Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

 

[Holmes]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

 

[Alcander]

There are so many "I was for it before I was against it" with Hillary. No one will trust her after their ad campaign just like Kerry.

The lady is a chameleon who does in fact drastically change her measage to whom she is addressing. I might donate to the SuperPac that runs the ad pointing out she's a total con artist. Wake up America.

Bernie said it best. You can't be both a moderate and a progressive. Hell, some of her stances are straight up conservative...in which she talks like one too, see welfare queens in the 90s. Running those comments will drastically lower Democratic turnout. She can not be trusted!!!

Hillary should be allowed in the White House on a tour. She should not be residing there.

Clinton doesnt have a national message. She just said in the debate tonight she is not up for contentious debates on issues of importance. She is not a leader. She has no plan just like the Cylons...so say we all.

Are you honestly for real. A battlestar reference?

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

Thank you ��

 

[ivysaur12]

You need to have a fundamental knowledge in the process in which you're engaging if you have any hope of using the system that we've had in place and won't change, barring a cataclysmic dystopia that results in us all competing in the fucking Hunger Games, to your advantage.

You want to primary people who aren't progressive enough? Fine. Do it in blue seats. Go after Bob Menendez. Go after Andrew Cuomo. Give a real challenge to Angus King. Be smart.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Well the money would come from taxes. Duh.

Also what the hell is your university spending money on?

Tax raises need the house and 60 votes in the senate.

I work at a CUNY university and the whole system is basically bankrupt. You have to pay teacher salaries, workers, maintenance, pensions, facilities, etc. Lack of state funding led to tuition rises and the resulting drop in enrollment led to a budget shortfall since they assumed the enrollment numbers would stay the same.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008.

You know, what has stuck with me for years is how Eric Cantor rode in on a wave of resurgent conservatism. "Vote them all out!" the base screamed, and in came Candor, who I considered to be Tea Party flavored. And then Republicans got frustrated again because it turns out that the president can veto legislation and they said "Vote them all out!" again. And suddently Cantor was out in record time.

So yeah, what's really stuck with me is the lesson that sometimes parties can get stuck in this obsessive death spiral of teeth gnashing and ideological purging. Things don't get done, and polarization worsens. But rather than center-correct and start passing legislation again, voters actually just become more extreme.

 

[devilhawk]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

What is actually more important is that her and her husband are terrible human beings. They are slumlords and run shoddy nursing homes. I personally know doctors that have pulled residents out of their nursing homes due to questions of abuse.

 

[Maengun1]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

Quoted for fuckin' truth.


My actual views on most issues are left of Bernie, and I'm appalled seeing so many liberals this year finally going down the dark and pointless tea-party path the Rs have been on for the better part of a decade. We really want to start emulating THAT? Someone who agrees with you 85+% of the time is now the enemy? Truly depressing rhetoric going on.

 

[Jenov]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

Excellent post! Thank you for a sorely needed lesson in politics.

It's like some people don't understand how the political system works, how being an purist ideologue and ignoring everyone else will NOT get you allies. Not everyone in the country thinks 100% like you, you have to compromise and make allies to push forward and progress.

Christ, it's like some people would rather we have a 2nd civil war over purifying their ideology than try and find a single inch of common ground to work on.


Edit: As for the debate, I finally got around to finding all 2 hours of it on youtube, and it was great. Very fiery first hour. Clinton is so smart, Bernie so passionate. I enjoyed watching it.

 

[Trouble]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

perfection.gif

A democratic version of the Tea Party would be just as much of a useless disaster.

 

[daedalius]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

This, right here.

All this talk of "political revolution" is going to set the democrats on their own path to a tea party.

 

[danm999]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

I know Ivysaur has pretty much covered this but I'll say something more direct; booting McCaskill from the Senate would be simplicity itself.

Getting someone more progressive? Impossible. It's Missouri. You'd get a Republican in your good the enemy of great crusade.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

As a moderate independent, I feel like I'm being pushed away from both sides as they cleanse their ranks and retrench further and further into their ideological holes. For a while it was just the right but now the left is just mirroring them.

 

[eyeball_kid]

Really great debate. It pisses me off that this debate is tied behind an MSNBC cable subscription – all presidential debates should be freely available for the public to view.

Sec. Clinton definitely has the edge on specific policy debates; she's just extremely knowledgable and insightful on most issues and she says all the things that moderates want to hear. And she has a big edge on foreign policy; Sanders seemed really out of his depth on this tonight. He's gotta step up his FP game or he'll continue to take a ding on this in the primaries, and be seen as extremely weak in the general. Going back to the Iraq War decision is not going to cut it. It's a valid point, but it's also history. It can be part of a narrative for him, but he has to have a more holistic and in-depth plan. Clinton was totally right about Putin. Sanders likes to talk in generalities about FP, but he's got to realize that most of the country worries about terrorism and he needs to look like he would be a competent and informed Commander In Chief.

I love Bernie and I want him to win, but he's got to refine some of his narratives a bit, create stories for people that connect on a personal level and show them a way out. Too often I see him falling back to the same phrases and "get the big money out" rants, which is harder to pull off with such a formidable debate opponent. These things are true, but he has to connect the dots a bit better. Then again, Obama's Change We Can Believe In got him pretty far without a lot of specifics. He did generally hold his own tonight though, and really hit some powerful notes.

 

[ErasureAcer]

As a moderate independent, I feel like I'm being pushed away from both sides as they cleanse their ranks and retrench further and further into their ideological holes. For a while it was just the right but now the left is just mirroring them.

Vote Hillary. She's anything you want her to be.

 

[Officerrob]

Vote Hillary. She's anything you want her to be.

 

[televator]

This, right here.

All this talk of "political revolution" is going to set the democrats on their own path to a tea party.

A party of bigots and religious extremists. This is what we compare the Bernie candidacy and progressive movement further left to now? The fear mongering has now seeped into the left. Leftist slandering other leftist and expecting compliance. And people say Bernie supporters are the entitled ones.

 

[Officerrob]

It's an idiotic notion to think you are replacing the likes of Claire McCaskill with a "true progressive". Primarying candidates who can actually win with those who cater more to the fringe while losing is exactly what happened with the Tea Party. Missouri is far from the center of the progressive movement

 

[pa22word]

Vote Hillary. She's anything you want her to be.

lol

 

[TomServo]

As a moderate independent, I feel like I'm being pushed away from both sides as they cleanse their ranks and retrench further and further into their ideological holes. For a while it was just the right but now the left is just mirroring them.

It's the primaries.

Like the Republicans since the birth of the Tea Party, the primaries are a place for candidates to argue over who's the most true to the cause, only to win the nomination and spend the run up to the general hustling back to the middle in an attempt to win independents.

If Bernie is doing anything to hurt Hillary, it's that. The Democrats haven't had to deal with the more... further from the center... elements of their base in their primaries the way the Republicans have had to in recent years, so it'll be interesting to watch Hillary backtrack on things she said to win the primary. For the potential entertainment value alone I hope Bernie sticks around a long, long way into the primaries.

 

[televator]

So money in politics has nothing to do with climate change legislation? The problem with money in politics is that it affects almost every other issue in a negative way.

Yep, it's time someone start voting in more people sympathetic to this issue, and cast aside this centrist/establishment compliant temperament. If people think we can get centrist non-progressives in positions of power to vote and legislate against their own and their corporate sponsors' interest, that's... dare I say... naive.

 

[Monocle]

Vote Hillary. She's anything you want her to be.

Wouldn't mind having Hillary, the fortress of regal composure and conviction who weathered a recent 11-hour hearing and/or partisan witch hunt, running the country.

 

[teruterubozu]

Really great debate. It pisses me off that this debate is tied behind an MSNBC cable subscription – all presidential debates should be freely available for the public to view.

They streamed it for free online - no sub necessary.

 

[BowieZ]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

Hey, I totally agree with you. I apologise for not colouring my comment with more complexity.

If Bernie's momentum continues, he really needs to improve his messaging and take on a slightly more detailed and concilliatory tone as he progresses (although frankly I think he needed to chuck a stink to get his foot in the door, which I think is the same approach his supporters, or any underdogs, might rightly take).

And as for his first term, of course he's going to have to compromise and work with moderates (as he has done all his life). The goal I assume is to persuade as many sitting house members as he can, and inspire new members running for election this year, and every couple of years (such as challengers to McCaskill in 2018), to make his passage of more progressive sweeping policies more smooth. If anyone's saying there needs to be an isolation or exodus of moderates to achieve his "revolution," I agree they are stupid.

When I said McCaskill would be first in line, I was being a bit facetious simply as I can't stand her.

 

[Dude Abides]

GrassRootsSelect

Is just some subreddit. Ain't shit.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

Incidentally, for anyone who doesn't know, THIS is how she won last time (2012)... It's pretty damned ingenious. She ran this ad during the republican primary, singling out the candidate she'd prefer to run against:

http://youtu.be/ec4t_3vaBMc

The ad, on its surface, pretends to criticize Todd Aiken, but really it was written to appeal to conservatives to encourage them to nominate him. She assumed he'd self destruct in the primary, and sure enough, after becoming the nominee, he made national headlines with his famous "legitimate rape" diatribe, and basically gave her the election. Her plan worked perfectly and she made it look easy.

 

[Abounder]

Dems/USA are in a good spot with either of these candidates, but I love that Hillary earned boos for her 'artful smear' malarkey. She did very well except for those points, it was like watching an otherwise A+ Guitar Hero score bomb a solo.

Anyway wished the debates focused important issues like global warming but at least we're not goddamn Republicans paid in denial. Fuck all that lobbying noise

 

[FreezeSSC]

I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debates, but has either Bernie or Clinton said where they stand on housing in the u.s.? Obama's housing policy has been a disaster and I'm curious what they think they can do differently.

 

[RustyNails]

I needed to come back to reiterate how dumb and stupid of an idea this is, and how angry I am that we're actually here on the left with a failed strategy that's plagued Republicans since 2008. In order to elect a working caucus, you need people who may not agree with you 100% of the time. There are 25 states that are blue states, or blue leaning states. There are 25 red or red leaning states. If we were to go by their COOK PVI, you'd get 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (actually 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans since Virginia is EVEN, though I imagine that'll change after 2016 to be D+1).

This means that if you want to compete in the Senate in states such as Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, etc, you're going to need to elect people who might not be the most progressive people on certain issue, but will vote for you a reasonable amount of the time. And especially when necessary. When push comes to shove, McCaskill will vote for her caucus. That's extremely important. McCaskill is not the most liberal person who has ever been elected to the Senate, but she is far more progressive than the average voter in Missouri, and still won (mostly because she's a shark and I'm sure she's probably killed a man if it needed to be done, but still).

You NEED people like this in your caucus if you want to attain enough votes to pass legislation, or hold a seat for 6 years when you might take a hit in a bad year in your states.

Even more importantly are governorships. John Bel Edwards, the recently elected governor of Louisiana is a conservative Democrat. He's pro-life. He's against gay marriage (this is more lip service, he helped stop a RFRA-type bill so I'd say he's good on the gays). He's pro-gun. Yet he's definitely on the left side of things economically. More importantly, he's the most liberal person you could reasonable expect to be elected statewide in Louisiana.

Does that mean you primary him, or any of these other people, from the left because he isn't as pure as you want? Fuck no.

This really needed to be said. The purity revolution is naive and childish.

 

[lastflowers]

That is exactly how I feel about this and is the main reason I haven't supported him. All Bernie is doing is feeding into the anger that people already have with the system. It's the same thing Trump is doing and the main difference for me is I agree with Bernie. There no political revolution, because he isn't starting one. What he has is a great campaign slogan and a platform that most on the left are going to agree with. Him calling it a revolution is just his "yes we can" line.

WOW ITS ALMOST LIKE YOU HAVE SEEN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BEFORE.

 

[ngower]

I'm for Bernie, fully aware of the challenge of implementing his policies with a gridlocked Congress. That said, if Hillary is the nominee, last night's debate cemented it for me: Bernie HAS to be the VP. His focus on domestic policy and hers on foreign policy would be pretty fracking remarkable. Probably not gonna happen, but good lord could Hillary use his votes, and Bernie could use her "legitimacy" (I still don't get that argument when he's served longer than she has, but whatever).

 

[VendettaRed07]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

Bernies record on guns is spectacularly bad because it needed to be in order for him to be elected to office in Vermont. He's even admitted this several times as to why his gun voting record is poor

So Yeah, even in the most liberal parts of the country, you need to concede on certain points depending on where you are

So throwing dems who were able to win seats in the south or Midwest because they aren't progressive socialists is such bullshit.

 

[fantomena]

There was a debate? What.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

The idealist in me loves Bernie. Many of his visions are aligned with my own. But we don't live in such a world at the moment that will allow for even a fraction of his proposed policies to be enacted. Many of the changes he seeks have to, unfortunately, come at a snail's pace and definitely not all at once.

With that said, although I much less prefer Hillary, I'm going to be voting for her because I think she has a better shot at "reaching across the aisle" and cooperating with republicans on certain issues. I also think she's more electable than Bernie at this stage.

Bernie is considerably more radical in his beliefs and approach, and while they may be for the betterment of society, the fact is that a lot of people aren't accepting or ready of such changes. We live in a country where half the population votes against their own interests without realizing it. I wish things were different and that Bernie could get elected and have many of his policies passed, but the landscape won't allow for that, from the country's constituents to its politicians. We are just not at that point yet. Therefore, in my opinion, Hillary makes for a better stepping stone candidate than Bernie, but in no way do I agree more with Hillary than Bernie.

 

[Taco_Man]

Anyone have any sites, articles, anything to further my understanding of the overall political process? I've recently gotten into politics (as recent as last year) and have done most of my learning through random sites online. Enough to get me by in a casual conversation here and there, but I'd like to get even deeper.

 

[Future PhaZe]

If you think republicans dismissed any idea of working with Obama, then you're about to see something much worse with Hillary.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Anyone have any sites, articles, anything to further my understanding of the overall political process? I've recently gotten into politics (as recent as last year) and have done most of my learning through random sites online. Enough to get me by in a casual conversation here and there, but I'd like to get even deeper.

Depends on what aspect of it. PoliGAF has a lot of knowledgeable people and is fine with fielding questions about the election process I would imagine (I know it wouldn't bother me).

 

[Sirpopopop]

A party of bigots and religious extremists. This is what we compare the Bernie candidacy and progressive movement further left to now? The fear mongering has now seeped into the left. Leftist slandering other leftist and expecting compliance. And people say Bernie supporters are the entitled ones.

Or in the case of the poster you quoted above, the Tea Party represents virulent extremism that cares more about 100% solutions favorable to them rather than compromise or dialogue with those who disagree with them even in the slightest.

 

[Laevateinn]

The idealist in me loves Bernie. Many of his visions are aligned with my own. But we don't live in such a world at the moment that will allow for even a fraction of his proposed policies to be enacted. Many of the changes he seeks have to, unfortunately, come at a snail's pace and definitely not all at once.

With that said, although I much less prefer Hillary, I'm going to be voting for her because I think she has a better shot at "reaching across the aisle" and cooperating with republicans on certain issues. I also think she's more electable than Bernie at this stage.

Bernie is considerably more radical in his beliefs and approach, and while they may be for the betterment of society, the fact is that a lot of people aren't accepting or ready of such changes. We live in a country where half the population votes against their own interests without realizing it. I wish things were different and that Bernie could get elected and have many of his policies passed, but the landscape won't allow for that, from the country's constituents to its politicians. We are just not at that point yet. Therefore, in my opinion, Hillary makes for a better stepping stone candidate than Bernie, but in no way do I agree more with Hillary than Bernie.

I hate to break it to you but, no matter which Democrat is elected president, Republicans won't be cooperative and will do everything they can to bring down his or her agenda. With that environment, I believe it is better to have a president who would be willing to hold people accountable and act as a fierce advocate for legislation.

That's ignoring the fact that there's only one person Republicans hate more than HIllary (Obama) whereas Bernie has a pretty good personal relationship with a lot of prominent Republicans.

 

[gutter_trash]

If you think republicans dismissed any idea of working with Obama, then you're about to see something much worse with Hillary.

I disagree, the Clintons are more skillful on handling Republicans than Obama

 

[Pastry]

I'm for Bernie, fully aware of the challenge of implementing his policies with a gridlocked Congress. That said, if Hillary is the nominee, last night's debate cemented it for me: Bernie HAS to be the VP. His focus on domestic policy and hers on foreign policy would be pretty fracking remarkable. Probably not gonna happen, but good lord could Hillary use his votes, and Bernie could use her "legitimacy" (I still don't get that argument when he's served longer than she has, but whatever).

Bernie would be possibly the worst VP that her team could pick, his age negates whatever perceived benefits he has.

 

[ahoyhoy]

I disagree, the Clintons are more skillful on handling Republicans than Obama

I think the political dynamic Bill faced in the 90s was different than it is today. The conservative rhetoric has been ratcheted up several notches and bstructionism appears to be the strategy of choice across the party lines.

 

[Interfectum]

I disagree, the Clintons are more skillful on handling Republicans than Obama

Not the Republicans of today.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I disagree, the Clintons are more skillful on handling Republicans than Obama

I'd say Bill was for sure. I don't know if Hillary is quite on his level. She doesn't quite have that smooth, sympathetic way of presenting things.

I think progress will come more so from the fact that the republicans in office are eventually going to have to start showing some progress and presenting things to their voters that they accomplished while in office rather than how much better she is at working with them. I did "Nothing", maybe worked under Obama but years into the next presidency I think something has to give

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

If you think republicans dismissed any idea of working with Obama, then you're about to see something much worse with Hillary.

But they're going to be happy to work with someone who happily calls himself a socialist? What fantasy is this that republicans are going to be cooperative with any democratic president?

 

[Taco_Man]

Depends on what aspect of it. PoliGAF has a lot of knowledgeable people and is fine with fielding questions about the election process I would imagine (I know it wouldn't bother me).

Just more in depth knowledge. I can understand most if not all of the topics covered at debates, but looking into specific senators and determining how local politics plays a much bigger role in national politics is still a bit iffy to me. (More so referencing what ivysaur and BowieZ were discussing).

 

[Arkeband]

Bernies record on guns is spectacularly bad because it needed to be in order for him to be elected to office in Vermont. He's even admitted this several times as to why his gun voting record is poor

So Yeah, even in the most liberal parts of the country, you need to concede on certain points depending on where you are

So throwing dems who were able to win seats in the south or Midwest because they aren't progressive socialists is such bullshit.

Bernie's stance on guns is the same as Obama's. If it was actually "spectacularly bad" he wouldn't be pushing for all of the same things our current president is.

 

[Pyroclastic]

if someone can post a highlights reel of the debate I will donate to yr future campaign for office, guaranteed.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bernie's stance on guns is the same as Obama's. If it was actually "spectacularly bad" he wouldn't be pushing for all of the same things our current president is.

I hadn't realized that Obama was against the Brady Bill and had voted to give legal immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers (that no one else has) or wanted to let the states decide the issue.

 

[Interfectum]

But they're going to be happy to work with someone who happily calls himself a socialist? What fantasy is this that republicans are going to be cooperative with any democratic president?

Most Republicans don't think Sanders should be in prison.

When Hillary wins the presidency how many times are we going to hear from the GOP about Benghazi and her emails? How many hearings are we going to have to endure?

I just hope it doesn't plague her entire run up there... but I can almost guarantee they will treat her as bad or worse than Obama.