Sanders wins debate. CNN pushes hillary anyway


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

"Literally can't win" is strong. His chances are very low, because Clinton is a good candidate and because he will be attacked as you suggest.

OTOH, should Clinton stumble badly and the Republicans choose a horribly flawed candidate as they seem determined to do, anything is possible.

His chances are low, as I said. OTOH, just having him campaign and debate shifts the Overton Window and makes his ideas seem far more acceptable.

I think Clinton is a strong candidate.

I don't think she is a GOOD candidate.


Aestereal wrote:
The cool thing about the primaries is that if everyone who said "I'd vote for Bernie, but he cannot with this so I'm voting for Hillary instead" would take a chance and vote for Bernie, the worst thing we'd have would be...Hillary.

Well, no, arguably the worst thing we'd have would be Sanders. The people who are choosing not to vote for Sanders because of electability concerns are not avoiding him because they're worried he can't win the primary. They're avoiding him because they're worried he can't win the general election. That's a valid concern, and a rational strategic motivator when deciding who to support during the primary. If your primary concern is electing a Democrat (and, I think, given the political alignments most of you hold to, that ought to be your primary concern), then Clinton is the clear safe choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
That's a valid concern, and a rational strategic motivator when deciding who to support during the primary. If your primary concern is electing a Democrat (and, I think, given the political alignments most of you hold to, that ought to be your primary concern), then Clinton is the clear safe choice.

Electing a democrat thats no different than a republican is also a problem. If we keep electing "democrats" to office that won't take america back from the corporations or un jerrymander republican states its really not that much different than electing a republican.

Its a rough balancing act for sure.


Plus, it's a question of urgency. We all know Hillary will just run next election if she loses this one. ;P

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Aestereal wrote:
The cool thing about the primaries is that if everyone who said "I'd vote for Bernie, but he cannot with this so I'm voting for Hillary instead" would take a chance and vote for Bernie, the worst thing we'd have would be...Hillary.
Well, no, arguably the worst thing we'd have would be Sanders. The people who are choosing not to vote for Sanders because of electability concerns are not avoiding him because they're worried he can't win the primary. They're avoiding him because they're worried he can't win the general election. That's a valid concern, and a rational strategic motivator when deciding who to support during the primary. If your primary concern is electing a Democrat (and, I think, given the political alignments most of you hold to, that ought to be your primary concern), then Clinton is the clear safe choice.

While it's a still a year out, the polls I've seen all have both Sanders and Clinton loosing to all the republican candidate is the important battle ground states. Well, Clinton beats Bush in PA. In general Sanders loses by less, with Carson in Florida being the outlier.

Of course Biden smokes all the Republicans in said states.

So, if your interested in electability and you believe the polls Sanders and the hypothetical Biden are both better choices than Clinton.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
That's a valid concern, and a rational strategic motivator when deciding who to support during the primary. If your primary concern is electing a Democrat (and, I think, given the political alignments most of you hold to, that ought to be your primary concern), then Clinton is the clear safe choice.

Electing a democrat thats no different than a republican is also a problem. If we keep electing "democrats" to office that won't take america back from the corporations or un jerrymander republican states its really not that much different than electing a republican.

Its a rough balancing act for sure.

Have Democrats really fallen so far as to embrace the RINO ideological purity test concept from Republicans in all but name?

Krensky wrote:
Of course Biden smokes all the Republicans in said states.

Of course, that's because he's not running. Candidates are generally more attractive before they run.


Scythia wrote:


Have Democrats really fallen so far as to embrace the RINO ideological purity test concept from Republicans in all but name?

DINO and "Blue dog" democrats have been a thing for a while.

I don't know if anyone's looking for ideological purity: most folks seem okish with a relatively pro gun sanders. But I think its more than fair to ask for a standard better than "we're not quite as republican as the republicans" or to expect an economic position somewhat left of Reagan.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scythia wrote:


Have Democrats really fallen so far as to embrace the RINO ideological purity test concept from Republicans in all but name?

DINO and "Blue dog" democrats have been a thing for a while.

I don't know if anyone's looking for ideological purity: most folks seem okish with a relatively pro gun sanders. But I think its more than fair to ask for a standard better than "we're not quite as republican as the republicans" or to expect an economic position somewhat left of Reagan.

Of course, what you're ignoring here is that the Republican candidates have positions way to the right of Reagan. Hillary may be more to the right than I'd like and "not quite as republican as the republicans" you're remembering, but the Republicans these days aren't anything like center-right. And Hillary's nothing like them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scythia wrote:


Have Democrats really fallen so far as to embrace the RINO ideological purity test concept from Republicans in all but name?

DINO and "Blue dog" democrats have been a thing for a while.

I don't know if anyone's looking for ideological purity: most folks seem okish with a relatively pro gun sanders. But I think its more than fair to ask for a standard better than "we're not quite as republican as the republicans" or to expect an economic position somewhat left of Reagan.

Of course, what you're ignoring here is that the Republican candidates have positions way to the right of Reagan. Hillary may be more to the right than I'd like and "not quite as republican as the republicans" you're remembering, but the Republicans these days aren't anything like center-right. And Hillary's nothing like them.

You're right that the Republicans have shifted pretty far to the right of Reagan (all the while worshiping him like he's Aroden or something), but that doesn't mean that Democrats (or more accurately, the political left) have to settle for candidate that's been pulled right as well. Some of what Sanders is proposing is modeled off of Scandinavia, but a lot of it is straight out of FDR's playbook (build infrastructure to create jobs). I just don't see why the shift in the Republican party means the Democrats have to shift with them. Can you explain it (I'm not trying to be malicious or anything, I'm genuinely curious)?

As for Sanders, he's definitely not ideologically pure. When he first declared, I checked an overview of his voting record, and he had votes I don't like on guns, education, and a few others I discussed with my family. The thing is, his justification for the votes makes sense every time. As a representative of the people of Vermont, it's not his job to vote what he believes, it's his job to vote what his constituents believe, and they didn't want gun control. That doesn't make him ideologically "weak", it makes him someone who buys into what the system should do.


Aestereal wrote:


You're right that the Republicans have shifted pretty far to the right of Reagan (all the while worshiping him like he's Aroden or something), but that doesn't mean that Democrats (or more accurately, the political left) have to settle for candidate that's been pulled right as well. Some of what Sanders is proposing is modeled off of Scandinavia, but a lot of it is straight out of FDR's playbook (build infrastructure to create jobs). I just don't see why the shift in the Republican party means the Democrats have to shift with them. Can you explain it (I'm not trying to be malicious or anything, I'm genuinely curious)?

The simple answer is that the American population generally has pulled to the right, which means that both parties need to pull to the right. From Gallup (2009): "more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left."

Liberty's Edge

Which is sad, since it means the GOP has gone so far to the right that the Democratic party has to be center-right just to get enough votes to deadlock government.


thejeff wrote:
Of course, what you're ignoring here is that the Republican candidates have positions way to the right of Reagan.

I have no idea how you parse that I'm ignoring that.

Liberty's Edge

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wassup.


Aestereal wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scythia wrote:


Have Democrats really fallen so far as to embrace the RINO ideological purity test concept from Republicans in all but name?

DINO and "Blue dog" democrats have been a thing for a while.

I don't know if anyone's looking for ideological purity: most folks seem okish with a relatively pro gun sanders. But I think its more than fair to ask for a standard better than "we're not quite as republican as the republicans" or to expect an economic position somewhat left of Reagan.

Of course, what you're ignoring here is that the Republican candidates have positions way to the right of Reagan. Hillary may be more to the right than I'd like and "not quite as republican as the republicans" you're remembering, but the Republicans these days aren't anything like center-right. And Hillary's nothing like them.
You're right that the Republicans have shifted pretty far to the right of Reagan (all the while worshiping him like he's Aroden or something), but that doesn't mean that Democrats (or more accurately, the political left) have to settle for candidate that's been pulled right as well. Some of what Sanders is proposing is modeled off of Scandinavia, but a lot of it is straight out of FDR's playbook (build infrastructure to create jobs). I just don't see why the shift in the Republican party means the Democrats have to shift with them. Can you explain it (I'm not trying to be malicious or anything, I'm genuinely curious)?

Have to? They don't have to. Politically speaking, they often think it's to their advantage - shift towards the new center, pick up more of the voters left behind by Republicans moving right and assume the voters further to the left will still vote Democratic because where else can they go. More broadly speaking, the country as a whole has shifted right. The parties have to follow where the voters go.

That said, I'm not completely convinced by that conventional wisdom, especially in the wake of the Great Recession. A left populist approach may well be able to reach people normally on the right on other issue who wouldn't be reachable by a standard Democratic appeal. That's part of what Sanders is trying to tap, as well as the left wing of the party.
OTOH, just having the word socialist attached to him would hurt in the general, sad to say.

I do support Sanders and will gladly vote for him. (Should the primary still be happening when it comes time for my state to vote.) Even if he doesn't win the nomination which has always been a long shot, just bringing his positions into the race and the debate has been invaluable.

My only real point in that post was that while Clinton may be like an old-school Republican, we don't have old-school Republicans running. There's a lot of difference between Clinton and a Bush or a Rubio, much less a Trump or a Carson.


And a shout out to Comrade Meatrace. Had no idea you had transplanted across the globe.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Biden for VP... again.

Hey, its constitutional.

Her husband of course is not elligible.
Is he not eligible to run for VP? He can't run for a third term as president, sure...

He isn't. One of the requirements of being Vice President is that he has to be eligible to serve as President. Bill already has his two full terms.

Liberty's Edge

As was pointed out, the letter of law is that Bill Clinton can not be elected to a third term. By the letter of the law nothing would stop him from serving a third term if he gets there by some other means.

It is a certainty someone would challenge his candidacy in court and that the courts would almost certainly agree with the more common sense interpretation. Not a guarantee though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

As was pointed out, the letter of law is that Bill Clinton can not be elected to a third term. By the letter of the law nothing would stop him from serving a third term if he gets there by some other means.

Which he simply can not do by any Constitutionally supported avenue. It simply CAN NOT happen. He can not be added to an election ticket, nor can he be appointed as Vice President at later date. Short of leading a military junta. (and if he was going to do that, he'd aim at being something higher than Designated Chairwarmer)


LazarX wrote:
Krensky wrote:
As was pointed out, the letter of law is that Bill Clinton can not be elected to a third term. By the letter of the law nothing would stop him from serving a third term if he gets there by some other means.
Which he simply can not do by any Constitutionally supported avenue. It simply CAN NOT happen. He can not be added to an election ticket, nor can he be appointed as Vice President at later date. Short of leading a military junta. (and if he was going to do that, he'd aim at being something higher than Designated Chairwarmer)

As I understand it, there's some debate over the Constitutional question.

Doesn't matter. Not going to happen.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to say I'm sick to death of this "country has moved to the right" refrain. First of all, most of the country doesn't participate in the political process AT ALL - if there's been a shift anywhere, it's toward apathy.

But on most of the issues, when broken down, Americans are really more progressive than Congress or the conventional wisdom for sure. Most people do want the rich to pay more, like specific government programs (even my wife's super-Republican, gays-are-causing-the-apocalypse grandfather is worried about Social Security cuts), most Americans are in favor of common sense gun control laws. There are some ways in which that American mean streak shines through - we're overwhelmingly majority in favor or the death penalty no matter how many innocent people we execute (or how many racial biases are revealed in the system, and sadly, often even moreso afterward), and we'd rather let someone die needlessly without access to healthcare rather than see our own taxes increase by a red cent - but ultimately, by most metrics, we are arching toward a more inclusive, progressive society than we had in the 80's.

To the issue of the debates themselves, though, I was kind of shocked O'Malley didn't get more credit. Looking at the debate alone, discounting previous records or gaffes the candidates may have had, O'Malley performed strongly. When asked about climate change, he was the only one to actually mention a proactive plan instead of blaming lobbyists (Sanders, Chaffee), or freaking China. (Clinton - in what was to me the worst answer of the entire night, until Webb made it look like solid gold by comparison to his China/India blaming.)

Webb spent more time complaining about not getting his chance than actually making a case, and in the end, the only reason he's not running as a Republican is because that party has gone down the rabbit hole that if you're not prepared for a Final Solution regarding immigrants or to outright call Climate Change a hoax perpetrated to silence good Christians, you have no place in that clown car.

I like Sanders, I really do. But his performance at the debate was, "Meh." I'll give to him that of all the candidates he was the one who almost straddled the line of telling the truth and admitting that Syria is a situation we have no good answer for. (Prop up a dictator, put troops on the ground and possibly begin a war with Russia, or let civil war reign and concede a large portion of the middle east to Radicals. Sorry if you don't like that but that's the decision America made in 2002 when we planted those seeds.) And his stance on guns is, let's face it, a huge weakness facing down how many high profile mass shootings there have been since Sandy Hook.

Ultimately the real problem with Sanders is that he is just not very popular with the demographic blocs the Democrats actually need to win - the young people and economic populists love him, but they (especially young people and college kids) don't ever vote. Even when Obama was super popular with those blocs, they were not ultimately crucial to his victory. Women and African-Americans actually DO vote, and both are backing Clinton over Sanders by a wide margin.

And as much as I detest Clinton I'll take that sleazy, pandering, take-whatever-side-is-politically expedient over a loony-bin conspiracy theorist like Carson or head-in-the-clouds racist like Trump or - worst of all - a second round of the WORST president in history by any honest metric (or if you can't admit that, at least the worst Republican president), any day of the week.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Electing a democrat thats no different than a republican is also a problem.

There are no prominent Democrats running for the office of President who are the functional equivalent of any of the prominent Republicans running for the office of President. So this is a non-issue.

I don't have a lot of patience for the false-equivalency of "Both major parties are the same!" It has no basis in reality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
I have to say I'm sick to death of this "country has moved to the right" refrain.

The country has, without question, moved to the right, on balance.

Quote:
First of all, most of the country doesn't participate in the political process AT ALL - if there's been a shift anywhere, it's toward apathy.

No, not really. Voter participation as of the last Presidential election was 55%. The average voter participation across all Presidential elections since 1932 (when turnout figures were first available) is 55.6%. The country has pretty much always been roughly as apathetic as it currently is.

(Your bit about most of the country not participating is demonstrably false, unless you're counting those ineligible to participate. A majority of eligible Americans participate in at least some aspects of the political process.)

Quote:
But on most of the issues, when broken down, Americans are really more progressive than Congress or the conventional wisdom for sure.

Well, that's not difficult. Our current Congress is quite conservative.

Quote:
Most people do want the rich to pay more, like specific government programs (even my wife's super-Republican, gays-are-causing-the-apocalypse grandfather is worried about Social Security cuts), most Americans are in favor of common sense gun control laws. There are some ways in which that American mean streak shines through - we're overwhelmingly majority in favor or the death penalty no matter how many innocent people we execute (or how many racial biases are revealed in the system, and sadly, often even moreso afterward), and we'd rather let someone die needlessly without access to healthcare rather than see our own taxes increase by a red cent - but ultimately, by most metrics, we are arching toward a more inclusive, progressive society than we had in the 80's.

That's because progressive ideals tend to advance even in the face of passionate resistance. Our country's policies have, in some places, grown more progressive. The political beliefs of our people, however, have trended more conservative. Mind you, much of this conservative trending isn't the result of any typical American becoming radically conservative. It is more a reflection of how incredibly radicalized the minority of the country that makes up our right wing has become. We have an alarming number of really hardcore Republican voters.


Scott Betts wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Electing a democrat thats no different than a republican is also a problem.

There are no prominent Democrats running for the office of President who are the functional equivalent of any of the prominent Republicans running for the office of President. So this is a non-issue.

I don't have a lot of patience for the false-equivalency of "Both major parties are the same!" It has no basis in reality.

I understand that sentiment on my more optimistic days, and its good that we're getting into fewer wars these days/ getting into smaller scale wars at least, all democrats seem to be doing is bleeding out on the economy for real people a little slower than the republicans and that needs to end. Hillaries "I told wallstreet to knock it off" isn't going to cut it, especially when democrats are so ridiculously prone to the golden mean fallacy where the dems tell wallstreet to cut it back, wallstreet says, "double down!" and dems compromise to be "Well lets stay the course".

We need glass steigal back, like, yesterday. We need citizens united ended, we need to end the mitt romney loopholes for raiding pension funds, we need to have an honest talk about the ridiculous jerrymandering going on thats keeping the republicans in charge on a national level and none of that is going to happen if your candidateisn't THAT far away from the republicans. If we need to suffer through a republican presidency until texas goes blue and sanders 2.0 can be elected, so be it.


[quote = entreris]I have to say I'm sick to death of this "country has moved to the right" refrain. First of all, most of the country doesn't participate in the political process AT ALL - if there's been a shift anywhere, it's toward apathy.

The country hasn't moved to the right economically but the government has, citizen united, national adds and an absurd amount of jerrymandering by republicans has given them control of enough government to stop any sort of reforms from happening.


Krensky wrote:

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.

Nah. Clinton is far more liberal than you are giving her credit for. OnTheIssues.org rates Clinton as being similarly liberal to Elizabeth Warren, more liberal than Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Sanders. Her Senate record puts her in the upper 15th percentile of most liberal Senators.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand that sentiment on my more optimistic days, and its good that we're getting into fewer wars these days/ getting into smaller scale wars at least, all democrats seem to be doing is bleeding out on the economy for real people a little slower than the republicans and that needs to end. Hillaries "I told wallstreet to knock it off" isn't going to cut it, especially when democrats are so ridiculously prone to the golden mean fallacy where the dems tell wallstreet to cut it back, wallstreet says, "double down!" and dems compromise to be "Well lets stay the course".

You're getting lost in rhetoric - not a good idea. You should be paying attention to policy and outcomes. The last six years have been a tremendous improvement over the previous eight for progressives, especially relative to what we would have experienced if a Republican had been in office for those past six years.

Quote:
We need glass steigal back, like, yesterday. We need citizens united ended, we need to end the mitt romney loopholes for raiding pension funds, we need to have an honest talk about the ridiculous jerrymandering going on thats keeping the republicans in charge on a national level and none of that is going to happen if your candidateisn't THAT far away from the republicans. If we need to suffer through a republican presidency until texas goes blue and sanders 2.0 can be elected, so be it.

I am going to beg you: Do not take this standpoint. You might think it's worth it, but it is not. The damage that a single modern Republican President can do, especially over the next eight years, is tremendous and long-lasting - probably to the point of defining much of America's trajectory over the next half century.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
I am going to beg you: Do not take this standpoint. You might think it's worth it, but it is not. The damage that a single modern Republican President can do, especially over the next eight years, is tremendous and long-lasting - probably to the point of defining much of America's trajectory over the next half century.

Yep. The current Supreme Court is already one of the most radical in history. One more GOP presidential term over the next ~12 years and we could be looking at decades of 'corporations are people with religious rights that trump the rights of their employees' type insanity.

Obama could/should have decimated the GOP by going all in on economic stimulus/recovery and asking the country not to vote for him again if it didn't work and not to vote for Republicans who claimed it would destroy the country if it did work. Instead, we got a lukewarm stimulus and partial progress on healthcare.

That means we're still stuck in limbo... but wishing for another GOP disaster to show people they need to stop voting for them doesn't make sense... if GWB didn't do the trick then nothing short of a second great depression will... and a GOP run Supreme Court for the next ~20 years could easily accomplish that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Electing a democrat thats no different than a republican is also a problem.

There are no prominent Democrats running for the office of President who are the functional equivalent of any of the prominent Republicans running for the office of President. So this is a non-issue.

I don't have a lot of patience for the false-equivalency of "Both major parties are the same!" It has no basis in reality.

I understand that sentiment on my more optimistic days, and its good that we're getting into fewer wars these days/ getting into smaller scale wars at least, all democrats seem to be doing is bleeding out on the economy for real people a little slower than the republicans and that needs to end. Hillaries "I told wallstreet to knock it off" isn't going to cut it, especially when democrats are so ridiculously prone to the golden mean fallacy where the dems tell wallstreet to cut it back, wallstreet says, "double down!" and dems compromise to be "Well lets stay the course".

We need glass steigal back, like, yesterday. We need citizens united ended, we need to end the mitt romney loopholes for raiding pension funds, we need to have an honest talk about the ridiculous jerrymandering going on thats keeping the republicans in charge on a national level and none of that is going to happen if your candidateisn't THAT far away from the republicans. If we need to suffer through a republican presidency until texas goes blue and sanders 2.0 can be elected, so be it.

That was the basic theory back in 2000. Worked out really well didn't it?

Wouldn't it be better to suffer through an insufficiently liberal Democratic presidency until texas goes blue and sanders 2.0 can be elected?


Thejeff wrote:
That was the basic theory back in 2000.

No, it was not. Who or what would have been more cardboard than Gore?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thejeff wrote:
That was the basic theory back in 2000.
No, it was not. Who or what would have been more cardboard than Gore?

I would suggest actual cardboard, but I think even that might be a stretch...

I think one of the descriptions for Gore was almost lifelike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thejeff wrote:
That was the basic theory back in 2000.
No, it was not. Who or what would have been more cardboard than Gore?

The entire basis of the Nader campaign was "They're all the same".

With a good dose from some of "If the Democrats lose because they lose votes on the left, they'll move back left to get them back."

The Democrats kept moving right.

Gore ran a lousy campaign. Partly because of personality, partly because he kept trying to run from Clinton. Nonetheless, Gore being cardboard has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Then after 8 years of Bush, the nation, finally disgusted with Republicans, elected Obama who's been consistently called both socialist and republican ever since. What makes you think electing a Republican now and letting them shift the window even further right is somehow going to produce a president who'll finally take on the banks? Or whatever else we need by then.

Or more simply: 8 years of Bush didn't get us a nearly viable Sanders campaign. 8 years of Obama did. Maybe another 8 of moderate Democratic policies will help the next Sanders more than another 8 of Republican control?

And while we're at it, try to get a few more leftish politicians into place on the state level, so they're in position for that run?


thejeff wrote:

No, it was not. Who or what would have been more cardboard than Gore?

The entire basis of the Nader campaign was "They're all the same".

THATS what you're chiding me over? Thats ridiculous. Bernie does a few points worse than hillary. That isn't in the same ballpark.. thats not playing the same SPORT, as Nadirs 1% showing.

And don't look at me, I vote swapped with someone in florida. I'm from new york my vote wouldn't count otherwise.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

No, it was not. Who or what would have been more cardboard than Gore?

The entire basis of the Nader campaign was "They're all the same".

THATS what you're chiding me over? Thats ridiculous. Bernie does a few points worse than hillary. That isn't in the same ballpark.. thats not playing the same SPORT, as Nadirs 1% showing.

And don't look at me, I vote swapped with someone in florida. I'm from new york my vote wouldn't count otherwise.

No. I'm chiding you on the Hillary's "not quite as republican as the republicans" and for "If we need to suffer through a republican presidency until texas goes blue and sanders 2.0 can be elected, so be it."

As I said above, I like Sanders. I'll vote for him. I'd love to see him in the White House.
I'll also vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination. She's much farther to the right than I'd like, but she's still far different than any of the Republican options and that difference is important.
I'm also chiding the implication that somehow a Republican presidency puts us in a better position for some Sanders 2.0.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

As I said above, I like Sanders. I'll vote for him. I'd love to see him in the White House.

I'll also vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination. She's much farther to the right than I'd like, but she's still far different than any of the Republican options and that difference is important.

This. I plan to vote for Sanders in the primary, and I hope to vote for him in the general election, but as of right now, Hillary is much, much more in line with what I believe than the Republicans are. I'll be disappointed if Hillary's the choice, but I won't be driven to not vote.


thejeff wrote:


As I said above, I like Sanders. I'll vote for him. I'd love to see him in the White House.

I'm going to hop democrat to vote in the primaries, since its the biggest vote i have that has a chance to matter.

Quote:
I'll also vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination. She's much farther to the right than I'd like, but she's still far different than any of the Republican options and that difference is important.

and I'll vote for/work for hillary when/if she beats sanders. But for me the calculation comes down to

[(%chance bernie winning) X (net good of bernie presidency)] > [(%chance of hillary winning X net good of a hillary presidency)]

Quote:
I'm also chiding the implication that somehow a Republican presidency puts us in a better position for some Sanders 2.0.

If the republiclones keep winning the democrats will keep churning them out.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
I'm also chiding the implication that somehow a Republican presidency puts us in a better position for some Sanders 2.0.
If the republiclones keep winning the democrats will keep churning them out.

And that's the bit I don't understand.


Yeah, I'll be happy to hold my nose and vote Hillary if she gets the nomination, which is apparently already decided if you look at the actions of DWS.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And a shout out to Comrade Meatrace. Had no idea you had transplanted across the globe.

Yup.

I graduated back in May and I got the job I interviewed for in February (and applied for last November) with the JET program, working as an assistant language teacher in Japan. Hachioji, to be precise.

A video I made of my tiny Japanese apartment.


meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And a shout out to Comrade Meatrace. Had no idea you had transplanted across the globe.

Yup.

I graduated back in May and I got the job I interviewed for in February (and applied for last November) with the JET program, working as an assistant language teacher in Japan. Hachioji, to be precise.

A video I made of my tiny Japanese apartment.

you should accept that you're not going to get your deposit back and install rubber flaps in between the rooms now before you take them out with your head.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Or more simply: 8 years of Bush didn't get us a nearly viable Sanders campaign. 8 years of Obama did. Maybe another 8 of moderate Democratic policies will help the next Sanders more than another 8 of Republican control?

What the Bush years did give us was the Supreme Court that gutted the Voting Rights Act and gave us the Citizens United decision. A Christie, Bush 3.0, and most likely a Trump Presidency will solidly lock the Supreme Court in this mode for another generation or two.


Scott Betts wrote:
Krensky wrote:

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.

Nah. Clinton is far more liberal than you are giving her credit for. OnTheIssues.org rates Clinton as being similarly liberal to Elizabeth Warren, more liberal than Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Sanders. Her Senate record puts her in the upper 15th percentile of most liberal Senators.

Considering that I consider Obama right of center, the fact that this compares her to equivalent of Obama does not really make her left.


Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Krensky wrote:

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.

Nah. Clinton is far more liberal than you are giving her credit for. OnTheIssues.org rates Clinton as being similarly liberal to Elizabeth Warren, more liberal than Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Sanders. Her Senate record puts her in the upper 15th percentile of most liberal Senators.
Considering that I consider Obama right of center, the fact that this compares her to equivalent of Obama does not really make her left.

She's considered equivalently liberal to Elizabeth Warren. She's considered more liberal than Obama.

Honestly, it's fine if your personal political spectrum is calibrated such that all Democrats appear slightly right-of-center. That isn't unreasonable. What I want to make clear, however, is that calling Clinton more moderate than your average Democrat is simply false. In fact, the opposite is true - she has a record as one of the most liberal Senate Democrats during her time in office. The fact of the matter is that both noteworthy Democrat candidates for President are, by American standards, very liberal.


Scott Betts wrote:
What I want to make clear, however, is that calling Clinton more moderate than your average Democrat is simply false. In fact, the opposite is true - she has a record as one of the most liberal Senate Democrats during her time in office.

She's weather vaney. She seems to adopt whatever position makes her the most electable. As a new york senator that was pretty far to the left even for a democrat.


Scott Betts wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Krensky wrote:

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.

Nah. Clinton is far more liberal than you are giving her credit for. OnTheIssues.org rates Clinton as being similarly liberal to Elizabeth Warren, more liberal than Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Sanders. Her Senate record puts her in the upper 15th percentile of most liberal Senators.
Considering that I consider Obama right of center, the fact that this compares her to equivalent of Obama does not really make her left.

She's considered equivalently liberal to Elizabeth Warren. She's considered more liberal than Obama.

Honestly, it's fine if your personal political spectrum is calibrated such that all Democrats appear slightly right-of-center. That isn't unreasonable. What I want to make clear, however, is that calling Clinton more moderate than your average Democrat is simply false. In fact, the opposite is true - she has a record as one of the most liberal Senate Democrats during her time in office. The fact of the matter is that both noteworthy Democrat candidates for President are, by American standards, very liberal.

The problem is that there are 2 strong axis to score left/right on. SHe is left on the social one, supporting immigration reform, LBGT rights, and abortion, which are popular on the left. The other axis, economic, is where Elizabeth Warren differentiates from Hillary. If the measurement is putting them together there, the measurement is broken.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
She's weather vaney. She seems to adopt whatever position makes her the most electable. As a new york senator that was pretty far to the left even for a democrat.

This is one of the things that makes me not want to have her as President. Basically, her entire LIFE seems like nothing more than a script to make her appeal to others... but that DOESN'T convince me that she can handle real surprises and spontaneity.

The President of the United States has a lot of power, yes, but the rest of the world does not follow a script put together by her campaign planners. As far as leaders go, I strongly prefer someone who is strongest just by being themselves and has sufficiently demonstrated this kind of independence.

Ms. Clinton just seems... fake.

Grand Lodge

Rednal wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
She's weather vaney. She seems to adopt whatever position makes her the most electable. As a new york senator that was pretty far to the left even for a democrat.

This is one of the things that makes me not want to have her as President. Basically, her entire LIFE seems like nothing more than a script to make her appeal to others... but that DOESN'T convince me that she can handle real surprises and spontaneity.

The President of the United States has a lot of power, yes, but the rest of the world does not follow a script put together by her campaign planners. As far as leaders go, I strongly prefer someone who is strongest just by being themselves and has sufficiently demonstrated this kind of independence.

Ms. Clinton just seems... fake.

This is about the only thing that makes her tolerable to me. I don't care if she will only appoint Justices who will overturn Citizens United because she wants some of Sanders' support back - I just care that she does it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Krensky wrote:

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.

Nah. Clinton is far more liberal than you are giving her credit for. OnTheIssues.org rates Clinton as being similarly liberal to Elizabeth Warren, more liberal than Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Sanders. Her Senate record puts her in the upper 15th percentile of most liberal Senators.
Considering that I consider Obama right of center, the fact that this compares her to equivalent of Obama does not really make her left.

She's considered equivalently liberal to Elizabeth Warren. She's considered more liberal than Obama.

Honestly, it's fine if your personal political spectrum is calibrated such that all Democrats appear slightly right-of-center. That isn't unreasonable. What I want to make clear, however, is that calling Clinton more moderate than your average Democrat is simply false. In fact, the opposite is true - she has a record as one of the most liberal Senate Democrats during her time in office. The fact of the matter is that both noteworthy Democrat candidates for President are, by American standards, very liberal.

Clinton's current measure of "liberalism" is mainly on positions that she's evolved since becoming the 2.0 version of a Presidential candidate. Clinton 1.0 was considerably more right-wing, and she's still very much a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, although at least not nearly as much a cowboy as Bush 2.0.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
I'll also vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination. She's much farther to the right than I'd like, but she's still far different than any of the Republican options and that difference is important.

and I'll vote for/work for hillary when/if she beats sanders. But for me the calculation comes down to

[(%chance bernie winning) X (net good of bernie presidency)] > [(%chance of hillary winning X net good of a hillary presidency)]

Whereas I'll be voting for Clinton in the primaries because I think she'd make a better president than Sanders, not because of electability per se.

Sanders is closer to some of my own economic views and seems to have an above-average store of integrity for a politician. Imagining him in office, I trust him to try to deliver on his promises, a bit more than I trust most politicians' campaign rhetoric.

But I don't trust him to succeed.

I think Clinton may be more adroit at heading off at least parts of the partisan gridlock that I suspect would ultimately paralyze Sanders.

There's some other reasons I prefer her despite some shadiness - work ethic is one - but I'm not going to decry ideologically driven gridlock on the right and then turn around and vote for it on the left.

51 to 100 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Sanders wins debate. CNN pushes hillary anyway All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.