Interfectum
Member
I'm not a republican, I'm voting for Bernie Sanders.
Why is Hillary guaranteed to win?
- Thread starter DeaconKnowledge
- Start date
- Status
I'm not a republican, I'm voting for Bernie Sanders.
I don't see how winning 55-45 or something close is going to hurt her. Obama lost the popular vote to her and barely beat her in delegates, and beat McCain in a landslide.
Also, this has nothing to do with symbolic gestures. This is has something to do with giving momentum to socialism in America. Your unwillingness to talk about the effect of seeing a 30-70 primary fight versus something close like 45-55 is extremely telling. You don't actually like Bernie's policies, or else you'd want them to have more support going into 2020/2024.
In any event, even if elected none of Bernie's economic policies have any chance of ever getting through Congress. Literally, zero chance. Even if he were elected. So the choice of Sanders would be what... symbolic? Can we masturbate to symbolism or something?
So again, I turn to things that we have a chance at doing. Things like Supreme Court justices. And you can say "Supreme Court nominations be damned", but I'll just say that's an extremely callous thing to say to the millions and millions of Americans who need a progressive court to have their fundamental human rights not violated.
Interfectum
Member
I don't even understand what you're saying here.
I'm willing to pull for someone who is not as safe as Hillary and take the chance he might win. It's a gamble worth taking in my opinion.
If Hillary gets the nomination anyway, I'll vote for her.
Damerman
Member
Its still not anywhere near the end for sanders. He's gonna have to slog to keep getting more support... But its nowhere near decided yet.
It controls costs very well because the limits of a tax system make it so there's a soft cap on how much people can actually spend on health care.
We'll need to achieve the same thing through a privatized car insurance-esque system. The insurance companies are not the enemy here - we need them to compete with each other and negotiate pricing on their users' behalf.
Haha, man, it's pretty amusing that the only argument you actually have is not that he can be elected, not that my points are wrong... but that I must not actually support his policies, all because I don't want to hurt the only Democrat we do have a shot at getting into office when Supreme Court nominations are going to be on the table.
I support
+ 100% legalization of drugs.
+ 100% Universal Health Care
+ 100% rehabilitative prison system, in the Norway style.
+ End to Death sentences
+ End of Solitary Confinement
+ End of Mass Incarceration
+ Splitting the major banks up
+ Massive increase in Wall Street Regulations
and on and on
which of the candidates currently is closer in alignment to my political views? It's not Hillary.
Damerman
Member
Can you go imto detail as to how a more volatile fight between sanders and clinton might be bad for democrats?
stufte
Member
I just want to point out that Roe v. Wade was approved by Republican appointed judges. Your hyperbolic talk in this thread, the doom and gloom, is completely unwarranted.
Those DoJ investigations into places like Ferguson? Gone.
Active institutional support for gay rights replaced by resistance.
Active institutional support for trans rights replaced by outright hostility.
Active institutional support for reproductive rights replaced by outright hostility.
Active support for progressive redistribution replaced by support for policies that widen inequality.
A foreign policy team that's made deals with Cuba and Iran replaced by the same people that invaded Iraq.
Active institutional support for Obamacare replaced with a blank check to the GOP who controls both houses.
Do you want to time warp back to 2002? Because I sure don't.
A) Both the Democrats and GOP in the '60s/'70s had mixed ideology. Nixon was actually very liberal on many issue compared to today's GOP.
B) Getting arch-conservative GOP picks on the SC for 30+ years is a fucking disaster.
C) Funding for things like PP can get cut off easily now.
shinra-bansho
Member
I imagine Sanders would drop out of the race before he managed to amass the 1000 or so share of delegates that would amount to a 30-70 split, let alone there being a situation he amassed 1400 or so to Clinton having only 1700 (although it's rather moot considering I doubt the level of broad based support sufficient to actually reach these types of split is present), if it becomes entirely clear he won't win the nomination.
Is the expectation that he'll persist through the primaries even if there's, for instance, a blowout on Super Tuesday, and/or she picks up all the big states by large majorities?
Realistically Chafee and O'Malley should have already dropped out of their entirely futile campaigns.
Is the expectation that he'll persist through the primaries even if there's, for instance, a blowout on Super Tuesday, and/or she picks up all the big states by large majorities?
Realistically Chafee and O'Malley should have already dropped out of their entirely futile campaigns.
Yeah, pretty much.
Damerman
Member
You can't say that his policies have zero chance of passing without backing up your claims. You think if bernie sanders is elected, the american people are going to make the same mistakes in the mid term elections that they made during obama's terms, especially after the overwhelming change in conversations and sentiment since 2012? I think obama's messages to the youth regarding voting in the midterms has increased the likelyhood of more progressives participating in the midterms.
Ahh.. I misinterpreted. Very very sorry.
That was the early 1970s, when Republicans and their nominees were dramatically different species.
Obama has been unable to get anything done through congress the past 5 years with a GOP majority.
Someone even further to the left isn't going to have more luck.
Interfectum
Member
No worries, I probably could have been clearer.
teruterubozu
Member
Man I wish. But Dems are still lousy with midterms, especially if they have a president in office. The GOP get VERY worked up.
Except we're dealing with the modern political environment. Whenever a Supreme Court nominee comes up now, one of the key questions asked is how they would vote on Roe v. Wade. The intent is to get a nominee who would overturn the decision. If a Republican were in office, he would indisputably make sure he nominates someone who strongly disagrees with Roe v. Wade. I mean that's not even something up for debate: that is a core element of their analysis of any Supreme Court nominee. And then we'd have to consider what it means that we sacrificed abortion rights at the altar of idealism.
Of course. Depending on how long the fight went on for and how brutal it was, several things would begin to happen.
1. The media narrative would become "Is Hillary more vulnerable than everyone thought? What is it about her that keeps letting relative unknowns come from nowhere and give her a such a bruising?" Image matters in American politics.
2. The longer a fight goes, the more she can be undermined with her own base. "If she can't even rally the Democrats together, what can she do in the general?"
3. The longer a fight goes, the more chance she has of making critical mistakes that damage her ability to function in the general.
4. The longer a fight goes, the more odds of bitterness there is in those supporters she eventually has to win back into her camp when the fight is over. That makes it harder to achieve her aims in an efficient enough pace.
5. The longer a fight goes on, the more money she has to spend.
Damerman said:
This problem of getting Democrats out to the mid-terms has been around for ages. OBAMA couldn't fucking do it, and he is infinitely more charismatic and had the strongest ground game of any politician in history. You think Bernie is going to be the magic man that finally gets Democrats coming out properly for mid-terms? You think Bernie is going to be able to get over the gerrymandering even if he could? Democrats won 2 million more votes in the mid-terms last time than Republicans, and still lost 20 seats. As I reiterate, Bernie has a zero percent chance of any of his radical reforms being implemented politically even if elected. That's just an American political fact.
It's amusing to you that I might agree with you about his electibility but also can recognize other reasons to support him?
And how are we going to get to those things on your list if Sanders comes in finishing with no more than 30% of the vote? Candidates supporting those will see that and won't bother running. The political advisors to candidates will see his 30% finish and tell their bosses not to even go near it. No progress.
If he finishes close to Hillary (but still loses to Hillary), other candidates like Sanders will feel like running in the near future. Political advisors will see the support and advise more of their bosses to go ahead and run with it. Progress.
America's history is one of a long, tediously slow slide toward progressive policies. We take many step backs, but we always eventually snap back toward progress.
Eventually we will come at the point where a socialist candidate is absolutely viable. But no matter what, that's not going to be happening within the next few decades due to the way our system is set up. Any socialist won't be able to get his policies passed until the next few Census pass (and only if Democrats actually participate this time). That's well over a decade away. Then he or she would have to put an end to the fucked up gerrymandering process. Then he or she would need to figure out a way to finally overcome the hurdle of getting Democrats to show up for mid-terms. Then he or she would need to be at least a little charismatic to feed America this medicine, since it'd be a radical shift in American politics.
The stars just aren't aligned now, and voting for Bernie won't make those stars align faster because several things have to change first with hard and fast dates that can't be changed by an election.
The Albatross
Member
This is worth echoing. Even if Bernie Sanders is not nominated (which he likely won't be, but it's not impossible), a strong showing will encourage a left shift of the Democratic party. Now, whether this is necessarily good for Democrats is a question worth asking. Arguably, the shift from centrist neoconservatism to the libertarian-tinged conservatism of the last 10 years for the GOP has certainly splintered it and meant that mainstream moderate Republicans either get less support, or have to then pander to that far right... Which makes them less electable in the general election. Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush may very well be unelectable for the Republican party of 2015... But, then again, we arguably would have said that of Mitt Romney in 2011 as he was the most moderate mainstream Republican during the height of the tea party GOP takeover.
The stars certainly aren't aligned now, I agree. And yes we as a country slowly move towards progress.
Here's my question: Wouldn't you agree that a good (even if losing) finish by Bernie would result in progress sooner than what we would have if he finished in an embarrassing manner?
To quantify it, an example would be...
Bernie finishes with 45% of the vote. Candidates see that, and in Congress and State governments we start seeing a few more socialist candidates in 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024.
Or Bernie finishes with 30% of the vote. Candidates see that, and in Congress and State governments we don't start seeing more socialist candidates until 2032.
I mean, Bernie is still low-profile to low-info voters, but he's a household name to anyone who works in politics by now. And so surely his performance can make the difference between progress in the next few years as opposed to having to wait 16 or 20 years before we get more candidates like him (at any level of government), wouldn't you say?
Can someone explain how this works? Why does blue get so many more votes despite the less area, is it done by population or something?
Have you been paying attention at all to what's going on with the GOP?
Obviously some kind of horrible scandal could ruin things for her, but the GOP is an absolute mess. And if Trump runs as an independent, it's over and done.
Why would it be based on area? Haha.
The 2012 GOP field was abysmal. This cycle will be a much more interesting litmus test for whether the GOP leans more towards the moderate wing or the tea party, with polished candidates groomed by various parts of the establishment on both ends of the spectrum. I don't think any part of the Republican party really thought Romney was a great candidate; I think who the Republicans nominate this year and whether or not they succeed (coupled with Obama leaving office) will likely have huge ramifications on whether the party tries to pivot back to the center or not (or whether they even need to).
Fenderputty
Banned
Yes. Rural states with low populations aren't worth as much
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
See the numbers with each state. They show how many electoral college votes each state is worth (based on population). Of the red states, only Texas, Georgie, Florida and North Carolina are worth much (with Florida and North Carolina both being swing states that could go either way). Most of the Republican support comes from small rural states that are only worth a few electoral college votes due to their small populations.
The Democrats get fewer states overall, but they're made up for with a lot of the big states being blue.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Places where more people live tend to lean Democrat, whereas Republicans dominate rural areas.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Everyone thought she was virtually guaranteed to get the nomination in 08 and this little known guy came out of left field.
If she gets too comfortable she's toast.
If she gets too comfortable she's toast.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Because the "flyover states" don't have anyone in them.
Bernie Sanders is no Obama in about 50 different ways that are all electorally in Obama's favor.
Each state gets a minimum of 3 votes. All remaining votes are divided by population.
The Teflon is wearing out and some of Hillary's missteps will begin to stick and resonate.
There's already a sense she's cold and disingenuous.
Oh this is rich. If you think democrats are the ones fucking us over economically then I guess you ignored the fact that Bill Clinton created a surplus, then Bush threw it all away and created a massive deficit with his tax breaks and dumbass war that nobody wanted. The republicans are the same fucktards are who are all for big banks and corporations having LESS regulations despite the fact that a lack of regulation (under Bush by the way) is what created the recession. These are the same people who STILL think "trickle down" economics is a thing when in reality it's just a way to line the pockets of people at the top and fuck over everyone else.
But yeah, we should totally elect people who would make cuts to education, health care, infrastructure, etc yet increase defense spending. Great idea! But by all means, vote for someone who will make us the laughing stock of the world. It doesn't matter, because you're still going to lose. Again.
Jorok Goldblade
Member
Voter turnout is crucial to presidential elections. That's why the Tea Party is a thing- not because it does anything to win over unaligned voters, but because it keeps the hardliners fired up and voting in every election.
If Sanders voters decide not to vote or vote third party instead of voting for Clinton in the general election, then our next president is Ted Cruz.
Two of our last three presidents were put into office by third party candidates. Nader gave us Bush, Perot gave us Clinton.
Voting in the US isn't direct, it's based on the "electoral college", which is an assignment of points to states based on their population sizes. Once you win 270 points, you win (although technically what it means is that you've elected "electors" who then do the REAL vote for the presidency, and they can vote for whoever they want, but realistically the electors always vote for whoever got more than 270 points).
It's a relic of the U.S.'s complicated development of democracy.
TheUntamedLegend
Member
The blue areas are where people actually live.
Interfectum
Member
I reworded that post. I'm arguing that Sanders will do more for us economically than Clinton. And I'm willing to roll the dice for Sanders even though he is a much riskier candidate than Clinton for getting into office.
Fair enough. Sanders is too risky for me IMO. His ideas are great, but Hillary's are a lot more realistic imo.
Saucycarpdog
Member
I lean more towards team Hillary but even I must admit that neither candidate has really said how they are going to pay for all these big ideas they have. It's not like we can just pretend money is no issue.
Sanders believes in taxing the wealthy way more. Likelihood of passing that is an issue, but it's not like he hasn't said it.
Those red states are all low population density, and predominantly rural - rural voters tend to be very conservative (and very religious) and will vote for Republican candidates. The blue states have cities with very high population density, and city dwellers tend to vote Democratic. There are multiple cities in California with a higher population than the entire population of some of those red states, so the large areas of red don't really reflect the popular vote results in Presidential elections.
On the other hand, they do affect the results of Congressional elections - each one of those red states produces two Senators and one or more Congresspeople, almost all of whom are Republican. It's why the makeup of Congress is so conservative, even though the overall number of Democratic voters is higher.
But the Senate has also been the more liberal body for the past few years, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Dude Abides
Banned
Don't forget Whitewater.
Can't be gerrymandered
So does the current POTUS since election, and mentions it at every State of the Union Address.....
Surprise... can't pass it with the GOP.
Don't worry about the GOP, Sanders can will it into existence.
I was answering someone who specifically said Bernie wasn't saying where the money came from. I wasn't saying it would work out. But maybe context is too complex for you to understand.
For my part I understood. Just like you mentioned, it's definitely not easy (an issue) to pass. You would think a recession would of made it possible but nahh... politics as usual. Well underway into recovery and growth, the likelihood of it passing based on "need" is slim (even among some dems), and as always, it will require solid Dem majorities anyhow.
Serious answer: will require GOP compromise or Democratic majorities. It can be done though.
- Status