Where are your facts and data to support such claims, or did you come to this conclusion after consulting the stars about it?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DNC suspends Sanders campaign access to database after staff breached Hillary's data
- Thread starter Cerium
- Start date
- Status
Where are your facts and data to support such claims, or did you come to this conclusion after consulting the stars about it?
Battersea Power Station
Member
.
Can you explain to me how you reached that conclusion?
The only explanation that I can come up with is that you think that since Bernie is coming from position more left than Hilary, then his eventual agreements and legislation will be more left than Hilary as well. If that is the case, I am sorry, but that is just naive. The Republicans aren't going to give more away to Bernie just because he is starting from a more left position.
That sort of thinking just seems to completely ignore the ideas and actions of the republican party today. That sort of thinking is based on the assumption that the Republicans want to make deals, want government to function, and want to compromise. Many of them would be perfectly fine with seeing nothing get done if the other option was leftist policies that they don't like. And the only way that they would pass something if it was at least an equal give and take where the president and the democrats are going to have to swallow some nasty shit to get stuff passed. Bernie's presence or him coming from a more leftist stance isnt going to impact that at all.
On message for 30 years and accomplished what, exactly? Hillary is a liberal with liberal ideals no matter how hard people try to portray her as a neocon. She'll appoint liberals to the supreme court. She'll be a continuation of Obama and of the left-bound trajectory this country is taking.
This is the problem, Bernie's main supporters, young white liberal college educated men (which I am one of, for the record), have nothing to lose with this election. Their livelihoods and rights aren't in the balance. The base of the Democratic party, women and minorities, aren't in the same boat. You and I can sit at home on election night and the next 40 years will be pretty much the same for us no matter what. Millions of people cannot say the same if a Republican is the next one to decide who sits on the Supreme Court.
There is no negotiations to get over the Republican House hurdle. This post is proof you literally have no clue how politics works today, and I don't mean that as an insult. In theory, a President would go to the negotiating table and win some things and lose others. This has worked in the past. In modern practice, Republicans obstruct virtually everything, not even allowing Obama's moderate policies through. And you think Sanders is going to get even a single policy through that is even remotely close to a single one of his Democratic Socialist ideals? They were calling Obama a socialist and refusing to pass literally any of his legislation. Shit, Obama couldn't even get the legislation he wanted passed when there WERE strong Democratic majorities. He had to absolutely massacre his legislation to do it. You think Bernie is going to win policy victories with Republican control of the House as strong as it is and no way to change it until 2022 at earliest? There are no LOLs big enough for that sort of naivety.
That's the problem with Bernie supporters. I think Bernie's policies are better than Hillary's. I know, however, that neither of them are getting pretty much anything major passed until the next census and Democrats hopefully get to gerrymander districts back their way (or some hail mary supreme court decision stops gerrymandering). So what am I banking on? Who is more likely to win, so they can nominate Supreme Court Justices. That's the reality of how system. You can be idealistic if you want, but our system does not work the way you think it does. In order to pass meaningful progressive legislation, we need a Democratic House and Senate with significant super majorities to overcome filibusters. That's what we need. And that's what we have no chance of obtaining until 2022 at earliest.
In short: They didn't let Obama pass his MODERATE policies, Bernie is not going to get any legislation passed that is any more progressive than Hillary. That comical dream needs to die right here, because anyone who says it simply has no clue how our system works.
So again I'll say: Until a Bernie supporter can tell me how they get over this quite impossible hurdle, then all they have is fever dreams with no actual chance of coming true in reality. Until a single Bernie supporter can explain how, it's all ideology and no actual plan to get these policies passed Congress. Which is just hot air as far as anyone truly interested in politics is concerned.
No, he won't win. Republicans will play back 99,000 times Bernie admitting to being a Democratic Socialist, and he'll get mauled by the far more aggressive Republican candidates. But I mean let's say he beats the odds and actually does win? None of his progressive legislation is getting passed. ZERO of it, factually. So it'd be down to you voting for him for Supreme Court Nominations and maybe you've convinced yourself he'd get us into less combat situations. That's what you're voting for this election. You're not voting for a Democratic president who will get any truly progressive legislation passed.
RustyNails
Member
I don't understand why people don't get this...like, is this your first election guys? For every single person who believes Bernie can win the general, I suggest reading and learning about Lee Atwater. If that's too much, then just read about Willie Horton or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Republican leaders are S++ when it comes to fearmongering. It's an art for them. Bernie would get absolutely wrecked in the general, and I really like the guy. He does not deserve to get dragged through mud and coal.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Oh this is an easy one.
Because her and Sanders stand on the same side of the vast majority of issues and letting it "burn down" because I didn't get my way is one of the most childish things one can do.
It's kinda amazing how this concept of "Well I can't get everything I want, I guess I'll just go home and not fucking vote" has become a concept with these fringe candidates.
It tells me that people who feel this way don't actually care about consequences and have a more narcissistic personality if anything. "Yes, I'm so important, I'm actually voting for change, unlike you sheep! I'm gonna be remembered as someone who started a revolution, aren't we so great!? Let's all pat ourselves on the back over how great we are!"
nocturnalis
Member
Also as an independent who actually pays attention to what conservatives say, calling Hillary a neo-con is going to endear Bernie to no one in the general.
What I was saying is that even if Bernie will have to do the same shit as Hilary is going to do. Same stuff. Only moderate shit that the GOP will still get mad over. Even then having a democratic socialist as president will be a big step forward purely in the historical sense as in who represents the USA as a country. It sets up a platform for the future.
Obama didn't solve racism and couldn't do lots of stuff that he wanted to do but it was still worth it over Hilary IMO.
So, to summarize your position, you want Bernie to get elected so America can have "historic" proof a Democratic Socialist can get elected, despite knowing none of his policies will be implemented, and despite most evidence suggesting he is far less electable in the general than Hillary.
To put this another way, you're willing to give up Supreme Court nominations and the court being ruined for generations for ideology and having a "conversation" about a socialist being elected. Because statistically, Bernie's odds are far less than Hillary's. Most odd makers will tell you that. He could beat the odds and win, but I'm not willing to take that risk. I don't want to apologize to the minorities and women who need abortions who will be disenfranchised because I wanted to have a "conversation" over a candidate that had little chance of winning in the first place.
So one of these politicians is adaptable to changing circumstances and focused on the desires of her electorate, and one of them is convinced of the rightness of his policies regardless of the goals of the voters and offers the same solutions for every problem?
So, to summarize your position, you want Obama to get elected so America can have "historic" proof a Black president can get elected, despite knowing none of his policies will be implemented, and despite most evidence suggesting he is far less electable in the general than Hillary.
To put this another way, you're willing to give up Supreme Court nominations and the court being ruined for generations for ideology and having a "conversation" about a Black president being elected. Because statistically, Obama's odds are far less than Hillary's. Most odd makers will tell you that. He could beat the odds and win, but I'm not willing to take that risk. I don't want to apologize to the minorities and women who need abortions who will be disenfranchised because I wanted to have a "conversation" over a candidate that had little chance of winning in the first place.
Anyway let's agree to disagree because it seems a difference in fundamental beliefs and/or personality to me.
And_Gignac
Member
The way this drama played right intoo Sanders camp hands. It was like an early Christmas gift from the DNC.
While I get your point and I agree with it, you are underestimating white college men and their college debt struggles, which is a fundamental part of why he is way more popular than Clinton with college kids -- not only white men, but women and people of color too.
While I get your point and I agree with it, you are underestimating white college men and their college debt struggles, which is a fundamental part of why he is way more popular than Clinton with college kids -- not only white men, but women and people of color too.
"Even then having a woman as president will be a big step forward purely in the historical sense as in who represents the USA as a country, and can demonstrate nothing is closed to half the population because they are women. It sets up possibilities for women and for minorities in the future."
Huh?
Let me guess you're young, white and middle to upper class right? Some of us don't have that luxury because we were born brown.
chbrevolution
Member
I’ve been pretty neutral on my feelings about the candidates running for the nomination this round. I wasn’t going to vote in the primaries and just vote for whoever won the nomination like I did in 2008. This whole situation has soured my completely on Bernie and if he makes it as far as Texas in the primaries I’ll be voting against him. Hillary may not be the perfect candidate but she is loyal to the party. Even after the ugliness of the 2008 campaign she got behind Obama and fought for the party and became a part of the team in his first term. I don’t expect the same graciousness from Sanders and his team if their actions and reactions in this situation is any indication.
It was his campaign that did wrong in this situation and now they want to play the victim card. Now he wants to sue the party which he dissed for 30 years. It shows him to be the same type of opportunistic politician that he and his supporters rail against and try to pin Clinton to be. At least she is honest and you get what you see with her. On the other hand Sanders is not and now his true colors are showing.
He’s running a crappy campaign that is masked as “real hope and change” but in reality is only fueled on angst and hatred towards the front runner. This is the makings of a troll campaign and not of someone who is trying to run a competent campaign to become president. This is the reason why he can’t get more support outside of core constituency, disillusioned white liberals who don’t know that presidents aren’t kings.
I expect this to be only the start of more stunts the Sanders campaign is going to be pulling as we near the beginning of the primaries. His campaign doesn’t care about the long term damage they are trying to cause they only want “purity”. He’s only running against Clinton because she lost the last primary and he thinks he has wiggle room to possibly win. The big difference between 2008 and now is that the Obama coalition is mostly going for Hillary this go around. That’s why he was to chicken to run a primary against Obama in 2012 and was trying to “recruit” others to do his dirty work.
Sigh… The more I type the more I start to really dislike this guy.
/end rant
It was his campaign that did wrong in this situation and now they want to play the victim card. Now he wants to sue the party which he dissed for 30 years. It shows him to be the same type of opportunistic politician that he and his supporters rail against and try to pin Clinton to be. At least she is honest and you get what you see with her. On the other hand Sanders is not and now his true colors are showing.
He’s running a crappy campaign that is masked as “real hope and change” but in reality is only fueled on angst and hatred towards the front runner. This is the makings of a troll campaign and not of someone who is trying to run a competent campaign to become president. This is the reason why he can’t get more support outside of core constituency, disillusioned white liberals who don’t know that presidents aren’t kings.
I expect this to be only the start of more stunts the Sanders campaign is going to be pulling as we near the beginning of the primaries. His campaign doesn’t care about the long term damage they are trying to cause they only want “purity”. He’s only running against Clinton because she lost the last primary and he thinks he has wiggle room to possibly win. The big difference between 2008 and now is that the Obama coalition is mostly going for Hillary this go around. That’s why he was to chicken to run a primary against Obama in 2012 and was trying to “recruit” others to do his dirty work.
Sigh… The more I type the more I start to really dislike this guy.
/end rant
It must be weird for Sanders supporters to be minorities for the first time in their lives.
looking at pictures of Sanders political events, it's more like the free space in the center of the bingo card
And_Gignac
Member
It benefited him. I am actually shocked how little scrutiny he is getting in the media because of what his camp did. Even Politico, which seems to have an editorial hard-on for trolling Sanderistas, is recognizing this. Clinton followers may be in dismayal, but the narrative is playing in favour of Sanders, without a doubt.
Your Entertainer
Member
I'm a non-white Bernie supporter. I'm not overthinking this - he has better positions on the issues than Clinton, pretty much across the board. So I'm voting for him. Not too complicated. I'm not really persuaded by any pragmatism argument. Republicans have dragged this country way to the right over the last decade, and someone like Bernie is exactly the person we need to start dragging it in the other direction. He generally speaks well and is very passionate about his positions, which would also be helpful.
EDIT: She's good too, and I will absolutely vote for her if she's the nominee. Having the first woman president would be cool too.
There is a huge difference between how you approach this and "fuck it I'm staying home, let the world burn" although I disagree with you on the pragmatism part. My implication was that minorities can't afford to just stay at home and say screw it.
exmachina64
Banned
Can we just pin this to the top of threads involving Democrats in the 2016 Presidential election? This is a perfect and accurate summary yet we keep having this discussion.
teruterubozu
Member
And we still will. Do you really think it will subside?
And_Gignac
Member
Not really. The person you quoted seems to be unaware that Clinton and Sanders proposals are enough similar to present the same obstructionism from Republicans. Also, people dont care about democratic socialism. That gallup poll means nothing when socialism = the face of the Democratic Party. Isnt Obama a muslim socialist to the right, anyway? And yet here we are.
nah.
Did you even bother to read it? He fully admits that, and supports Clinton because their policies are quite similar, but Clinton has a much greater chance of winning the general election and, as a consequence, nominating liberal justices.
As for your socialism thing, that is just absurd. You are confusing what the far right/straight up republicans think about Obama and what moderates and independents think. The far right/republicans are already a lost cause, but a candidate needs to capture the middle vote to win elections. I doubt very many people in that middle believed that Obama was a Muslim Socialist because it is ridiculous. It will be a whole lot easier for that middle to believe that Sanders is a socialist because he has admitted that he is a socialist.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It benefited him to his supporters who would never admit he did anything wrong and see him as the victim. But in the general public, AT BEST, he comes off just as damaged as everyone else involved.
Like I said before, any other candidate running would have been destroyed by something like this but Sanders had built a lot of good will and trust.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Clearly some must have that luxury because minorities are struggling, under attack, and dying and some people think another Supreme Court Justice alongside Kagan and Sotomayor will mitigate it.
It's convenient that the hurdle's height is in no small part due to those likely to vote Democratic who are playing to a self-fulfilling prophecy that Bernie is unelectable. So I'd probably start there. I keep seeing Hillary supporters like yourself say, "Oh, I like Bernie's ideals and I don't think Hillary would fare any better on getting progressive liberal policies passed, but he's just not electable and she is." Okay, but let's be honest here: if we took all the people who are probably voting for Hillary just because they think she's the only electable one, that would go some ways towards clearing the hurdle (which is not to suggest that anyone who legitimately prefers Hillary as a candidate should change their vote, to be clear).
One of the biggest reason given for why he's unelectable is because he's a Democratic Socialist and Republicans will slaughter him with that. People like yourself keep admonishing others about the power of Republican fearmongering, but the irony is you're the primary victim of it right now, because you already buy into it before it's happened. Frankly, I'm not convinced. This country has already had a socialist president for the last 8 yrs, and a black Muslim one from Kenya, no less. So I can't see the country having too hard a time with an old white one from Vermont. The thing about fearmongering is that you become numb to certain level of it over time and the only way to keep instilling more fear is to keep increasing the threat. But Sanders is hardly a bigger bogeyman than Obama.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Republicans called Obama a socialist, despite it not being an accurate label for him, politically, because it galvanized their base, hence the 2010 election.
Calling Bernie a socialist during the campaign, however, will be accurate, because he has admitted it, and it would be designed around scaring away the great mass of centrists, who are, by and large, not socialism-friendly. That's the difference, and why the fact that Obama is a "Muslim Kenyan socialist" and is doing okay is immaterial to Bernie being an actual old-school, New England Socialist.
Calling Bernie a socialist during the campaign, however, will be accurate, because he has admitted it, and it would be designed around scaring away the great mass of centrists, who are, by and large, not socialism-friendly. That's the difference, and why the fact that Obama is a "Muslim Kenyan socialist" and is doing okay is immaterial to Bernie being an actual old-school, New England Socialist.
If his team gets caught doing anything like this again he won't get the free pass he's getting now. Hillary, Bill, Obama, Biden, this would have killed the lot of them. Honestly, I'm not so sure anyone deserves a free pass here, but Bernie managed to find himself one and he should be grateful and try not to push too hard here.
Tipping the court our way sure as hell isn't going to hurt. Look at what they've done so far!
Candidates have to appeal to voters who don't consider themselves democrats or republicans to get elected. That is where people think Sanders will face serious trouble due to his avowed socialist label.
Realizing that Sanders is going to be portrayed a a dangerous socialist because he has admitted that he is in fact a socialist, and that is going to hurt his chances in the general election is not the same thing as being a victim of Republican fearmongering. It is simply understanding that the US Electorate will not accept an avowed leftist socialist as a President because polls suggest that socialism is not popular with the general electorate. That label will greatly hurt his chances. No amount of lets stand with our principles talk and vote our heart and ideology is going to chance that.
God, this argument is so stupid. There is a fucking difference what the far right and republicans think of Obama and what the general electorate thinks of Obama. The general electorate do not think that Obama is a muslim socialist. The general electorate will think that Sanders is a socialist because he has ADMITTED that he is a socialist. That is a big fucking difference.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
This would have killed any Republican but Trump as well. The media would hound them endlessly about it and the Nixon comparisons.
And_Gignac
Member
I dont think it has, honestly. Mainstream politicians and institutions are in a historical low in popularity; no one is siding with the DNC. Sanders is playing the victim card and is working with the media narrative. I dont think he should get away with that, though. This is like the fourth time one of his staffers has done something stupid.
A middle that barely exists anymore. US politics are extremely polarized. Not even Tories vs Labour are like this. And I firmly believe Sanders is a better bet against Trump or Cruz´s populism. Again, establishment politicians are not really popular during this cycle which may result in a low turn out with Clinton on the ticket. A populist like Sanders can fire up the bases like Clinton, imo, wouldnt be able to.
Literally Fox News rhetoric now in this thread.
To be fair; I will vote for Bernie in the primary and I'm a young brown dude. (I'll vote for any Democratic nominee as long as the GOP nominee isn't Huntsman).
It depends. All these "pragmatic Hillary voters" sure don't like to fucking show up during off year elections, let Congress go the way of the GOP, and then bitch about how Congress gets in the way of the president. "We need to win" "doesn't vote except for presidential elections, doesn't vote for governors, or anything else".
You are one election away from a complete Republican take over of this country. Your demographic "certainty" is doing all of jack and shit if you don't vote.
vainglorious
Member
One thing I learned working in politics is that people really struggle with the concept of divided government. The President does not have unilateral authority to enact domestic policy - his/her powers are actually quite limited. Congressional districts are gerrymandered to fuck in favor of Republicans until the next census in 2020 - if elected what is Bernie going to accomplish with a Republican Congress??? I haven't seen one Bernie supporter actually address and tackle that question in good faith.
Honestly though I've been frustrated with Sander's on multiple occasions. "Socialism" is in fact, currently a bogeyman in this country. Obama is hardly a liberal on most issues yet the GOP were in part successful in the 2010 midterms because of Obama's socialist label and fear mongering.
Bernie's big speech about socialism and his values was a giant flop. His campaign presented it as a game changer in terms of wrestling with the socialist label and it was nothing but his usually 1% this 1% that talking points. When he interviewed with Bill Maher, Maher brought up this very issue. The socialism bogeyman is complete nonsense, and Maher continually invited Sander's to address the socialism problem in America but Sander's instead chose to stick to his campaign talking points ad nauseam.
I like Sander's, and I like that he's forced some soul searching within my party - but he's not the leader some people want him to be.
Edit - I invite some of you to people watch and look around when you're out Christmas shopping. If you don't realize that the people you're looking at are all voters and most likely don't know two shits about socialism and either don't care/don't have the time to truly be civically engaged and learn about what socialism really is - you're delusional.
Honestly though I've been frustrated with Sander's on multiple occasions. "Socialism" is in fact, currently a bogeyman in this country. Obama is hardly a liberal on most issues yet the GOP were in part successful in the 2010 midterms because of Obama's socialist label and fear mongering.
Bernie's big speech about socialism and his values was a giant flop. His campaign presented it as a game changer in terms of wrestling with the socialist label and it was nothing but his usually 1% this 1% that talking points. When he interviewed with Bill Maher, Maher brought up this very issue. The socialism bogeyman is complete nonsense, and Maher continually invited Sander's to address the socialism problem in America but Sander's instead chose to stick to his campaign talking points ad nauseam.
I like Sander's, and I like that he's forced some soul searching within my party - but he's not the leader some people want him to be.
Edit - I invite some of you to people watch and look around when you're out Christmas shopping. If you don't realize that the people you're looking at are all voters and most likely don't know two shits about socialism and either don't care/don't have the time to truly be civically engaged and learn about what socialism really is - you're delusional.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
No one is siding with the DNC but they're not siding against them either. They're covering the facts of Sanders campaign had done and saying this is what the DNC did in response to it. From what I've seen no one in the media is going with the Sanders is a victim angle either.
Monocle
Member
Nailed it. This is exactly why I can't support Sanders. As much as I like his politics, Republican obstructionism would paralyze him completely. And that's assuming he could even get elected.
Aaron Strife
Banned
In my personal experience many of the Bernie supporters are supporting him because they're tired of corrupt, ineffective candidates. As much as I like him (I'll be voting for him) all those people are doing is repeating the same mistakes they made with Obama or any other transformative politician. Like you said the president needs Congress to get anything done, but no one gives a shit about local elections beneath the top dog.
Same with the "Well if we got eight years of President Trump, people would realize how bad the Republicans are and we'd get a TRUE liberal president!" Sound familiar? That's exactly the circumstance that got us Obama. And then people stopped caring after the election and assumed Obama would just magically fix everything, so 2010 was a bloodbath and the GOP locked in their majority thanks to controlling redistricting in many crucial states. So now even if 2016 is a Dem blowout it's highly unlikely they'll even reach 218 in the House. Senate Democrats would probably win a filibuster-proof majority before that would happen.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
I really hope this story can wake people up to the DNC and Hillary's efforts to strangle democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2014
And the middle barely exists? Please. Franken had a harder time winning in Minnesota than Klobachar (and a much harder time in 2008 so dont use the presidential election as an excuse). I am sure you can find examples of this throughout the country where the populace is clearly not voting only democrat or only republican, but sometimes split their vote based on the individual candidate.
And your 'belief' is not backed up by any sort of actual polling or data, or even historical precedent, all which point to a significant Clinton advantage. Your 'belief' is just wishful thinking.
Jeffolation
Banned
Nader had a better chance at being president than Bernie does. If he ends up with the democratic nomination I think the country is probably fucked.
Damn. Cut right to the bone with that one.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
If Bernie supporters think Obama was a "corrupt, ineffective candidate" then they do live in la-la land.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
AND the Sanders campaign to get control over their people so they are not put in situations like this again.
It also shows their theory is trash. 12 years of Reagan and Bush got us Bill Clinton, a blue dog Dem. 8 years of Bush got us Obama and that was no guaranteed election. They have zero proof for their theory.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Ehhhh, it kinda was.
So what are you saying? Hillary will be more effective? I really don't get how any of your points don't apply to any Democratic candidate. Republicans will attack any, and I think they hate the idea of Clinton then any other candidate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked