Support NeoGAF

[SlimySnake]

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

Success in the democrat primaries means he's enjoying support from the 48% of americans polled in that poll. If you think a Socialist can get elected in a general election in the u.s, you either have an extraordinarily poor understanding of the u.s electorate or you just dont know your own country. Just look at the thread where even democrats turned on his tax plan.

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?

You must not be familiar with the 90s when her husband worked with a republican congress to get shit done. The clintons know how to reach across the aisle to pass legislation. Sometimes that means letting republicans get one or two of their bad ideas in a bill, but that's what happens when you have a country so divided. Americans may have elected Hillary, but they also elected republican congressmen.

Obama was a first term senator with very few friends in congress. He had a democratic congress and couldnt get single payer passed among the democrats. Let alone the republicans. After ted kennedy died and scott brown was elected, he needed just one senate vote to get anything he wanted but he couldnt convince a single republican. not a single one. thats poor leadership.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Both sad and hilarious.
Fanboyism at its worst.

Rails against big money in politics and talks about going up against the media establishment.

Raises more money than anyone and spends the most on ads.

 

[Nipo]

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.

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

You weren't around for RON PAUL in 08 I take it?

 

[Htown]

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

Different countries are different.

Different systems of government and elections, different political systems, different political cultures, different economies, etc. All of this basically means there are different starting points and different paths to the same goal. Walking 50 miles west over a flat grassland is different from going 50 miles to the west directly over mountains.

To some extent, it doesn't matter how other modern democracies do things, because there are different political and legal barriers over here.

 

[teruterubozu]

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.

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

Always with Jesus/messiah metaphors in politics.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You weren't around for RON PAUL in 08 I take it?

Not really. I was a senior in High School in 08.

I had a liberal politics teacher, and we only ever followed the Democrat primaries, since they seemed more interesting anyway.

And Ron Paul I can hate for being Ron Paul, the old crazy racist. I actually agree with Bernie's policies lol.

 

[Chezzymann]

/R/politics' front page is literally the same post about Bernie winning Michigan over and over again like ten times. I get they're excited but.... Seriously

 

[harSon]

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.

Similar to Bernie Sanders and Immigration Reform?

 

[Miles X]

I thought Ted Cruz's best states were suppose to be the southern firewall? I get he's losing there, but it's like he has a new area that is best for him.

So all those stories about him doing well at the start then fizzling out are turned on their head? Was really hoping to start seeing him slide.

 

[phanphare]

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.

yeah but Bernie is seen as having more integrity than Clinton (not a shot HillGAF, it is what it is) making him better equipped to counter Trump's bullshit. I feel like there's the potential for Trump to wave off what Hillary says and regardless of who is actually correct the optics might not reflect that.

 

[Nipo]

I thought Ted Cruz's best states were suppose to be the southern firewall? I get he's losing there, but it's like he has a new area that is best for him.

So all those stories about him doing well at the start then fizzling out are turned on their head? Was really hoping to start seeing him slide.

The establishment is actually starting to support and rally around him to beat Trump which breathes some life into his campaign outside of the south.

It will be interesting if establishment support is the touch of death for his campaign like it has been for every other candidate they've supported.

 

[SlimySnake]

No, Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist.

Once again, it doesn't matter if he's a socialist or not. He has gone on tv saying hes a socialist and all the republicans will do in the general election is play that video over and over again until he loses election.

 

[DrROBschiz]

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.

Naw I actually am not a supporter of some of his most extreme stances. I am more onboard with what he represents

Drawing attention to corruption, inefficiency, and conlict of interest within our current democracy. Thats vastly more important.

We have many systems contributing to unfair debt slavery of our citizens than just education and healthcare. Our society has many broken cogs in the wheel and we need someone who can laser focus on that

I divert from Bernie on how to handle healthcare and education maths. His tax plans seems in line with many moderates. His energy plan... ehhh... Ive been more pro-nuclear and small scale green energy iniatives.

Hes not perfect but hes breaking way more ground than Hillary in my mind.

 

[TarNaru33]

because of polls like this?

RNC and SuperPACs are going to spend nearly $1 billion attacking whoever the Dem candidate is. Bernie has never seen that kind of onslaught before.

Why do people even use this poll as an example of anything? This has no regard for the candidates actually running, what they stand for and what they are doing while they run. Indeed it has no context in the campaign between individuals.

At this point it is looking like a Trump win for GOP primaries. He can not win against either Bernie or Hillary. He alienated way too many votes for that to happen. The socialist tag isn't what will cause him to lose, it is the selfishness of U.S citizens (do not raise my taxes, even if it may benefit me or most of my country!) that will be the one to do it (if he lost to Trump).

Unfortunately Neogaf which I considered to be pretty well educated individuals, seem to be fiscally conservative with many not even understanding progressive taxation, so taxes alone is Bernie's main weakness. I do not think taxes will trump (lol), Trump's bigotry and general stupidity when it comes to the GE election though.

For those that want single-payer healthcare it is unfortunate mathematics, that it can not be done without raising taxes on even the middle class. This is also due to the many other policies he want to get.

 

[BotoxAgent]

So does Bernie have realistic path to the nomination? I haven't been following these threads closely the past few days.

 

[zer0blivion]

Did we ever find out who won in Detroit?

Hilary won Detroit.

Wayne county clerk - Election results
http://www.waynecounty.com/clerk/1609.htm

 

[JP_]

yeah but Bernie is seen as having more integrity than Clinton (not a shot HillGAF, it is what it is) making him better equipped to counter Trump's bullshit. I feel like there's the potential for Trump to wave off what Hillary says and regardless of who is actually correct the optics might not reflect that.

That's what is so scary about the GE -- it's just so unpredictable, regardless of the outcome between Sanders/Clinton, but for different reasons. The anti-establishment push is very real -- putting the most establishment candidate there is against Trump/Cruz is a big risk. Sanders is also a big risk because it's hard to tell if the nation is ready for someone so far to the left.

edit: and gaf seems to pretend the Clinton's email scandal doesn't exist, but it doesn't seem to be a non-issue to me. I agree it's been massively overblown, but the GOP's tactics have worked and it's unfortunately hurt Hillary's credibility and I'm worried it could cause additional problems down the road.

 

[boiled goose]

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.

On the bolded yes. Definitely.
One of the underlying issues I see though is that these republicans are being propped up by the same corrupt system. Military industrial complex, big oil, koch brothers, etc, etc. etc.

So something Obama cant do when he takes ton of money from Wall Street is turn around and attack their positions as corrupt. Why? Because then he also has to admit the he is also corrupt. Instead, they pretend to play games based on philosophical differences and sometimes disagree. When they agree, guess who gets rich and guess who gets fucked over? That is what people are tired of.

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.

Fair enough. Props for coming around on the bolded.

 

[Macho Madness]

So does Bernie have realistic path to the nomination? I haven't been following these threads closely the past few days.

Despite winning Michigan and all of the other states in April he's likely to win, no. Not really. Not unless Clinton either drops out or her support collapses to the tune of Sanders winning New York, California, and Florida by huge margins.

 

[royalan]

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.

"Scraps" is negative framing. Progressive steps, I'd call it. Strong steps, but steps nonetheless.

In that sense, I can see why young liberals are being swayed by a politician promising them change in leaps and bounds. I just don't see anything about our society and government that indicates that "leaps and bounds" is possible. If it were, we'd have already had single payer healthcare in the 90s when Hillary was pushing it.

 

[TyrantII]

yeah but Bernie is seen as having more integrity than Clinton (not a shot HillGAF, it is what it is) making him better equipped to counter Trump's bullshit. I feel like there's the potential for Trump to wave off what Hillary says and regardless of who is actually correct the optics might not reflect that.

A Bully going up against a well respected former Female Secretary of State (that can hold her own) isn't going to play well.

He's going to treat her like the GOP does, and that just won't fly in the general.

Conversely, all he has to do is say "Socialist, boogy boogy boo!" And the media is going to lock step and Americans will run. Socialist, wrongly, has been defined in minds of people long ago and it's a fight Democrats and leftists lost handedly.

A major redefinition needs to happem before it can be used again, not after. Anything else is putting the waggon in front of the cart.

 

[DrROBschiz]

On the bolded yes. Definitely.
One of the underlying issues I see though is that these republicans are being propped up by the same corrupt system. Military industrial complex, big oil, koch brothers, etc, etc. etc.

So something Obama cant do when he takes ton of money from Wall Street is turn around and attack their positions as corrupt. Why? Because then he also has to admit the he is also corrupt. Instead, they pretend to play games based on philosophical differences and sometimes disagree. When they agree, guess who gets rich and guess who gets fucked over? That is what people are tired of.



Fair enough. Props for coming around on the bolded.

This guy gets it

 

[boiled goose]

Despite winning Michigan and all of the other states in April he's likely to win, no. Not really. Not unless Clinton either drops out or her support collapses to the tune of Sanders winning New York, California, and Florida by huge margins.

I would say he has like a 20% or less chance. Probably less at this point. However, if he wins Ohio and Illinois and keeps it close in Florida, then that probability goes up quite a bit.

 

[boiled goose]

"Scraps" is negative framing. Progressive steps, I'd call it. Strong steps, but steps nonetheless.

In that sense, I can see why young liberals are being swayed by a politician promising them change in leaps and bounds. I just don't see anything about our society and government that indicates that "leaps and bounds" is possible. If it were, we'd have already had single payer healthcare in the 90s when Hillary was pushing it.

Scraps is definitely negative framing, but I think it is justified.
Progressive steps on social issues yes, but economically, scraps is putting it mildly. For some people it is basically nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/u...ecovery-still-limited-to-top-one-percent.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/

 

[uncelestial]

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.

If you don't see the many differences then I guess you didn't read it. And if you want to restrict the discussion to their voting records while in the senate where things are incredibly boiled down to party lines vs. the "progressiveness" of their platforms and the activism evident in their careers, I think that's a boring, reductive, and uninsightful way to compare the candidates.

A presidential candidate's platform is their wishlist. If you compare theirs, they clearly don't share many of the same goals. Hillary will not even begin to implement meaningful Wall Street reform, single payer, marijuana legalization, or tuition-free state college, and given her history of supporting every war that came her way, we're very likely going to inherit a new military project, as well. If you don't see this, you are simply not informed. If you think that's okay, then well, that's okay -- it's fine to be more moderate than Bernie. I just don't think it's accurate to call it a jump ball between the two.

 

[phanphare]

A Bully going up against a well respected former Female Secretary of State (that can hold her own) isn't going to play well.

He's going to treat her like the GOP does, and that just won't fly in the general.

Conversely, all he has to do is say "Socialist, boogy boogy boo!" And the media is going to lock step and Americans will run. Socialist, wrongly, has been defined in minds of people long ago and it's a fight Democrats and leftists lost handedly.

A major redefinition needs to happem before it can be used again, not after. Anything else is putting the waggon in front of the cart.

I disagree, I think it'll play well with people who specifically don't like Hillary Clinton. she's not well respected by everyone as we have seen in the past and even more so this election cycle.

also disagree with the "socialist, boogy boogy boo!" point. I feel like that talking point has been grossly overstated. that poll that always shows up is essentially Hillary supporters' version of "b-b-but he marched with MLK". it's played out. you know how to change the perception of the word "socialist" in America? have one run against Donald Trump in a presidential election.

 

[Slayven]

win map from 2008

Obama Blue

Clinton Green

 

[hamauzu kaito]

"Scraps" is negative framing. Progressive steps, I'd call it. Strong steps, but steps nonetheless.

In that sense, I can see why young liberals are being swayed by a politician promising them change in leaps and bounds. I just don't see anything about our society and government that indicates that "leaps and bounds" is possible. If it were, we'd have already had single payer healthcare in the 90s when Hillary was pushing it.

Well these progressive steps aren't invulnerable. We see that with Obama. The Republican Party feels pretty confident they can strip everything away, and big donors as well.

 

[JP_]

"Scraps" is negative framing. Progressive steps, I'd call it. Strong steps, but steps nonetheless.

In that sense, I can see why young liberals are being swayed by a politician promising them change in leaps and bounds. I just don't see anything about our society and government that indicates that "leaps and bounds" is possible. If it were, we'd have already had single payer healthcare in the 90s when Hillary was pushing it.

The whole premise of Sander's campaign is to get the public excited and engaged to get things done. Promising tiny steps of progress doesn't get anybody excited.

The "political revolution" idea isn't easy and it'll certainly be a challenge for Sanders if he gets the chance, but is it unprecedented? I think what Sanders is proposing is basically what happened with FDR, LBJ, and Reagan.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Despite winning Michigan and all of the other states in April he's likely to win, no. Not really. Not unless Clinton either drops out or her support collapses to the tune of Sanders winning New York, California, and Florida by huge margins.

Thanks!

Now time for me to check the polls on these upcoming states.

I won't mind if these primaries both Dem and Rep, go on for a lil longer. I am not ready for the GE stress to start so early yet. I'm enjoying the Republican circus too much lol

 

[numble]

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.

I'm not really taking a side, but I think the 93% argument is a red herring. Obama's Supreme Court appointees vote with Reagan appointee 80% of the time, and they voted with Scalia a majority of the time as well, but that doesn't imply that they have the same ideologies.

 

[Damerman]

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

Slowly but surely you are becoming my favorite poster.

 

[freeofgreed]

You must not be familiar with the 90s when her husband worked with a republican congress to get shit done. The clintons know how to reach across the aisle to pass legislation. Sometimes that means letting republicans get one or two of their bad ideas in a bill, but that's what happens when you have a country so divided. Americans may have elected Hillary, but they also elected republican congressmen.

The republicans of the 90s are not the republicans of today. If Obama who is "to the right" of Clinton had to face hell to get anything done, I don't see why people think Clinton will have any easier of a time just because her husband did 20 years ago. Especially considering the GOP seems to hate her just as much if not more than Obama.

 

[uncelestial]

Similar to Bernie Sanders and Immigration Reform?

Yeah, similar to that. I think his "change of heart" (or whatever you want to call it) on immigration and his mildly-for-more-gun-control-sorta stance are the two issues where I'm not stoked about Sanders. But he's the closest candidate to my own views on everything else.

As for him having a different opinion on one thing in 2016 that he didn't have in 2006, that's probably okay. It looks a lot better than this:

 

[JP_]

I'm not really taking a side, but I think the 93% argument is a red herring. Obama's Supreme Court appointees vote with Reagan appointee 80% of the time, and they voted with Scalia a majority of the time as well, but that doesn't imply that they have the same ideologies.

Except senate votes definitely break down between ideologies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-disagreed-in-their-senate-votes-charted/

 

[JP_]

You must not be familiar with the 90s when her husband worked with a republican congress to get shit done. The clintons know how to reach across the aisle to pass legislation. Sometimes that means letting republicans get one or two of their bad ideas in a bill, but that's what happens when you have a country so divided. Americans may have elected Hillary, but they also elected republican congressmen.

Yeah, he tossed Glass Steagall and gutted welfare.

edit: sorry for dp. everybody stopped posting and it's like the room went silent while I was in the middle of a convo

 

[benjipwns]

Ugh


Can you find a better video than this?

On his channel or...?

Because he only is rocking the Zangief look for so long and I think that adds like ten points to his videos. Which are otherwise perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y3e2dohrNM

 

[Macho Madness]

win map from 2008

Obama Blue

Clinton Green

And here's what 2016 looks like so far:

 

[numble]

Except senate votes definitely break down between ideologies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-disagreed-in-their-senate-votes-charted/

My point is that the justices are defined by the times they depart from voting with someone they usually vote together with, not the votes where they vote together.

 

[Robot Pants]

And here's what 2016 looks like so far:

That's a whole lotta country left

 

[uncelestial]

On his channel or...?

Because he only is rocking the Zangief look for so long and I think that adds like ten points to his videos. Which are otherwise perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y3e2dohrNM

hahahaha this guy rules

 

[pigeon]

That's a whole lotta country left

In fairness, it's mostly dirt.

 

[benjipwns]

In fairness, it's mostly dirt.

And owned by the federal government!

Which supports the "socialist"...or the establishment?!?!?

 

[Miles X]

I crunched some numbers.

If Trump keeps winning the eastern coast (like he has been from north to south) and clinches California, he should get more than enough to get to that magic delegate number needed. That's with losing all those mid western states to Cruz and Ohio to Kasich.

I mean look at this, he's absolutely dominated, and the rest left are mostly winner takes all.

I bet the GOP are shitting themselves.

 

[JP_]

My point is that the justices are defined by the times they depart from voting with someone they usually vote together with, not the votes where they vote together.

That's a weird point to make when you were talking about how close Clinton/Sanders are...

 

[Damerman]

No, Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist.

If u are posting that video without any irony, this explains a lot of your sentiments and past posts about bernie.

 

[benjipwns]

I crunched some numbers.

If Trump keeps winning the eastern coast (like he has been from north to south) and clinches California, he should get more than enough to get to that magic delegate number needed. That's with losing all those mid western states to Cruz and Ohio to Kasich.

I mean look at this, he's absolutely dominated, and the rest left are mostly winner takes all.

I bet the GOP are shitting themselves.

It's not updated with last night, but playing around with this you can see that just using his national averages, Trump basically has a really strong inside track on the nomination as long as he merely wins enough WTA's and doesn't get beat too hard in other states: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/the_gop_race_for_delegates_an_interactive_tool.html

 

[TyrantII]

The whole premise of Sander's campaign is to get the public excited and engaged to get things done. Promising tiny steps of progress doesn't get anybody excited.

The "political revolution" idea isn't easy and it'll certainly be a challenge for Sanders if he gets the chance, but is it unprecedented? I think what Sanders is proposing is basically what happened with FDR, LBJ, and Reagan.

If that's the idea, it isn't materializing. If it isn't materializing in the party, how does it in the national elections?

I got behind Obama in 2008 because there were strong signs he was materializing that support and there was a wave election building.

I'm not seeing that in the data points with Bernie. Am I wrong?

 

[JP_]

If that's the idea, it isn't materializing. If it isn't materializing in the party, how does it in the national elections?

I got behind Obama in 2008 because there were strong signs he was materializing that support and there was a wave election building.

I'm not seeing that in the data points with Bernie. Am I wrong?

No I think you're pretty accurate. The only caveat I'd give is that Bernie has beaten expectations over and over and seems to be performing very strongly with independents. I'm not saying it's likely he'll win or accomplish his goals after winning, but I think it's too early to give up.

 

[uncelestial]

No, Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist.

(notes low view count and love of communist-era aesthetic in video)

...Is... Is that you?

That's you, isn't it?