hillary isn't running again. Bernie might. Despite his age his favorables are higher than pretty much every other candidate we have. A lot of people went to vote in 2016 thinking favorables didn't matter and Hillary was the safe pick because she wasn't the crazy one. Turns out being crazy isn't a disqualifier.

Whether or not that would have helped Bernie win last time is irrelevant. But next primary people aren't going to vote because they think someone is a "safe" pick or is less of a "risk". So we'll see how that plays out next time.
Click to expand...

Its crazy how much this parallels the HST book I'm reading now on the 72 election.
 
royalan said:
I don't think anybody is saying this.

And no, until Bernie Sanders gets over his penchant of applying unrealistic purity tests to some politicians (and, strangely, not the ones who kiss his ass), the party as a whole sticking to him would be a very bad idea. Bernie is not a leader.

How about this: we don't stick to any of the losers from last year.
Click to expand...

14090724376_8b3d033d07.jpg
Click to expand...
.
 
Sanders, Biden, Warren, or Obama term III.

I don't think any Dem was going to win.

There was a concerted effort by an adversary to get Trump elected. The states Russia focused their disinformation campaign on may have changed, but there's no guarantee that anyone running against Trump would have fared better.
 
quick question: when does a purity test become unrealistic? Is "not going to throw people in jail for up to 20 years for opposing apartheid" a realistic or unrealistic purity test?
 
Crab said:
Okay, so this is broadly true. Clinton's loss was so slight that changing any one of a number of things would have changed the result, and so you could blame any one of those things for being the 'critical factor'. But, more broadly... she should never have been in that position in the first place. None of them should have been critical factors! She was running against the most disliked presidential candidate in post-war American history, on the coat-tails of a largely popular incumbent with a good economic track-record given the context. It should have been a blowout.
Click to expand...

Nope. 2016 was not like any previous election. America faced a foreign power directly interfering with their election. No campaign is equip to deal with something that has never happened before. No campaign ever had to deal with the FBI dropping harmful news weeks before the election.

As for the rest of your post- I get it Hillary is evil, Bernie is the Messiah. How dare anyone question Bernie? See you still holding on to your 90% July claim, and now include Edwards.

Expect I'm not just question Bernie- I'm question his campaign. I'm question Russia. I'm question Trump. I'm questioning Trump. I question the USA that I grew up in that taught us hide under out school desk cause Russia was going to bomb us any day to Putin is a great guy, we should trust him over Hillary, Obama, Biden, Kerry, or McCain.

You talk about me not not learning from the 2016 campaign, yet here you are repeating the same rote, propaganda talking points from 2016.

It's 2017. More facts have come out. Every day, the Steele Dossier goes from being tinfoil, to being a legitimate check list of how the election was stolen by agent inside and outside the country. The manipulation of news, feeds, and bots is proven. Part of, not all, Bernie supporters got swept up in that.

Trump's Russia connections become clearer to the public every day. Did you not watch the recent G20 meeting with Putin? Nothing is normal with was is going on between Putin and Trump. People are reviewing voting counts and disturbing trends are coming to light- some vote machines were changed. Voters were purged.

Yet here you are- with the golden answer- Hillary is to blame. You've learned nothing since 2016.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
Sanders, Biden, Warren, or Obama term III.

I don't think any Dem was going to win.

There was a concerted effort by an adversary to get Trump elected. The states Russia focused their disinformation campaign on may have changed, but there's no guarantee that anyone running against Trump would have fared better.
Click to expand...
Obama would have won.

Obama and Sanders have both run into the exact same issue though- their election fundraising strategies don't translate into things outside of a primary/general when they can't rely on their personal charisma.
 
We keep fighting these internalized fights and we're prime for it to happen again as well.

Russia will meddle next time. And if Dems are still fighting over 2016, that'll make it that much easier for Russia again. Where all it takes is disenfranchising a few thousand voters, or bombarding them with another disinformation campaign.

No guarantee Dem would have won, because it wasn't just the candidate. It was a concerted effort by a foreign adversary to get one person in particular elected.
 
kirblar said:
Please. Go on.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to expound on. That's an obviously true statement.

Just like Clinton stomped in the Primary but lost the general to a 70 year old racist with dementia.

The primary party voters (both of them) have different preferences overall than the population of people that vote in the general.

Clinton is not well-liked. Some of it is unfair, but a lot of it is because she's milquetoast, boring, and has publically stated positions that change with the wind. She's 1,000,000x better than Trump, but does not have a knack for retail politics. She lacks conviction when she speaks, and often makes moves that make her appear untrustworthy, sometimes for no particular reason. She should have just released her speech transcripts, and I'm still confused today on why she did not.

Overall, I think she would have been a very competent President, but she ran an awful campaign. The strategy was bad, it was poorly executed, and frankly she got outworked in terms of campaign events.

Note: I also agree Bernie kind of lost his shit at the end of the primary. I like him a lot as someone who speaks to certain issues, but he probably would not have made a great President.
 
Chococat said:
Nope. 2016 was not like any previous election. America faced a foreign power directly interfering with their election. No campaign is equip to deal with something that has never happened before. No campaign ever had to deal with the FBI dropping harmful news weeks before the election.

As for the rest of your post- I get it Hillary is evil, Bernie is the Messiah. How dare anyone question Bernie? See you still holding on to your 90% July claim, and now include Edwards.

Expect I'm not just question Bernie- I'm question his campaign. I'm question Russia. I'm question Trump. I'm questioning Trump. I question the USA that I grew up in that taught us hide under out school desk cause Russia was going to bomb us any day to Putin is a great guy, we should trust him over Hillary, Obama, Biden, Kerry, or McCain.

You talk about me not not learning from the 2016 campaign, yet here you are repeating the same rote, propaganda talking points from 2016.

It's 2017. More facts have come out. Every day, the Steele Dossier goes from being tinfoil, to being a legitimate check list of how the election was stolen by agent inside and outside the country. The manipulation of news, feeds, and bots is proven. Part of, not all, Bernie supporters got swept up in that.

Trump's Russia connections become clearer to the public every day. Did you not watch the recent G20 meeting with Putin? Nothing is normal with was is going on between Putin and Trump. People are reviewing voting counts and disturbing trends are coming to light- some vote machines were changed. Voters were purged.

Yet here you are- with the golden answer- Hillary is to blame. You've learned nothing since 2016.
Click to expand...

You're way overselling the impact Russia had on the outcome of this election. Definitely NOT Hillary's fault.
 
Sessions to resign this week? I thought he'd hold out through the summer but maybe not. Trump is gonna move to do every stupid thing he can to shut down Mueller's investigation as soon as he can. 1st he's gonna force Sessions to resign. Then Rosenstein. Then everyone else.

Edit: Can we leave the 2016 primary in the past where it belongs?
 
royalan said:
I don't think anybody is saying this.

And no, until Bernie Sanders gets over his penchant of applying unrealistic purity tests to some politicians (and, strangely, not the ones who kiss his ass), the party as a whole sticking to him would be a very bad idea. Bernie is not a leader.

How about this: we don't stick to any of the losers from last year.
Click to expand...

These reasons are primarily why I didn't vote for Bernie last time. Even if he had won, I didn't expect him to be able to govern and his tendency to surround himself with incompetent idiots would have continued into the White House which would have probably been a much more sanitary version of some of the calamity we are currently seeing in this White House. Also I thought some of his tone deafness to how he approached the minority base of the party was bad.

I'd agree I'd like to run with someone young and not have a candidate who was a politician before 2002 but we aren't in a great spot. It's totally possible that he runs in 2020 and wins Iowa and NH and pretty much wraps the race up right there. There's a lot to go after that but historically if a candidate can win the first to states of the primary they are pretty much always the winner. Not a guarantee but he's in a really good position because the order of the states plays really well in his favor. Which I guess is why it's sort of funny he complained about the order of the states last time, but still.

I'd also like to give him a chance if it does come down to him to correct a lot of the stupid shit he said last time. Sort of like how Hillary did from 08 to 16. I don't quite see him as the "changing" sort of guy but I'm still waiting to see if he actually hires people with brain stems to help him next time
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
quick question: when does a purity test become unrealistic? Is "not going to throw people in jail for up to 20 years for opposing apartheid" a realistic or unrealistic purity test?
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, most of the genuine uses of purity test verbiage I've seen used (as in, not as a simple dismissal but as an actual critique) is about present policy. Failing a "purity test" means not having always had the "right" positions, or having extracurricular shit that they disapprove of even if it doesn't necessarily have any policy linkage (taking money for speeches), and using those as disqualifiers regardless of the candidates' actual running platform. Alternatively, taking up an unfeasible number of issues with single-issue fervor, effectively eliminating all candidates who don't lie to you.
 
watershed said:
Sessions to resign this week? I thought he'd hold out through the summer but maybe not. Trump is gonna move to do every stupid thing he can to shut down Mueller's investigation as soon as he can. 1st he's gonna force Sessions to resign. Then Rosenstein. Then everyone else.

Edit: Can we leave the 2016 primary in the past where it belongs?
Click to expand...

I just can't see him resigning.
 
watershed said:
Sessions to resign this week? I thought he'd hold out through the summer but maybe not. Trump is gonna move to do every stupid thing he can to shut down Mueller's investigation as soon as he can. 1st he's gonna force Sessions to resign. Then Rosenstein. Then everyone else.

Edit: Can we leave the 2016 primary in the past where it belongs?
Click to expand...

Sessions just said he plans on sticking around until the President forces him out. And let's be real, Sessions may be publicly stating that he's recused himself, but we all know post-Comey, he's done nothing of the sort. Trump needs him in place because he can't trust Rosenstein and it's not like he's been filling any other positions in the DOJ with people he can trust on the level of Sessions.
 
DFLJ7ewU0AcWcqb.jpg
Click to expand...

If this is the shit he says to the press when he knows he's being recorded. What the hell does he even to say to the Senators? Like I'm pretty sure here he's referring to Life Insurance. I'm uncertain he even understands the concept of Health Insurance.
 
PBY said:
You're way overselling the impact Russia had on the outcome of this election. Definitely NOT Hillary's fault.
Click to expand...

Either you are privy to some information on the extent of Russia's involvement in the 2016 Election that the rest of us don't have, or you are making broad assumptions.
 
There is no perfect candidate.

Hillary had serious liabilities as a candidates, and brought fewer strengths to the table than she did in 2008.

I still think people severely underrate her debate performances, which were as lopsided as any in history even given our broken structure.

Her fundraising connections weren't as much of a boon as I think most people expected they would be.

Part of me thinks that it's impossible for a politician to have favorable numbers above water in such an era of extreme polarization. So I still don't read much into Hillary's abysmal favorable numbers, particularly because they were better than Trump's and she still lost.

PBY said:
You're way overselling the impact Russia had on the outcome of this election. Definitely NOT Hillary's fault.
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing this.
 
The only reason Sessions would resign would be to help Trump, and I don't think he cares enough about Trump to fall on that sword. There's no loyalty, they're all just clinging to the power they have until it's forcibly taken from them.
 
The left: It's Hillary fault she lost to Trump and not because of x, y, z.

Also the left: It's not Sanders fault that he lost to Hillary because x, y, z.

You know why Sanders is currently the most popular politician? Because his name hasn't been dragged through the mud yet. Unfortunately, Clinton decided to play nice and not bring up whatever dirt, legit or not, on Sanders.

You really think if Sanders won the nomination, the GOP would have hold back? Hell no, they will spout whatever flaw Bernie has and exaggerated until he's despised as well. Just replace "crooked" and "nasty woman" with "commie" and "schemer." And that's not factoring the garden variety talking points they spew against the Democrats in the first.

But noooooooo. Now we have certain folks on the left who think we should follow Bernie and throw women and minorities rights under the bus. And it doesn't matter if you claim otherwise, that's the gonna be the perception or the reality. History already showed that.
 
The lack of wisdom in firing Sessions is not what will keep Trump from firing Sessions, if indeed that's what goes down.

I feel like no-one should take John Cornyn seriously anymore. The recent debacle showed that he's basically out of the loop and that the only words that matter from Senate leadership are McConnell's.
 
PBY said:
You're way overselling the impact Russia had on the outcome of this election. Definitely NOT Hillary's fault.
Click to expand...

The single smartest disinformation campaign in history... and we're overselling it?

They hit exactly where Hillary and Dems in general were already lagging to get an orange fuckface elected with under 80k votes in three states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million.

That's playing our politics to a degree Trump isn't capable.
 
Crab said:
Okay, so this is broadly true. Clinton's loss was so slight that changing any one of a number of things would have changed the result, and so you could blame any one of those things for being the 'critical factor'. But, more broadly... she should never have been in that position in the first place. None of them should have been critical factors! She was running against the most disliked presidential candidate in post-war American history, on the coat-tails of a largely popular incumbent with a good economic track-record given the context. It should have been a blowout.

The main factor wasn't Russia, or Trump, or rightwing propaganda, or Sanders, or Stein, or the electoral college, it was Clinton herself. She was an unappealing candidate who badly misjudged the zeitgeist and ran an incompetent campaign. Change any of those things and Russia can do all they like, the right can smear all they like, it wouldn't have been sufficient.
Click to expand...
This can be true, and yet still not absolve Bernie of bad behavior. The consequences of his actions were predictable. Al Franken won by 312 votes, and the ACA never would have happened otherwise. Coat-tails matter, and tearing down / radicalizing people against the nominee when the race is already over is stupid. That's obvious. It's weird and kind of disturbing that people have a hard time admitting something this obvious. The point is not to score a binary win. It's to maximize margins. All things which get in the way of that are bad.

The more you blame all of those other factors, the more you're handicapping yourself for the next presidential election, since you're trying to absolve yourself of responsibility.
Click to expand...

Really dumb claim. If lots of things went wrong, the solution is to do all of those things better. Do you think it's somehow impossible to simultaneously have a better 2020 nominee and a less petty 2020 loser?

You're the Principal Skinner of politics - are you out of touch? No, it's the electorate who are wrong. And the electorate will resent that.
Click to expand...
....

take a second to think about that

You couldn't reasonably have expected more of him, he delivered more than Democratic nominee opponents normally deliver. You also alienate the people who like him
Click to expand...

I expected him to concede or at least tone down his rhetoric by the time the nomination was beyond his grasp. Instead he grew more hostile and harsh as his chances of winning fell. I think my expectation was reasonable and appropriate. What on earth can you find alienating about it?

It sounds like your take is: "All primary candidates should feel comfortable digging in against the nominee with impunity regardless of consequences, as long as they endorse later, because it is still possible to win after that, because Obama did it." Given that the goal should be to maximize the margins, not to score a binary win, this is incredibly counterproductive.
 
Sessions won't resign because he has too much power right now. Trump can't fire him because his replacement will likely be someone who isn't implicated in the Russia investigation and has no reason to shield Trump whatsoever. Trump also doesn't have the political capitol at this time to get a new nominee through. I'm pretty sure McConnell doesn't want any republicans to go through one of these hearings again. I'm positive they know how dumb they look at these proceedings with their softball questions and have no interest in going through it again if they don't need to.

Same situation with the FBI. The senate will likely be just fine with whoever is in the line of succession to do the job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
UberTag replied
  • Poll
2017-2018 NCAA Men's Basketball Topic: UNC from Redemption to Redeemed
21
3K
Corrik replied
Top Bottom