Support NeoGAF

[teruterubozu]

It'll be required, at least if we want to maintain civil rights. I'm saying that the inability of state/corporate power to effect long-term, profit neutral or losing ventures just isn't there.

I think you mean, the ability of state/corporate power to effect long-term, profit neutral or losing ventures just isn't there.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

As a Clinton supporter, my reasons are a bit different than what you listed. My actual ideal policies are a lot closer to Bernie than to Clinton. The only thing I disagree with Bernie on is gun control and protectionism (maybe a few other things). The reason why I am not supporting Bernie is that I do not think that any of his ideas have a chance in hell of being implemented even if he did get elected, so why vote for him? I think Clinton is a politician to the bone and will be able to better enact policies that will gradually improve our nation. Nor do I see Clinton taking money from corporations and big business an indication that she won't nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United. She plays the political game, and I think you need to play the political game to have any sort of shot to be effective. Bernie's principle stand, while honorable, isnt going to change anything and is just going to put himself at a disadvantage. Moreover, he has no control over legislation when it gets to Congress, so I am not quite sure how he is going to stop corporate goodies getting into legislation that reaches his desk anyways.

I think the whole idea of a political revolution is ridiculous. I see no evidence of it happening. Moreover, our entire political structure and system was created to avoid drastic change, avoid revolution, and ensure that gradual change was basically the only way America was going to change unless shit completely hits the fan. Well, the shit hasnt the fan yet so we are left with gradual change. Bernie Sanders isnt going to change that. He can't change our whole political structure and get things done by his own will. Once he is president, he will either have the choice of sticking to his high-minded rhetoric and get nothing done, or make some serious compromises (if that actually becomes a possibility to do with republicans) and will then be branded a failure by the left base.

In this situation, I think a wonkish politician who plays the game will be better able to enact change than the populist with big ideas. I'll just be clear and state that this is my perspective on things. I don't know the future and don't know everything so I could be wrong, but this is how I see things playing out, and as a result would prefer Clinton in the general election.

Thank you for not shitposting. I like your reasoning and the conclusions you arise to. You do it without derailing the thread.


But why don't you think Bernie could policy implemented? When looking at his political history there seems to have been little flip flopping or compromise. Why wouldn't he be like Obama has been in second term? Simply running with the ideas!

 

[ColdPizza]

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

No, I want a real left option or a strong enough left movement to make it clear that Democrats can't take the left vote for granted. They can only go so far right before they're crossing into voters who, if they're going to vote Republican anyway, might as well vote for the actual Republican. Barring that, I'd like to see real support for a strong left third party or party to replace the Democrats.

First, this assumes Americans are itching to vote for leftist candidates and just aren't being given the chance. Sadly, I think this is just not true. Bernie's performance among young people should give us hope for the near future though.

Second, please don't trot out the old "There's no real difference between the two major parties" nonsense. Run down the list of issues and look at the respective stances of the front-runners of the two major parties. There's a wide gulf between them. I mean, did you watch any of the Republican debates? These folks are advocating flat taxes, the gold standard, increasing military spending, climate change inaction, etc. Not to mention they would almost certainly stick us with a far-right Supreme Court for decades to come.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Not really. They just explained what was already known. I didn't ask why there is a divide, I asked why these threads are all turning to shit you would normally see in PopGAF threads. Like, where is the strangely sophomoric jabs and drive by posts coming from and calling people things like 'queen'. It's some weird, rah rah, petty, adolescent posting.

You want the real reason? A good majority of them are joke posts from joke characters that need to stay in PopGAF and leave the political discussion to the big boys.

 

[teruterubozu]

You want the real reason? A good majority of them are joke posts from joke characters that need to stay in PopGAF and leave the political discussion to the big boys.

Ha, not in this election.

 

[Foffy]

You want the real reason? A good majority of them are joke posts from joke characters that need to stay in PopGAF and leave the political discussion to the big boys.

Who are the big boys? And where are the big girls?

 

[Cheebo]

Thank you for not shitposting. I like your reasoning and the conclusions you arise to. You do it without derailing the thread.


But why don't you think Bernie could policy implemented? When looking at his political history there seems to have been little flip flopping or compromise. Why wouldn't he be like Obama has been in second term? Simply running with the ideas!

The vast majority of Bernies policies require congress passage. Congress is overwhelmingly Republican and that is not going to change any time soon.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The vast majority of Bernies policies require congress passage. Congress is overwhelmingly Republican and that is not going to change any time soon.

If his "revolution" does not bring in a Democratic House and Senate then the revolution will have been a failure. Expecting the revolution to wake up two years later in a 2018 midterm to give him the above is two years too late.

All of that being mindful of about 45-47% of the country will be against him no matter what the polls on the issues the "American" people supposedly agree with him 90% on.

 

[JustenP88]

If his "revolution" does not bring in a Democratic House and Senate then the revolution will have been a failure. Expecting the revolution to wake up two years later in a 2018 midterm to give him the above is two years too late.

All of that being mindful of about 45-47% of the country will be against him no matter what the polls on the issues the "American" people supposedly agree with him 90% on.

Getting people to vote is the whole point. Hillary has the same challenge and, frankly, I see absolutely no reason to believe that she'll be able to inspire increased voter turnout. Stagnation isn't exactly conducive to inspiration and there's nothing more stagnant in politics than the Clinton political institution. Not to mention she'll face similar amounts of the electorate who will oppose her regardless of what happens. I live in a very conservative part of the country and she's Public Enemy #1B here.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Always interesting seeing people arguing for losing this election to kickstart a leftist revolution without taking into consideration the lives that would be affected by a republican president.

 

[kingkitty]

Always interesting seeing people arguing for losing this election to kickstart a leftist revolution without taking into consideration the lives that would be affected by a republican president.

this post is going to be funny when the bernvolution does occur.

 

[Cheebo]

Getting people to vote is the whole point. Hillary has the same challenge and, frankly, I see absolutely no reason to believe that she'll be able to inspire increased voter turnout. Stagnation isn't exactly conducive to inspiration and there's nothing more stagnant in politics than the Clinton political institution. Not to mention she'll face similar amounts of the electorate who will oppose her regardless of what happens. I live in a very conservative part of the country and she's Public Enemy #1B here.

Bernie has pretty weak support from Democrats right now. What makes you think they would suddenly be energized and eager to vote for him in a general more than Hillary when they mostly prefer Hillary over him currently?

 

[JustenP88]

Always interesting seeing people arguing for losing this election to kickstart a leftist revolution without taking into consideration the lives that would be affected by a republican president.

This is a really cheap, nonsensical deflection. Almost "Wall Street loves me cause 9/11" levels of nonsense.

Bernie has pretty weak support from Democrats right now. What makes you think they would suddenly be energetized and eager to vote for him in a general more than Hillary when they mostly prefer Hillary over him currently?

In that hypothetical, support would have to shift from Hillary enough for him to win the primary so... Moot point, right? Unless you're insinuating that... *GASP* Hillary voters would take their balls and go home if she doesn't get the nomination?!?!

While we're playing around with hypotheticals, let's say Trump wins the Republican nomination... You think he beats Sanders? You think this country is that depraved?

 

[Bronx-Man]

This is a really cheap, nonsensical deflection. Almost "Wall Street lives me cause 9/11" levels of nonsense.

How is it nonsensical?

 

[B-Dubs]

Bernie has pretty weak support from Democrats right now. What makes you think they would suddenly be energetized and eager to vote for him in a general more than Hillary when they mostly prefer Hillary over him currently?

He's also ignoring the fact that she's got the Obama turnout machine behind her.

 

[capslock]

Awesome. I'm going to vote against my best interests so this guy gets his dying wish.

 

[JustenP88]

How is it nonsensical?

We're talking about a small minority. Every election there are people who won't vote establishment. Doesn't really seem to swing all that much.

He's also ignoring the fact that she's got the Obama turnout machine behind her.

Ehhhh... Ok. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say... Republicans control the House, right? And the Senate? The Obama turnout machine is going to solve that problem after he leaves office?

To be clear, when talking about getting people to vote, I was talking about mid terms and whatnot. I was assuming the hypothetical "Sanders is president now how does he hope to implement his agenda."

 

[Veritigo_X]

We're talking about a small minority. Every election there are people who won't vote establishment. Doesn't really seem to swing all that much.

I just said it was interesting, not that the people saying that are a major part of the electorate. I find that line of thinking comical because it has no basis in reality.

 

[Cheebo]

He's also ignoring the fact that she's got the Obama turnout machine behind her.

Hillarys volunteers dwarf that of Bernies in the early states as well. She has a far better organization, there is no question.

Bernies most forgotten issue is all of the qualified democratic campaign staff who know how to win elections are all behind Hillary which makes things very difficult for him operationally.

 

[The Lamonster]

For those that watched this debate, do you think it'll change anything in the polls?

 

[Cheebo]

For those that watched this debate, do you think it'll change anything in the polls?

Seeing how Hillarys numbers went up after the first and all polling showed her winning it it is safe to say she is likely she would be the only one to show any polling improvement.

 

[teruterubozu]

For those that watched this debate, do you think it'll change anything in the polls?

There may be bumps and bruises here and there but the net effect is the same. Besides, the debate was a Saturday night and purposefully low-profile.

 

[JustenP88]

I just said it was interesting, not that the people saying that are a major part of the electorate. I find that line of thinking comical because it has no basis in reality.

Fair enough, and I agree. Worst-case scenario for all involved is a Republican winning.

 

[B-Dubs]

Ehhhh... Ok. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say... Republicans control the House, right? And the Senate? The Obama turnout machine is going to solve that problem after he leaves office?

To be clear, when talking about getting people to vote, I was talking about mid terms and whatnot. I was assuming the hypothetical "Sanders is president now how does he hope to implement his agenda."

If the Dems can't retake the House and Senate during the presidential, when turn-out is at it's highest then they absolutely can't do it in a midterm--not with the current state of congressional districts anyway. Anyone who thinks that's possible hasn't been paying enough attention in the off-years, the House is gerrymandered to hell and taking it back without a huge wave isn't going to happen.

In short what I'm saying is this: If Sanders does win the general election (this is a huge if considering everything he'd be up against) and does not take back the House and Senate, he won't have another chance to do it until he runs for reelection and at that point voter disillusionment will just make it all that much harder.

EDIT: I don't mean to be mean or anything, I've just had this exact conversation like a dozen times over the course of the primary at this point.

 

[Byakuya769]

Getting people to vote is the whole point. Hillary has the same challenge and, frankly, I see absolutely no reason to believe that she'll be able to inspire increased voter turnout. Stagnation isn't exactly conducive to inspiration and there's nothing more stagnant in politics than the Clinton political institution. Not to mention she'll face similar amounts of the electorate who will oppose her regardless of what happens. I live in a very conservative part of the country and she's Public Enemy #1B here.

#1A being Obama, who drove great turnout?

She'll have Obama and Bill on the trail for her, she'll be fine. I do doubt she makes either body of congress change hands, however.


On second thought, she'll also be fucking up some Republican in debates. The base will be energized--just like with that Benghazi sham committee hearing.

 

[JustenP88]

If the Dems can't retake the House and Senate during the presidential, when turn-out is at it's highest then they absolutely can't do it in a midterm--not with the current state of congressional districts anyway. Anyone who thinks that's possible hasn't been paying enough attention in the off-years, the House is gerrymandered to hell and taking it back without a huge wave isn't going to happen.

In short what I'm saying is this: If Sanders does win the general election (this is a huge if considering everything he'd be up against) and does not take back the House and Senate, he won't have another chance to do it until he runs for reelection and at that point voter disillusionment will just make it all that much harder.

EDIT: I don't mean to be mean or anything, I've just had this exact conversation like a dozen times over the course of the primary at this point.

This is all fine. No, it's not easy. My concern is that Hillary will have the exact same issue. My slight optimism comes from Bernie's popularity with demographics who don't traditionally turn up at the polls. I really hate drawing this comparison, but there's a lot of people on the left that are disillusioned with Democrats and I think Hillary is only going to drive that further. Another candidate may be able to rile up this "base" similar to the right's success with the Tea Party.

You may not agree with me, but I don't think the far-left is as insane or dangerous as the far-right. Our far-left wouldn't be considered out of the ordinary in a lot of countries. I don't think the Democratic party has anything to lose by actively courting them.

#1A being Obama, who drove great turnout?

She'll have Obama and Bill on the trail for her, she'll be fine. I do doubt she makes either body of congress change hands, however.

I'm talking down-ballot races. Not the presidential election. She'll be fine there. Any Democrat would likely be fine there pending the results of the Republican primary.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

'A vote for Hillary is a vote for standstill!'....hmmm...doesn't have much of a ring to it.

I assure you, if Karl Marx was somehow elected president, a Republican and conservative congress would likely have been history for a long time.

The one thing Sanders keeps failing to mention whenever moderators or anyone else asks him exactly how he hopes to achieve a political revolution (to which his answer is normally the quite Trumpian "because I will") is that we need to elect DEMOCRATS to the House and Senate. More specifically, we need to elect the most liberal electable Democrats possible to regain majorities in Congress and in state houses. Otherwise there is literally zero chance of any liberal/progressive agenda every getting passed.

If you think Bernie Sanders (who is not even a Democrat) is going to usher in a Democratic wave election, you're deluded. However, there is a chance (albeit a slim chance) that a Hillary ticket could mobilize women in an unprecedented way and could regain us both the Senate (more likely) and the House (less likely) next year. So I'd argue that Hillary offers a more realistic path to the "political revolution" we need.

 

[exmachina64]

If the Dems can't retake the House and Senate during the presidential, when turn-out is at it's highest then they absolutely can't do it in a midterm--not with the current state of congressional districts anyway. Anyone who thinks that's possible hasn't been paying enough attention in the off-years, the House is gerrymandered to hell and taking it back without a huge wave isn't going to happen.

In short what I'm saying is this: If Sanders does win the general election (this is a huge if considering everything he'd be up against) and does not take back the House and Senate, he won't have another chance to do it until he runs for reelection and at that point voter disillusionment will just make it all that much harder.

EDIT: I don't mean to be mean or anything, I've just had this exact conversation like a dozen times over the course of the primary at this point.

I share your frustration and just to expand upon this, it's all but guaranteed that Democrats can't win enough of the seats up for election in the House in 2016 to take back the House.

And here's a list for anyone curious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016

 

[Piecake]

Thank you for not shitposting. I like your reasoning and the conclusions you arise to. You do it without derailing the thread.


But why don't you think Bernie could policy implemented? When looking at his political history there seems to have been little flip flopping or compromise. Why wouldn't he be like Obama has been in second term? Simply running with the ideas!

Executive orders are murky (I am assuming that is what you are referring to?), and I am not exactly clear what can be one and what can't be one. However, I am fairly sure that any executive order that provides funding to the executive order and reaches into the purse of the United States is unconstitutional because only Congress has that power.

Due to that restriction, I don't see how any of his major policy ideas can be completed through executive order because they all require significant amounts of money. And even if he does do it, and for some unfathomable reason the Supreme Court lets him get away with it I would vehemently oppose it because what we have now is basically a dictatorship with King Bernie as our ruler.

 

[JustenP88]

I share your frustration and just to expand upon this, it's all but guaranteed that Democrats can't win enough of the seats up for election in the House in 2016 to take back the House.

And here's a list for anyone curious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016

You could ease your frustration by not bringing up what is essentially a moot point over and over... Any Democratic president has to overcome this hurdle. They'll obstruct Clinton, they'll obstruct Sanders. Acknowledging that isn't going to sway anyone towards voting against their principles.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I can't prove this, but I really think conservatives would prefer Bernie to Hillary. And not in a 'easier to beat' sense, even if that's true.

I mean President H Clinton vs President B Sanders. Not out of any logical feeling, but because these are the days of personality politics, and they hate her.

 

[Arkeband]

I can't prove this, but I really think conservatives would prefer Bernie to Hillary. And not in a 'easier to beat' sense, even if that's true.

I mean President H Clinton vs President B Sanders. Not out of any logical feeling, but because these are the days of personality politics, and they hate her.

They have a begrudging respect for Bernie for what they see as sticking to his guns in spite of his perceived wrongness.

Something they have built an entire empire around.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I can't prove this, but I really think conservatives would prefer Bernie to Hillary. And not in a 'easier to beat' sense, even if that's true.

I mean President H Clinton vs President B Sanders. Not out of any logical feeling, but because these are the days of personality politics, and they hate her.

They would hate him just as much if not more if he was the frontrunner, trust me. It's kind of like how their hatred for Obama ramped up by a thousand percent when they saw he was actually going to win.

It would be nice if they respected Sanders for his honesty but that would get lost in their rhetoric about being a socialist.

 

[JustenP88]

They have a begrudging respect for Bernie for what they see as sticking to his guns in spite of his perceived wrongness.

Something they have built an entire empire around.

Plus, their disdain is rarely based in rational thought. Bernie's agenda would pose more of a threat to their ideology. But those fucking Clintons...

 

[disastermouse]

I think you mean, the ability of state/corporate power to effect long-term, profit neutral or losing ventures just isn't there.

Yes. Hah! I had 2 hours of sleep in 24 and I was at work.

 

[disastermouse]

First, this assumes Americans are itching to vote for leftist candidates and just aren't being given the chance. Sadly, I think this is just not true. Bernie's performance among young people should give us hope for the near future though.

Second, please don't trot out the old "There's no real difference between the two major parties" nonsense. Run down the list of issues and look at the respective stances of the front-runners of the two major parties. There's a wide gulf between them. I mean, did you watch any of the Republican debates? These folks are advocating flat taxes, the gold standard, increasing military spending, climate change inaction, etc. Not to mention they would almost certainly stick us with a far-right Supreme Court for decades to come.

Your perception of how similar they are depends upon how far out from the limitations of the two party system that your political spectrum stretches. They are much more similar in economic terms than they are on social issues, surely. I submit that together, they limit the options to consumer capitalist solutions to political problems and that both are useful to the owners of capital. Neither one truly offers a plan for democratic participation in the economy. One is the good cop and one is the bad cop. Together they both work to further a similar overall agenda.

 

[B-Dubs]

Plus, their disdain is rarely based in rational thought. Bernie's agenda would pose more of a threat to their ideology. But those fucking Clintons...

Keep in mind that right now Bernie is an afterthought to the GOP, if he gets the nomination expect him to get the Obama treatment from them.

 

[JustenP88]

Keep in mind that right now Bernie is an afterthought to the GOP, if he gets the nomination expect him to get the Obama treatment from them.

I'd expect nothing less from such a dignified, cordial group.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Correction: A problem that capitalism can't fix.

Carbon tax. Someone else has to pay for the clean up eventually, so a polluters pay system is better and still capitalistic.

 

[Moofers]

I was unable to watch the debate on Saturday night, but I've been listening to it at work today and now I am finally caught up. I must say, CBS has done the best job out of ANY of the networks that have hosted so far.

-The questions were tough but not "gotcha"
-Rules were enforced
-Everyone seemed to get a chance to respond to everything

I'm really pleased with it. I wish CBS got to host all of them.

Don't ask me who won because my heart says Sanders, but I can't deny that everyone had a good showing. Hillary had those couple of "oops" moments, but I think if you are a fan of hers, nothing there was going to dissuade you.

I really thought it was a good production all around though and this thing is exactly the kind of debate we need to see more of in the coming weeks/months.

 

[docbon]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/11/cbs-democratic-debate-sanders-clinton-omalley-215908

The second Democratic debate hosted by CBS drew 8.5 million viewers, according to ratings from Nielsen.
It was the lowest-rated primary debate this campaign season from either party, though it was the most watched show on Saturday night for broadcast television. The first Democratic debate, hosted by CNN, brought in a record-breaking 15.3 million viewers. The previous record for a Democratic debate was in 2008, which saw 10.7 million viewers for a debate on ABC.
CBS also garnered 1.2 million live streams of the debate across several platforms.

"If averages hold, and given next two debates on weekends, six Dem debates will reach between 60-70 million viewers, or less than GOP has already reached in its first four debates. Gap will be between 130 to 140 million viewers — a number equal to the total number of people who are likely to vote next year," Rosenberg wrote in an email.

 

[crisdecuba]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/11/cbs-democratic-debate-sanders-clinton-omalley-215908

Yup. This debate, and the remaining ones that have been scheduled, feel like the DNC was looking for dates with the lowest possible viewership...

 

[ShyMel]

Viewership rates being very different was something I expected as the Democratic debates lack a clown car filled to the brim with wackos.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Your perception of how similar they are depends upon how far out from the limitations of the two party system that your political spectrum stretches.

???? Are you implying that I've never heard of communism or something? We're all aware there are ideologies and platforms far more extreme than the two major parties. We have a first-past-the-post system, so you're going to end up with two dominant parties relatively close to the country's political center. I've stated repeatedly that I too would prefer someone to the left of what either party can realistically offer, but just because the two parties are reasonably close to each other relative to the entire spectrum of political philosophies, doesn't mean they aren't very different in absolute terms. Having Republicans in office instead of Democrats has very real and significant consequences, none of them good.

Neither one truly offers a plan for democratic participation in the economy. One is the good cop and one is the bad cop. Together they both work to further a similar overall agenda.

I don't know if this was your intention but to me this reads as conspiracy theory peddling.

In any case, I don't think we're getting anywhere here, so I'll leave you to your, in my view, quixotic pursuit of the perfect at the expense of the good.

 

[Cronox]

Yup. This debate, and the remaining ones that have been scheduled, feel like the DNC was looking for dates with the lowest possible viewership...

It goes with Clinton's strategy of hiding... the less time in public, the less chance of her saying something stupid when people ask her to explain her relationship with wall street, among other things.

It's already a perversion of democracy that independents aren't allowed in the debates. But then to only have 6 on the democratic side? And who watches TV on a Saturday night? Fucking no one, that's who. Let's not act like we don't know why this is.

 

[Elfforkusu]

???? Are you implying that I've never heard of communism or something? We're all aware there are ideologies and platforms far more extreme than the two major parties. We have a first-past-the-post system, so you're going to end up with two dominant parties relatively close to the country's political center.

I don't see how anyone can honestly claim this is true, given how large of a sway business interests hold over American politics in 2015.

Maybe relatively close to the country's [corporate] political center. What incentive is there to appeal to voters who don't have money to donate?

 

[Cloyster]

I was too young to really understand or care about politics during Bush.

So it will be interesting to have a president you really dislike in the White House for the first time, and comprehend everything they do.

 

[Mecha]

Carbon tax. Someone else has to pay for the clean up eventually, so a polluters pay system is better and still capitalistic.

Capitalism and the pursuit of profit is a major reason why we are this deep in trouble with climate change as we currently are. It's the same reason why we haven't implemented and researched more energy alternatives. A lot of big companies profit or save money by ruining the earth, the whole system just reinforces this behavior. A carbon tax would be nice, but it won't fix the problem of climate change and the inability people and corporations have to put the earth over profit.

 

[ivysaur12]

Also, 8.5 million most years would be a great number for a second primary debate. Just this year it's contrasted with the entertainment value of the GOP debates, which are also dwindling in viewership as time has gone on.