Support NeoGAF

[FtsH]

Except he doesn't think all the rich are evil, that's just how people paint it to show him as an enemy.

I don't think anyone who is pro single payer, pro fixing the income gap, and/or pro removal of corruption in politics, want the rich to be gone, or inherently hate them. We just want them to play as the same rules as the rest of the country does, and pay their FAIR share of taxes. They will also surely reap the benefits of a more balanced system, which is increased economic prosperity for all when consumer confidence and spending power goes up, and the increased benefits of improved infrastructure, cheaper healthcare, and free college. These are all things the rich and poor can both benefit from.

But how many times did Bernie answer the debate -- whatever topics they were asked about -- by blaming the riches/wall street/large companies? If he could just clearly state some actionable plans I'd be happier. Plus, even in his plan, the super power, once held by the riches, as he described, will not be gone, it will merely transform into a super government!

What you just said here are fair to me, however that's not the message I learned from Bernie. So sorry for him.

 

[SURGEdude]

Bernie and O'Malley stepped up their game. Hillary was polished as usual.

But Bernie is the only one who seems to have any authentic passion.

 

[Prodigal Son]

But how many times did Bernie answer the debate -- whatever topics they were asked about -- by blaming the riches/wall street/large companies? If he could just clearly state some actionable plans I'd be happier. Plus, even in his plan, the super power, once held by the riches, as he described, will not be gone, it will merely transform into a super government!

What you just said here are fair to me, however that's not the message I learned from Bernie. So sorry for him.

It isn't about blaming them. It's speaking out against the rich using their finance and power to influence political policy.

 

[besada]

Don't forget that he had cover for that view a lot earlier as well, he came around after Vermont legalized it. Not before.

He had tons of cover. So did Hillary Clinton while she was a Senator for New York.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Sure, but I think you also have to concede that he got to the right answers earlier than most of his peers, too.

As was mentioned on the last page, Sanders comes from one of the most liberal states in the nation. He hasn't been a national figure until the last six months or so. It was much easier for him to move forward on gay marriage than the Clintons or Obama.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

1) Two thirds of the country can't stand Trump and would never vote for him.

2) In order for a Republican to win the general election, they need to get 30% of the non-white vote.

Just a caveat on number 2; a lot of migrants are pretty strongly opposed to communism and anything that can be rebranded to look like it.

The Democrats often take the non-white vote for granted. They vote Dem because they don't actively champion nationalism the way the GOP does. But should the GOP clean up their act (granted, almost impossible this cycle), don't assume minorities will just stick around with the Dems.

TLDR; what's in it for us?

 

[JesseEwiak]

Sure, but I think you also have to concede that he got to the right answers earlier than most of his peers, too.

Sure, but it's a lot easier to have the "right" answers when you're the mayor of a hippy dippy city or the Senator from the state Massachusetts makes fun of for being super liberal than when you're say, the wife of the 1st Democratic President in nearly twenty years trying to get any slight positive results you can for LGBT people in a nation that still doesn't like them too much.

Just a caveat on number 2; a lot of migrants are pretty strongly opposed to communism and anything that can be rebranded to look like it.

The Democrats often take the non-white vote for granted. They vote Dem because they don't actively champion nationalism the way the GOP does. But should the GOP clean up their act (granted, almost impossible this cycle), don't assume minorities will just stick around with the Dems.

TLDR; what's in it for us?

All polls show that the non-white vote, whether it be Asian, African-American, or Hispanic is far more in favor of government involvement in the economy than white voters. Yes, if the GOP managed to not scare away Asian voters by their uberChristian platform, scare away Hispanic voters by seeming like they want to throw everybody with a -z ending to their name in a bus back to Mexico, or admit that just maybe, cops occasionally may shoot black people too much, the problem for the GOP is in general, non-white people are more liberal than white people on economic issues.

 

[SURGEdude]

It isn't about blaming them. It's speaking out against the rich using their finance and power to influence political policy.

Bingo. I have a lot of respect for the self made rich. I just think that they need to be taxed much more. I don't demonize them. I applaud them. But they need to be compelled to do the right thing.

 

[Blader]

My worry about Bernie constantly raising the point of Wall Street's influence on politics and the need for campaign finance reform is that, while he's not wrong, it might look to a lot of people like he's defaulting to the same answer for every question and come off as looking like a weakness.

 

[lednerg]

All it matters is that you are for gay marriage now (speaking as a young gay man). If you were in favor in the past, then you are a beast and an amazing person, but I'm not going to hold you for the sins that the VAST majority fell for.

Agreed. I'm a straight guy who came of age in the 90's, which means I've had friends and role models off all sexualities to look up to. I can't say the same for the politicians on any of these stages. This is a generational thing. I do understand that they weren't offered the same opportunities I had, and they needed to "evolve" to come to treat the LGBT community with dignity and respect. Their willingness to do so, aside from how that affected them politically, is what counts for me. In my mind, all three Democratic candidates are in accord with my feelings on the matter. That said, some have been more helpful than others. Don't Ask Don't Tell was a dark time, for example.

 

[SURGEdude]

My worry about Bernie constantly raising the point of Wall Street's influence on politics and the need for campaign finance reform is that, while he's not wrong, it might look to a lot of people like he's defaulting to the same answer for every question and come off as looking like a weakness.

It's a huge problem. The optics are poor. But he's right that the only way to accomplish anything is finance reform. Otherwise we have to wait 40 years for the demographics to make it happen. Gerrymandering is powerful as fuck.

 

[Square2015]

Holy crap. Check Yahoo! News. Lead article : "Bernie Sander's Radical Political Past / Made a Deal with the Devil"

-they're trying to destroy him as Ioma looms.

 

[SURGEdude]

Holy crap. Check Yahoo! News. Lead article : "Bernie Sander's Radical Political Past"

Sleazy.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

The progression on Gay Marriage that has occurred over the decades, specifically the mid 90s up until last summer, was really interesting. To me, it was all about the prospective change that occurred. DOMA was the seed that planted the pathway to the government's acknowledgement of gay marriage. In some ways, DOMA is what "defined" the meaning of marriage in a governmental policy sense. Since then you had people saying "we shouldn't redefine marriage," which of course is a typical politician method of messaging. Marriage has always been different and has evolved for thousands of years. From a trading a wife for goats to bonds of love, marriage has meant different things in different cultures since, well, forever. I also believe marriage was so taken for granted that people never realized how backwards they were when confronting the issue. Ultimately the only definition of marriage that should matter is the institution that is doing the arrangement. A church sees a marriage on the grounds of a holy union and the government sees marriage on the grounds of an economic union. In my opinion, the government really shouldn't even be involved in marriage, but since the government IS involved in it, they can't discriminate based on sexuality, which is basically what the supreme court decided, and its funny to watch people like Cruz try to say how its unconstitutional, blah blah blah. Ultimately it doesn't even effect them!

 

[Dangansona]

It's a huge problem. The optics are poor. But he's right that the only way to accomplish anything is finance reform. Otherwise we have to wait 40 years for the demographics to make it happen. Gerrymandering is powerful as fuck.

Yeah, one way or another Congress inability to compromise is the root of all problems in this country, because without change we can never come up with solutions. If he believes it's because of money in politics, which I absolutely see where he is coming from, then that deserves to be the main issue.

 

[Odrion]

Better quality Bern.

 

[Miracle]

Better quality Bern.

Too big though. Lower the size by like...half.

 

[B-Dubs]

Sleazy.

Sure, but this is expected. It'd only get worse going forward if he keeps doing well, this is nothing compared to what is coming.

 

[lednerg]

Just a caveat on number 2; a lot of migrants are pretty strongly opposed to communism and anything that can be rebranded to look like it.

The Democrats often take the non-white vote for granted. They vote Dem because they don't actively champion nationalism the way the GOP does. But should the GOP clean up their act (granted, almost impossible this cycle), don't assume minorities will just stick around with the Dems.

TLDR; what's in it for us?

I'm basing that of this article sourcing Rubio's own campaign numbers:

Based on estimates of the composition of the 2016 electorate, if the next GOP nominee wins the same share of the white vote as Mitt Romney won in 2012 (59 percent), he or she would need to win 30 percent of the nonwhite vote. Set against recent history, that is a daunting obstacle. Romney won only 17 percent of nonwhite voters in 2012. John McCain won 19 percent in 2008. George W. Bush won 26 percent in 2004.

Put another way, if the 2016 nominee gets no better than Romney’s 17 percent of the nonwhite vote, he or she would need 65 percent of the white vote to win, a level achieved in modern times only by Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. Bush’s 2004 winning formula — 26 percent of the nonwhite vote and 58 percent of the white vote — would be a losing formula in 2016, given population changes.​

I just don't see how it's possible for them to win.

EDIT: Trump knows they can't win the general, no matter what. He doesn't want the job. He's just in there as a megalomaniacal instigator, making the right wing media answer to his beck and call.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

All polls show that the non-white vote, whether it be Asian, African-American, or Hispanic is far more in favor of government involvement in the economy than white voters. Yes, if the GOP managed to not scare away Asian voters by their uberChristian platform, scare away Hispanic voters by seeming like they want to throw everybody with a -z ending to their name in a bus back to Mexico, or admit that just maybe, cops occasionally may shoot black people too much, the problem for the GOP is in general, non-white people are more liberal than white people on economic issues.

Can you cite sources please? This doesn't skew with anything I've read in recent memory. And coming from an Asian family myself, I am incredibly doubtful about the claim that Asians are traditionally more economically liberal.

 

[SURGEdude]

Yeah, one way or another Congress inability to compromise is the root of all problems in this country, because without change we can never come up with solutions. If he believes it's because of money in politics, which I absolutely see where he is coming from, then that deserves to be the main issue.

His problem is articulation. He talks about it without being consistent about drawing the line between the dots. Citizens United and similar legislations and rulings are essential to any major short term progressive gains.

On an unrelated point, the fact that NBC got Andrea Mitchel (wife of Alan "the architect" Greenspan), CNN smeared and misrepresented him, and Yahoo is making him seem like a nut ought to be a pretty good idea of how dangerous he is to entrenched corporatist interests.

That's Hillary and the establishment Republican's base.

 

[FtsH]

It isn't about blaming them. It's speaking out against the rich using their finance and power to influence political policy.

Well given the context there I'd say he was blaming. Because he called those names out as the reasons of many, if not every, troubles we are facing wright now.

And how exactly will higher tax on riches reduce their influence on public policy, if that's what Bernie aiming to achieve? Would even higher tax on, let's say, pharma companies, that eventually drive them either bankrupt or into other countries, magically improve our healthcare system? Would higher tax on banks and bankers magically make our financial system more stable? I'm not seeing the logic here.

 

[Crayons]

In my opinion, Bernie won this debate. But all the news networks are declaring Clinton to be the winner. Is there something I missed?

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I'm basing that of this article sourcing Rubio's own campaign numbers:

Based on estimates of the composition of the 2016 electorate, if the next GOP nominee wins the same share of the white vote as Mitt Romney won in 2012 (59 percent), he or she would need to win 30 percent of the nonwhite vote. Set against recent history, that is a daunting obstacle. Romney won only 17 percent of nonwhite voters in 2012. John McCain won 19 percent in 2008. George W. Bush won 26 percent in 2004.

Put another way, if the 2016 nominee gets no better than Romney’s 17 percent of the nonwhite vote, he or she would need 65 percent of the white vote to win, a level achieved in modern times only by Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. Bush’s 2004 winning formula — 26 percent of the nonwhite vote and 58 percent of the white vote — would be a losing formula in 2016, given population changes.​

I just don't see how it's possible for them to win.

Oh cool, thanks for the numbers!

My feeling is that unless its Sanders v Rubio, the Dems have the minority vote locked this cycle. My post was more of a general warning that the Dems often take the minority vote for granted (and often mistakenly characterize it as a single voting bloc), which can easily catch them flat footed should the GOP finally get itself out of its rut and appeal to minority voters.

 

[SURGEdude]

In my opinion, Bernie won this debate. But all the news networks are declaring Clinton to be the winner. Is there something I missed?

It depends on how you measure it and if you buy her persona.

She's a vastly better debater. But I think she offered little of substance. She looked more presidential but he looked more human.

 

[danm999]

In my opinion, Bernie won this debate. But all the news networks are declaring Clinton to be the winner. Is there something I missed?

They basically both played to their bases, which means you'll get different people feeling differently about them.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Well given the context there I'd say he was blaming. Because he called those names out as the reasons of many, if not every, troubles we are facing wright now.

And how exactly will higher tax on riches reduce their influence on public policy, if that's what Bernie aiming to achieve? Would even higher tax on, let's say, pharma companies, that eventually drive them either bankrupt or into other countries, magically improve our healthcare system? Would higher tax on banks and bankers magically make our financial system more stable? I'm not seeing the logic here.

Bernie's stance on curving the power of wallstreet and billionaries on the political system is campaign finance reform. Higher taxes on the rich, the closing of loopholes, and strict wallstreet regulation is just a balancing act on taxation - "everyone pays a fair share".

Higher taxes = / = punishment for buying out congress. Campaign finance reform tackles that. Even with the reforms in place, special interest groups will always find a way. These days it's a damn joke, it's beyond what should be "acceptable."

 

[SURGEdude]

They basically both played to their bases, which means you'll get different people feeling differently about them.

Very apt. I agree 100%.

 

[FtsH]

My worry about Bernie constantly raising the point of Wall Street's influence on politics and the need for campaign finance reform is that, while he's not wrong, it might look to a lot of people like he's defaulting to the same answer for every question and come off as looking like a weakness.

My feeling exactly! Thank you! I'm very frustrated to understand what exactly he wants/will/can do with Wall Street at this moment.

 

[B-Dubs]

Did a bunch of posts just disappear?

EDIT: Never mind, got turned around :lol

 

[lednerg]

Oh cool, thanks for the numbers!

My feeling is that unless its Sanders v Rubio, the Dems have the minority vote locked this cycle. My post was more of a general warning that the Dems often take the minority vote for granted (and often mistakenly characterize it as a single voting bloc), which can easily catch them flat footed should the GOP finally get itself out of its rut and appeal to minority voters.

Yeah, I understood what you meant. They shouldn't take it for granted.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Anyone want to watch an interesting display of our future economic system watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0

 

[kingkitty]

i think we can all agree this candidate won

was Bernie or Hillary even trying?

 

[SURGEdude]

My feeling exactly! Thank you! I'm very frustrated to understand what exactly he wants/will/can do with Wall Street at this moment.

His point is money in politics is the root of the problem across the board. It's fine to disagree but that's the reason he always pivots back.

I find nothing in his record to suggest that's not an authentic belief either.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Can you cite sources please? This doesn't skew with anything I've read in recent memory. And coming from an Asian family myself, I am incredibly doubtful about the claim that Asians are traditionally more economically liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125579/asian-americans-lean-left-politically.aspx - Gallup Poll

http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/asian-americans-voted-democrat-we-should-not-be-surprised/

" Our 2012 survey shows that Asian Americans support increasing taxes to help reduce the federal deficit, and a Pew survey from early 2012 indicated that Asian Americans prefer a bigger government that provides more services to a smaller government providing fewer services (55% to 36%, respectively), almost the mirror opposite to the U.S. average (39% vs. 52%, respectively)."

 

[lednerg]

Anyone want to watch an interesting display of our future economic system watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0

Haven't read the book, but Thomas Piketty gave a couple awesome talks [below] on YouTube which have been very enlightening to me. Good to see Krugman's take.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEYAS5U5Wuk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofjozfEr-U

 

[googleplex]

no sorry

but i just learned there are 3 chicago shows, and they all share the same universe

i wish NBC would just go back to law and order spinoffs

Boston Legal, Chicago Hope, Alley McBeal, Picket fences all shared the same universe FYI

 

[sssstententen]

But how many times did Bernie answer the debate -- whatever topics they were asked about -- by blaming the riches/wall street/large companies? If he could just clearly state some actionable plans I'd be happier. Plus, even in his plan, the super power, once held by the riches, as he described, will not be gone, it will merely transform into a super government!

What you just said here are fair to me, however that's not the message I learned from Bernie. So sorry for him.

I absolutely agree and I personally find issue with plenty of his messaging when it comes to this election cycle. I can see what he's going for, and I'm far from qualified to be a campaign manager, but they're obviously going for passion and noise over substance and logistics. Which makes sense in a country where the media makes 3-10 word soundbites to dissect everything you say.

He has major issues he needs to address. And maybe that's a general election esque plan, but he won't ever make it that far if he doesn't plug the holes.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Haven't read the book, but Thomas Piketty gave a couple awesome talks [below] on YouTube which have been very enlightening to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEYAS5U5Wuk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofjozfEr-U

I now have my listening material for tonight, thanks

 

[kingkitty]

Boston Legal, Chicago Hope, Alley McBeal, Picket fences all shared the same universe FYI

technically all those shows + the law and orders, homicide, st. elsewhere, and the three new chicago shows also share the same universe

good stuff

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I'm basing that of this article sourcing Rubio's own campaign numbers:

Based on estimates of the composition of the 2016 electorate, if the next GOP nominee wins the same share of the white vote as Mitt Romney won in 2012 (59 percent), he or she would need to win 30 percent of the nonwhite vote. Set against recent history, that is a daunting obstacle. Romney won only 17 percent of nonwhite voters in 2012. John McCain won 19 percent in 2008. George W. Bush won 26 percent in 2004.

Put another way, if the 2016 nominee gets no better than Romney’s 17 percent of the nonwhite vote, he or she would need 65 percent of the white vote to win, a level achieved in modern times only by Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. Bush’s 2004 winning formula — 26 percent of the nonwhite vote and 58 percent of the white vote — would be a losing formula in 2016, given population changes.​

I just don't see how it's possible for them to win.

EDIT: Trump knows they can't win the general, no matter what. He doesn't want the job. He's just in there as a megalomaniacal instigator, making the right wing media answer to his beck and call.

You don't see how it's possible? They will cheat, just like they've tried to do in the most recent general elections. A lot of the cheating was miraculously prevented due to some pretty dedicated efforts by some very extraordinary people. But it feels like a lot of that stuff was able to be implemented by Republicans in the off election years, which means that the chances of the Dem nominee (likely Hillary) ends up participating in a fair and clean process, is highly unlikely.

The only hope the Republican Party has of winning this election is they will have to cheat. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. It's obvious why they win the mid-terms because there simply isn't nearly as much motivation for most of the country to go out and vote, which means they mostly win by default.

 

[theignoramus]

They basically both played to their bases, which means you'll get different people feeling differently about them.

Sanders didn't come out looking worse but Hillary looked more presidential.
Advantage: Clinton.

 

[mid83]

I watched the debate to see if I felt any sort of pull towards any of the candidates since I'm feeling pretty unrepresented on the Republican side. It really got hard when it came talk to talk economics/taxes. I really can't see past this issue and it makes me more convinced I may have to vote Libertarian or stay home this year.

1. I know all politicians like to use catch phrases and stump speech comments, but I wish somebody would expand on the rich and corporations paying their fair share. How high are those taxes going to go? I know this issue plays well to most people but it is understood I assume that you can't tax the rich to oblivion. At some point that will have major economic effects that will be felt by all of us.

2. On a similar note, there is only so much money you can extract from the 1%. All of them, Bernie especially, have some pretty ambitious (and expensive) proposals. How do we realistically pay for these things? I don't think just listing out a number of things the top 1% will fund like Hillary did is genuine.

Not a bad debate but it's hard for me to get past these issues.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125579/asian-americans-lean-left-politically.aspx - Gallup Poll

http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/asian-americans-voted-democrat-we-should-not-be-surprised/

" Our 2012 survey shows that Asian Americans support increasing taxes to help reduce the federal deficit, and a Pew survey from early 2012 indicated that Asian Americans prefer a bigger government that provides more services to a smaller government providing fewer services (55% to 36%, respectively), almost the mirror opposite to the U.S. average (39% vs. 52%, respectively)."

Huh. Gotta admit, it seems like I was wrong. Doesn't skew with anything I've seen in my personal life, but then again, I was a financial services guy and nearly all the Asians I know are pretty wealthy professionals, so maybe I was blinded by that.

Still, thanks a lot for this!

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

i think we can all agree this candidate won

was Bernie or Hillary even trying?

I wonder if he has a raw diet.

 

[The Lamonster]

Better quality Bern.

This is just unlikable.

 

[ctfg23]

I missed this. Any archives up yet?

 

[ugaboga232]

I watched the debate to see if I felt any sort of pull towards any of the candidates since I'm feeling pretty unrepresented on the Republican side. It really got hard when it came talk to talk economics/taxes. I really can't see past this issue and it makes me more convinced I may have to vote Libertarian or stay home this year.

1. I know all politicians like to use catch phrases and stump speech comments, but I wish somebody would expand on the rich and corporations paying their fair share. How high are those taxes going to go? I know this issue plays well to most people but it is understood I assume that you can't tax the rich to oblivion. At some point that will have major economic effects that will be felt by all of us.

2. On a similar note, there is only so much money you can extract from the 1%. All of them, Bernie especially, have some pretty ambitious (and expensive) proposals. How do we realistically pay for these things? I don't think just listing out a number of things the top 1% will fund like Hillary did is genuine.

Not a bad debate but it's hard for me to get past these issues.

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Medicare-for-All.pdf has a good summary of bernie plans (not a huge increase unless you already make more than 250k).

 

[rjinaz]

Prediction:

Internet: Bernie Won
Establishment/Media: Hillary Won
Everybody: O'Malley did really well. Not that it matters.

In my opinion, Bernie won this debate. But all the news networks are declaring Clinton to be the winner. Is there something I missed?

It's pretty much how it always plays out. I've actually gone different ways, but this time I give the slight edge to Sanders myself.

 

[danm999]

Sanders didn't come out looking worse but Hillary looked more presidential.
Advantage: Clinton.

Well yeah her base is bigger so all she has to do is keep playing to it and she wins.

There's a reason she keeps stressing women's issues and Obama's legacy in these debates. It's the key to an election winning coalition.