Support NeoGAF

[boiled goose]

The point is that, because of the good-faith donations, she is much less likely to attempt with any genuineness to help create legislation that hinders the big banks. It will be business as usual for 8 years. Whereas you have another candidate who is explicitly campaigning against big banks and is not accepting donations from them, and will at least attempt to split them up and make them pay more tax.

She will need them to pay for her re-election in 4 years.

Do you think within her tenure she will actually do anything about it? Perhaps you don't think anything needs to be done anyway -- fair enough.

I would love to have a thread where people staked a ban on whether Hillary will actually accomplish (or at least visibly attempt to accomplish) anything substantially progressive. (Or whether she will take us to war, as another example.) I mean, she won't. She's even campaigning on presumptive failure with the whole "not making promises and I will be a progressive who gets things done" crap.

She needs to be inspiring people and elected officials to rally behind bold progressive policies, but I'd bet a ban that she doesn't have the guts to go against her donors.

Preach.

It's not just guts of going against donors. If she gets elected it's BECAUSE of her donors. The system unfairly props up establishment and special interest approved picks.

Money in politics does not just rig legislation. It rigs the elections themselves.

 

[Nipo]

Isn't his platform, that has gotten him as far as this, a socialist platform?

Hillary hasn't tried to stick him with the socialist label like would happen in the general. People love socialist ideas but hate the name. I think the stigma can be overcome but probably not in 5-6 months.

Edit: Should also add I'm a Sanders support and recognize he isn't as strong of a GE candidate. Since I don't live in a swing state I'd vote for stein to try and at least send some message that America is ready for someone further left than Hillary.

 

[noshten]

There's a big difference between being competitive in the Dem Primary and winning the General Election and the type of views you can express in each of those.

Considering he is winning Independents by such margins - your argument is not factual in anyway.

 

[Kyosaiga]

Preach.

It's not just guts of going against donors. If she gets elected it's BECAUSE of her donors. The system unfairly props up establishment and special interest approved picks.

Yes she got elected because of most of her donors being unions and regular citizens.

Please we can do this all day.

 

[Splendor]

If this poll is to believed, Bernie could've never achieved the success he's seeing right now.

Isn't his platform that has gotten him as far as this a socialist platform?

This was a poll among all likely voters. Bernie is running right now with a platform that works well among politically active democratic voters in the primary season, and with people who do not have party affiliations, but vote democrat in the primaries. The second this hits the GE this is a huge issue for Bernie. Know how democrats want Trump or Cruz because their platform works well in the primaries but are toxic in the GE? Bernie has a similar issue and Republicans want him to get the nomination for a reason.

 

[boiled goose]

Yes she got elected because of most of her donors being unions and regular citizens.

Please we can do this all day.

Most of her donors or most of her money?

Guess which one matters more when talking about the corrupting influence of money in politics?

A large chunk of her money?

At what percentage is a bribe acceptable?

 

[uncelestial]

The insanity of this is that ultimately, Hillary and Bernie have the same goals. They BOTH want an uplifted middle class. They BOTH want healthcare for all. People need to not let this primary season turn these two politicians into fundamental adversaries. They agree on the issues 93% of time, and that can't be ignored.

A vote for Hillary isn't a vote against our ideas. It's a vote for someone who understands the United States as the country it is, not the country we would like it to be. And that any real, progressive change is going to have to be hard fought and won with smaller, incremental steps instead of leaps and bounds. She understands compromise is oftentimes unfortunate but necessary. And she's been in the trenches with her party for long enough that I believe she'll have a much easier time rallying them to her causes, unlike Bernie who has spent his entire campaign throwing the conservative wing of the party under the bus (and conservative democrats DO exist and can't be ignored). For this reason ALONE she'd get more done in office than Bernie would, who is looking more and more like an old man screaming on a hill by the day.

No, Hillary does not stand for the same things "93% of the time" and frequently dismisses many things I think are important as "impossible," besides being an obviously reluctant adopter to many things (like gay rights and black lives matter) that I find important.

This is before the fact that she has never seen a war she didn't like.

 

[Nipo]

Are you seriously comparing a social issue to socialized Health Care?

The government would have to literally buy out the entire health insurance market for it to legally even have a single payer system! SSM isn't even in the same league of sheer fuckery passing a single player plan would be.

You could see something like a singapore model being passed more than pure single payer. You have state run "medisave" along with private insurance for people who want better/quicker care.

 

[Splendor]

Considering he is winning Independents by such margins - your argument is not factual in anyway.

I agree that his anti-wall street message goes well among independents, but these are independents who are voting democratically in the primary season, so they can tend to skew more liberal than independents in the GE.

 

[boiled goose]

I agree that his anti-wall street message goes well among independents, but these are independents who are voting democratically in the primary season, so they can tend to skew more liberal than independents in the GE.

Bernie does better among crossover Republicans too.
Only the Dem base likes Hillary.

 

[mugurumakensei]

This was a poll among all likely voters. Bernie is running right now with a platform that works well among politically active democratic voters in the primary season, and with people who do not have party affiliations, but vote democrat in the primaries. The second this hits the GE this is a huge issue for Bernie. Know how democrats want Trump or Cruz because their platform works well in the primaries but are toxic in the GE? Bernie has a similar issue and Republicans want him to get the nomination for a reason.

Except Bernies big wins have been because independents and younger democrats( who are typically too apathetic to vote ) voted. Republicans want the democratic candidate with the least favorability. Hillary's ratings are very unfavorable.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Why, because nobody who dislikes the status quo should ever run for president?

Do you hear yourself right now?

They can.

But don't then make one of your selling points that you're taking the moral high road.

 

[Gutek]

They can.

But don't then make one of your selling points that you're taking the moral high road.

Astounding mental gymnastics.

 

[TyrantII]

To be fair, I respect Bernie's intelligence enough to think that he knows alot of his proposals are unfeasible in the current political climate. Therefore, if he promises something that he knows he cant do, and says it with a straight face, does that indicate that he possesses honesty and integrity? I genuinely dont know how to feel about this.
I have been running this over in my mind the last week or so and I think Bernie and some of his base playing the moral high ground game only hurts him in the long run. Politics is full of well-intentioned people, and I include both Bernie and Hilary in this group, but no politician is ever clean, so why act like you are?

A big this.

And those supporters dishonestly pushing it should be ashamed.

Bernie does deserve praise for funding his campaign with small donations and disavowing PACs. He also deserves criticism for the politics as usual promising of a platform without providing a plan to get there besides "elect me", which anyone who knows politics knows is not feasible. That leads to backlash should he get elected, and can seriously damage the progressive / Dem-Soc platform.

But Hillary using the finance system in place for federal elections that spend a total of 2 freaking billion dollars by the end of this thing doesn't mean she is corrupt either. Until there's a moment against money on politics where we can legislate away private financing it's something that we have to deal with.

And again, donations to the campaign have limits and are grouped by profession. Both MY small money donations to Hillary and Bernie would be reported as Wallstreet/Financial Industry donations because of where I work. That does not mean I don't want both to reform the shit out of the messed up industry I work in.

PACs have unlimited donations but are not part of the campaign. They should be more scrutinized.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Except Bernies big wins have been because independents and younger democrats( who are typically too apathetic to vote ) voted. Republicans want the democratic candidate with the least favorability. Hillary's ratings are very unfavorable.

Republicans haven't touched Sanders. They want to run against him.

Now, maybe they are grossly miscalculating their chances against him. But they want him to win.

 

[boiled goose]

Astounding mental gymnastics.

Both sad and hilarious.
Fanboyism at its worst.

 

[Kyosaiga]

The number one reason Bernie would be a lame duck President is because he is a demagogue. His ideology is more important to him than the real world and any facts that contradict his ideology must be wrong.

A man that detached from reality shouldn't be in the executive branch period, let alone the White House

 

[Splendor]

Bernie does better among crossover Republicans too.
Only the Dem base likes Hillary.

Fair enough, Bernie is a candidate that, while I do not always like how his campaign is run, has reaching a message that is resonating. I still think the odds Hilary gets the nomination are very much in her favor, but if Dems are paying attention they should recognize the strain of discontent that Bernie is playing off of.

 

[Boke1879]

Horseshit policies that work in other modern democracies... Right.

If you think congress was gridlock now just wait until Bernie tries to push through some of his progressive proposals. I remain steadfast in saying this country isn't ready for a Bernie like president yet.

Maybe in 5-10 years but not now. I'm glad he's in the race and being competitive it shows us that's the direction the country is heading just not now.

My biggest fear is he is a 4 year president that doesn't get anything accomplished. That said if he is the Nom of course I'll vote for him because we can't have the GOP running the show

 

[uncelestial]

They can.

But don't then make one of your selling points that you're taking the moral high road.

There's nothing morally unsavory about running for president. Financially, you can self-finance, publicly finance, or refuse corporate donations/SuperPAC involvement. And philosophically, ambition is not the enemy of change -- they go hand in hand.

 

[royalan]

Come on, man. Get real. It's more nuanced than what you're positing.

The point is that, because of the good-faith donations, she is much less likely to attempt with any genuineness to help create legislation that hinders the big banks. It will be business as usual for 8 years. Whereas you have another candidate who is explicitly campaigning against big banks and is not accepting donations from them, and will at least attempt to split them up and make them pay more tax.

She will need them to pay for her re-election in 4 years.

Do you think within her tenure she will actually do anything about it? Perhaps you don't think anything needs to be done anyway -- fair enough.

I would love to have a thread where people staked a ban on whether Hillary will actually accomplish (or at least visibly attempt to accomplish) anything substantially progressive. (Or whether she will take us to war, as another example.) I mean, she won't. She's even campaigning on presumptive failure with the whole "not making promises and I will be a progressive who gets things done" crap.

She needs to be inspiring people and elected officials to rally behind bold progressive policies, but I'd bet a ban that she doesn't have the guts to go against her donors.

I understand the nuance. The people who aren't understanding nuance here are those saying "Hillary has accepted money from Wall Street! THEREFOR SHE'S CORRUPT!" That is a completely shallow position that completely ignores that fact that our current president, one of our most progressive pesidents in decades, ALSO took money from Wall Street.

He also fought for some of the toughest regulation laws we've seen in a long time. Bernie may want to ignore the significance of Dodd Frank when Hillary brings it up, but for the purposes of this discussion, YOU can't. Did he eradicate the problem during his terms as president? No. But to say or even imply that he sat back and let Wall Street run wild because he took their money is flat out wrong. And this is what's being said about Hillary.

Hillary was attacking Wall Street in 2008 even as she was taking their money. I have no reason to believe that she wouldn't push for tougher regulation. I have no reason to believe that she doesn't have a vested interest in taking down Citizens United (hell, she has a PERSONAL reason to want to take down Citizens United). To believe that she doesn't, would be to ignore what she did in NY as a senator, and the accomplishments of previous presidents who did the same thing.

GIANT INFOGRAPHIC

I'm not seeing how this image supports you claim that they don't agree. They voted the same way 93% of the time as senators. They both have the same ultimate goals. Where they disagree is the road to get there, and this is what that infographic by and large doesn't account for.

 

[iamBlkpleAsedoNt]

Can we just take note that in action, President Clinton and President Sanders dont look drastically different, and that most people voting in the primaries would be happy with both?

Because right now in the republican primary we have fucking humpty-dumpty on the sitting on his wall with a former grand wizard yelling at the immigrants and muslims he wants to ban while writing a SOTU address about his steaks and his cock. Comparitively we have it pretty good either way.

No that's not true. It depends on what you are specifically voting for. Just because they both have Ds does not make their policies interchangeable. Again the great lie of American politics. I am an isolationist and pro nationalist and believe in autonomy and independence for all nations and infrastructure building in those nations as a means of foreign aid. Therefore I support Sanders, Trump, the Pauls, Gary Johnson, etc.

Getting the US out of everyone else's business in the world and concentrating on our domestic economy is my number one priority as a voter.

 

[Nipo]

I am dying for an updated poll about that, as my number one concern about Sanders--by a country mile--is that the socialism tag and raised taxes will absolutely destroy him in the general. Possibly against anyone. And nothing's really going to convince me otherwise except for some profound and undeniable poll trends.

While I'd still lean Clinton because I just think she's more equipped for Presidenting, I'd be a LOT less concerned about a Sanders nomination and might even give him the electability advantage if those socialist numbers flipped and his favorables stayed high. But they'd have to flip HARD.

Edit: shouldn't say "flipped" as its only six points. I'd want to see the Yes numbers in the 70s at a minimum.

Yea, I also wish they'd do an update of this since it has been about eight months now.

 

[boiled goose]

The number one reason Bernie would be a lame duck President is because he is a demagogue. His ideology is more important to him than the real world and any facts that contradict his ideology must be wrong.

A man that detached from reality shouldn't be in the executive branch period, let alone the White House

Huh? This is a strange bizarre purely narrative devoid from facts attack.

Having an ideal vision of the future doesn't mean you are not grounded.

Doesn't he have a pretty solid record introducing and passing bipartisan legislation? He has held both executive and legislative positions and has huge approval ratings.

You paint a caricature of bernie that is not really based on the facts.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Fair enough, Bernie is a candidate that, while I do not always like how his campaign is run, has reaching a message that is resonating. I still think the odds Hilary gets the nomination are very much in her favor, but if Dems are paying attention they should recognize the strain of discontent that Bernie is playing off of.

They won't if that DWS clip is any indicator.

 

[rjinaz]

Can we just take note that in action, President Clinton and President Sanders dont look drastically different, and that most people voting in the primaries would be happy with both?

Because right now in the republican primary we have fucking humpty-dumpty on the sitting on his wall with a former grand wizard yelling at the immigrants and muslims he wants to ban while writing a SOTU address about his steaks and his cock. Comparitively we have it pretty good either way.

I'm right there with you buddy. Honestly can't stand the politics on GAF right now, especially on the Left. I'm looking forward to when this is all over this summer.

 

[nib95]

No, Hillary does not stand for the same things "93% of the time" and frequently dismisses many things I think are important as "impossible," besides being an obviously reluctant adopter to many things (like gay rights and black lives matter) that I find important.

This is before the fact that she has never seen a war she didn't like.

Only thing I'm really in disagreement with Bernie on, is his record with Gun laws, but otherwise I prefer all of his ideals and polices completely. At the end of the day, politics is liquid, and you may have to change your tune or compromise to get some version of what you wanted through, but I like the starting points Bernie is kicking off with. Gives me far more hope that what Hillary is proposing, which sort of looks like more of a continuation of the status quo.

 

[hamauzu kaito]

Astounding mental gymnastics.

What I wonder is how is Hillary going to get stuff done. Even if she wins what is she going to do. She will be in the same position as Obama, correct? She has problems engaging voters and getting them to trust her, so why should I believe a 2010 mid-terms won't happen to her? Also why do people find her more attractive when she seems to not be pulling in new voters. In the GE the base will be there. The new voters are what counts, right?

 

[TyrantII]

Fair enough, Bernie is a candidate that, while I do not always like how his campaign is run, has reaching a message that is resonating. I still think the odds Hilary gets the nomination are very much in her favor, but if Dems are paying attention they should recognize the strain of discontent that Bernie is playing off of.

Absolutely. Meanwhile DWS is sitting on her hands at the DNC instead of funneling that discontent into something productive. Like taking back Congress.

That's actually one of my issues with Bernies campaign. In 2008 Obama and the DNC were on the same page and building something that led gains all over the country.

It's not all Bernies fault there with the current state of the DNC. But it's not happening this time around. And that sort of makes his tune of change ring hollow to me.

I like his message, but where's the legislative gains to back it up and enact it?

 

[boiled goose]

I understand the nuance. The people who aren't understanding nuance here are those saying "Hillary has accepted money from Wall Street! THEREFOR SHE'S CORRUPT!" That is a completely shallow position that completely ignores that fact that our current president, one of our most progressive pesidents in decades, ALSO took money from Wall Street.

He also fought for some of the toughest regulation laws we've seen in a long time. Bernie may want to ignore the significance of Dodd Frank when Hillary brings it up, but for the purposes of this discussion, YOU can't. Did he eradicate the problem during his terms as president? No. But to say or even imply that he sat back and let Wall Street run wild because he took their money is flat out wrong. And this is what's being said about Hillary.

Hillary was attacking Wall Street in 2008 even as she was taking their money. I have no reason to believe that she wouldn't push for tougher regulation. I have no reason to believe that she doesn't have a vested interest in taking down Citizens United (hell, she has a PERSONAL reason to want to take down Citizens United). To believe that she doesn't, would be to ignore what she did in NY as a senator, and the accomplishments of previous presidents who did the same thing.

Obama in practice has been a huge centrist. Yes he is also part of the corrupt system . He worked within it instead of changing it.

We got some good things, but got extremely fucked over in other ways.

Economic gains still going to the top. Incomes are stagnant. Student dept crazy. Healthcare still expensive.

In this light, legislation should have been tougher. Taxes more progressive. It has been concession after concession to special interests.

People are tired of getting the scraps. Hillary is promising more scraps.

 

[Splendor]

Except Bernies big wins have been because independents and younger democrats( who are typically too apathetic to vote ) voted. Republicans want the democratic candidate with the least favorability. Hillary's ratings are very unfavorable.

This is true, but I would make the agruement that Hilary has has 20 years to be attacked and has extremely high name recognition and enough baggage that her ratings are unfavorable. Bernie is still relatively untested and I think his favorability rating drops when an entire political machine and party is focusing on him. Once again I like the guy, but these issues are interesting and should be addressed, and I appreciate that you are all are being very civil and patient.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Both sad and hilarious.
Fanboyism at its worst.

It's not fanboyism to say it's wrong for a candidate to claim they're anti-establishment and consistent and full of integrity, and then turn around and join a party to be president, but still continue to pretend they didn't make an exception to their morals just this one time.

When the DNC writes a big check for Bernie in the general, is he going to refuse it?

Maybe it's more his supporters I'd wish would get off their high horse. It's sad, but I have a hard time differentiating Bernie the politician and Bernie the lord of reddit, and maybe that's not entirely his fault, but that's the way it is for me.

 

[Coriolanus]

The number one reason Bernie would be a lame duck President is because he is a demagogue. His ideology is more important to him than the real world and any facts that contradict his ideology must be wrong.

A man that detached from reality shouldn't be in the executive branch period, let alone the White House

Any democrat president will be a lame duck. What would make one think that republicans will be reasonable when dealing with hills?

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I kinda want to see Bernie vs Trump just to see who's brand of anti-establishment populism would win out

 

[Kyosaiga]

Huh? This is a strange bizarre purely narrative devoid from facts attack.

Having an ideal vision of the future doesn't mean you are not grounded.

Doesn't he have a pretty solid record introducing and passing bipartisan legislation? He has held both executive and legislative positions and has huge approval ratings.

You paint a caricature of bernie that is not really based on the facts.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/2...rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html?referer=

Yeah a guy who wants to place farmers on the Federal Reserve surely understands what needs to be done about our economy.

He has no idea about fiscal policy, economics, trade, or anything nuanced about finance other than Wall Street bad!!!111

 

[JP_]

The number one reason Bernie would be a lame duck President is because he is a demagogue. His ideology is more important to him than the real world and any facts that contradict his ideology must be wrong.

A man that detached from reality shouldn't be in the executive branch period, let alone the White House

In practice, Bernie is actually very pragmatic. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[royalan]

Obama in practice has been a huge centrist. Yes he is also part of the corrupt system . He worked within it instead of changing it.

We got some good things, but got extremely fucked over in other ways.

Economic gains still going to the top. Incomes are stagnant. Student dept crazy. Healthcare still expensive.

In this light, legislation should have been tougher. Taxes more progressive. It has been concession after concession to special interests.

People are tired of getting the scraps. Hillary is promising more scraps.

And even I'm not disagreeing with you on this (except the special interest part. It was concession after concession to obstructionist republicans). But what you simply cannot do is discount how extraordinary what he DID accomplish was in light of the overwhelming opposition he's faced for most of his presidency.

To say, "Oh, well he should have been tougher" says to me that you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Barzul]

Did we ever find out who won in Detroit?

 

[Tesseract]

Education is the silver bullet, man

Tie up ssi and all that to massive education reform. Give millenials with degrees and debt and no jobs something to do because there's only so many dark souls we can play do you understand me let us teach the trumplets because winter is coming

 

[boiled goose]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/2...rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html?referer=

Yeah a guy who wants to place farmers on the Federal Reserve surely understands what needs to be done about our economy.

He has no idea about fiscal policy, economics, trade, or anything nuanced about finance other than Wall Street bad!!!111

You are now making a different (maybe) more valid argument. you are now arguing he lacks experience and understanding.

The argument i objected too was the caricature that he was not willing to compromise to get stuff done.

 

[shintoki]

Sanders making the case for VP.

Doesn't look like he has a path to the nomination, but with this result who the hell knows.

Little Marco took a beating.

More likely I could see a Cabinet Position. I think that would fit him well too.

 

[damisa]

I kinda want to see Bernie vs Trump just to see who's brand of anti-establishment populism would win out

Probably the one not promising to raise your taxes and replace your healthcare* with something that has no guarantee of being any good.

*A large majority of Americans are actually happy with their current healthcare.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Obama in practice has been a huge centrist. Yes he is also part of the corrupt system . He worked within it instead of changing it.

We got some good things, but got extremely fucked over in other ways.

Economic gains still going to the top. Incomes are stagnant. Student dept crazy. Healthcare still expensive.

In this light, legislation should have been tougher. Taxes more progressive. It has been concession after concession to special interests.

People are tired of getting the scraps. Hillary is promising more scraps.

On the money

We need someone who is willing to butt heads

 

[phanphare]

I kinda want to see Bernie vs Trump just to see who's brand of anti-establishment populism would win out

I want to see it because Bernie would call out Trump's constant bs in hilarious fashion

 

[boiled goose]

And even I'm not disagreeing with you on this. But what you simply cannot do is discount how extraordinary what he DID accomplish was in light of the overwhelming opposition he's faced for most of his presidency.

To say, "Oh, well he should have been tougher" says to me that you haven't been paying attention.

Im glad we are agreeing.
I agree he couldn't just make it tougher by snapping his fingers.

Hillary is promising to continue to fight the odds and give us the scraps. People dont want that anymore. That is the difference between Bernie and Hillary.

Im not saying which approach will ultimately be more effective, but it's clear many want a different approach.

 

[Splendor]

I want to see it because Bernie would call out Trump's constant bs in hilarious fashion

Honestly both would. Look at the previous Dem Debate vs. the last Repub one. One is two people sharpening each other and making each other a better candidate, the other had guys talk about their dicks. Either way it will be incredivble.

 

[benjipwns]

Isn't his platform, that has gotten him as far as this, a socialist platform?

No, Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist.

 

[TyrantII]

Any democrat president will be a lame duck. What would make one think that republicans will be reasonable when dealing with hills?

Personally I don't see Bernie winninh the general election. People are vastly underestimating the united derp they'll pull out to slander him.

The Clinton's are sort of inoculated at this point. Bernie is a nationally unknown senator from Vermont with that "Socialist" tag line. And the media is going to trump out their fair and balanced both sides cards.

I'm more worried to how open he is to attacks and what that will do for the progressive movement. He's got the right policies, but I'm not sure he's the right leader to be leading the charge. The wrong leader WILL do irreparable harm to the movement to make the change we want. That has to be a factor.

It's why daily Kos is as conflicted on this as anyone. There's a lot at stake than pie in the sky policy that doesn't have a chance of being passed. SCOTUS appointments will flavor law for a generation for example and its essential that the GOP doesn't get the chance to stack the court again.

 

[DrROBschiz]

No, Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist.

Ugh


Can you find a better video than this?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Maybe I should apologize, since I have a hard time separating Bernie's actual positions and personality with that given to him by his online legion, who I find to be some of the most annoying people I've ever had to deal with online.

Maybe he's not really riding a high horse of morality that conflicts with joining a party, but I still think he could do better to not have his supporters trying to paint him as this bastion of uncorruptivity who descends from the heavens to bestow free health care. Blind optimism in the face of impossible math, even to the point of pretending the math doesn't exist or has a bias or whatever, also annoys me since I'm very into numbers making sense.

I just usually take my frustrations at his crazed fans out on him, which is kind of unfair.