Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

The only way anything substantial is getting past Congress in this current era is via sheer force of representative numbers. We could resurrect LBJ to twist arms until they snap, and even he wouldn't be successful.

Legislatively, a Bernie administration will not look radically different from a Hillary administration.

 

[Valhelm]

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

Really? How did the Tea Party harm the Republican Party in the long run?

 

[VendettaRed07]

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.

He voted against the Brady Bill 5 times and voted for a lot of other junk pro gun legislation.

I'm not holding it against him though. It's pretty obvious he isn't as pro gun as his record suggests. He was from rural Vermont where even very socially liberal people are seriously pro gun. It's what politicians do. I'm not questioning where he is, I believe it was a necessary concession to win office in his state.

Other democrats should be able to do the same in their states. It's better for them to win on punting certain issues than lose because they couldn't let key votes go because they ideologically disagreed with them

 

[daedalius]

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.

You completely missed my point.

I wasn't comparing the Bernie political revolution movement to the tea party in terms of their ideals, but the push for ideological purity above compromise.

Really? How did the Tea Party harm the Republican Party in the long run?

lol what?

You must be joking, right?

 

[Taco_Man]

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 don't understand this logic. I hear many people say they love his ideals, but don't think he'll win which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're saying you align more with him on issues yet vote for Hillary then aren't you yourself voting against your own interests? Why not try and force that change to come instead of being passive and hoping it will come at some point in the future.

We live in a democracy, electability should be determined by the number of people who support and then vote for a candidate, not polls or dynasties.

 

[RoKKeR]

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).

Not a chance as hell.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Bernie being Hillarys VP is like getting Brett Favre to be Peyton Mannings back up

She needs someone younger. I hope there is some way for her to use him to keep him in the national spot light more though for sure.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Really? How did the Tea Party harm the Republican Party in the long run?

You serious?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Really? How did the Tea Party harm the Republican Party in the long run?

I get your point that the Republicans are doing very well outside the Presidency but that's because; 1. conservatives vote in off year elections and liberals don't and 2. they have far, far, far more money to throw at down ballot races. A liberal tea part equivalent would be a disaster.

 

[TrounceX]

I don't understand this logic. I hear many people say they love his ideals, but don't think he'll win which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're saying you align more with him on issues yet vote for Hillary then aren't you yourself voting against your own interests? Why not try and force that change to come instead of being passive and hoping it will come at some point in the future.

We live in a democracy, electability should be determined by the number of people who support and then vote for a candidate, not polls or dynasties.

I'm betting you actually do understand his logic, you just don't like it. Because what he's saying is actually the most reasonable conclusion when factoring pragmatism and an understanding of the current state of politics.

Right now I'm just happy that Bernie is blazing the path to a more progressive America, and that he's having so much success doing it. This the clearly the direction America is heading, I just think it's a bit soon, and that Bernie is not the right canditate. In 8 years or so, expect a younger charismatic progressive to pick up the torch and really shift the party to the left. That will be our time.

Meanwhile, the absolute worst thing we can do is start infighting and ruin the democrats chances of winning. Because even Hillary is a million times better than the repub candidates.

 

[HylianTom]

I get your point that the Republicans are doing very well outside the Presidency but that's because; 1. conservatives vote in off year elections and liberals don't and 2. they have far, far, far more money to throw at down ballot races. A liberal tea part equivalent would be a disaster.

Purity crusaders cost them the Senate in 2012 as well.

With control of the Senate and the Presidency between 2013 and 2015, Obama was able to stuff the District and Appeals levels of the judiciary, to the point where a majority of lower courts are now dominated by Democratic appointees.

This may sound like a small thing, but considering how relatively few cases get to the Supreme Court, it means that most disputes are settled in these lower levels of our court system. We're going to be thanking Obama - and the Tea Party - for decades. The GOP may win lower races, but a properly-stocked judiciary will serve as a gutter-bumper in preventing state and local governments from going too egregiously to the right.

 

[RustyNails]

I don't understand this logic. I hear many people say they love his ideals, but don't think he'll win which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're saying you align more with him on issues yet vote for Hillary then aren't you yourself voting against your own interests? Why not try and force that change to come instead of being passive and hoping it will come at some point in the future.

We live in a democracy, electability should be determined by the number of people who support and then vote for a candidate, not polls or dynasties.

American democracy is chess. People voting for Bernie and Trump are playing checkers. Bernie is DOA on national stage with his comments on increasing taxes and total bewilderment on foreign issues. The grand prize is the general election and you dont send a single issue candidate to GE. The downticket effect of Bernie will be total destruction of red state and swing state democrats in congressional, local and governorship elections. If they were begging to campaign with Obama in 2008, they will be running the fuck away from Bernie in 2016. If you care about planting a flag on the territory we gained over the last 8 years under Obama/Biden, then do them a solid and send someone who can finish the fight. Bernie will just make it considerably easier for GOP to win.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Luckily presidents get to surround themselves with dozens if not hundreds of experts in all sorts of fields. I like to think that his administration as a whole would help him on foreign policy issues and trade issues when necessary. Hillary is without a doubt the better foreign policy pick even if she comes with Saudi strings attached.

I made this point to my wife last night - Bernie is a great idea man, and would be a great advisor.

But one a global stage, where you have other world leaders looking for an inch to fuck with the U.S. (especially Russia lately) - would you rather have a powerful leader like Hillary, or "That smart uncle you have who might also be totally nuts" Bernie?

Hillary is just more presidential, she is a figurehead, which is what a POTUS should be. Obama was a mix of the two types IMO.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

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.

What was Obama's email and Benghazi scandal? He had none, and they have shown him zero cooperation

 

[Gruco]

The only way anything substantial is getting past Congress in this current era is via sheer force of representative numbers. We could resurrect LBJ to twist arms until they snap, and even he wouldn't be successful.

Legislatively, a Bernie administration will not look radically different from a Hillary administration.

I'd argue that a Sanders administration would yield worse results legislatively than a Clinton one. Congress is legislating again, they're just being quieter about it and focusing on less divisive issues. Clinton cares about small, practical issues, while Sanders seems to only care about making loud noises about ideological purity tests. I wouldn't be surprised to see Clinton sneak a few things through. Sanders? No way.

 

[televator]

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.

Virulent extremism on the left would be like asking to stop vaccinations or actual communism. There's nothing extreme about single payer healthcare or campaign finance reform. They're sensible positions and the latter goes beyond party lines. To say that progressive ideals like those are as extreme to the left as TEA party positions are to the right is an utterly false equivalence. It's worth laughing at something so preposterous.

You completely missed my point.

I wasn't comparing the Bernie political revolution movement to the tea party in terms of their ideals, but the push for ideological purity above compromise.

The left has been compromising for a very long time to the point where they now uphold what used to be conservative ideals. You can't ask people to just be complacent with that. The right in this country has lost it's mind and have clearly shown that they will not compromise, but somehow the left is expected to meet them in the middle. The middle isn't the middle anymore, it's the right.

Ted Cruz caused a government shut down ffs. But we have to meet to compromise with that?

 

[B-Dubs]

What was Obama's email and Benghazi scandal? He had none, and they have shown him zero cooperation

Reverend Wright, Kenya birth certificate, and so on. Like Benghazi and the emails, they'll just make it up or take something mundane and turn it into a thing.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Bernie being Hillarys VP is like getting Brett Favre to be Peyton Mannings back up

She needs someone younger. I hope there is some way for her to use him to keep him in the national spot light more though for sure.

Secretary of Veteran Affairs wouldn't give Bernie much spotlight but would be a good role for him.

 

[Arkeband]

He voted against the Brady Bill 5 times and voted for a lot of other junk pro gun legislation.

I'm not holding it against him though. It's pretty obvious he isn't as pro gun as his record suggests. He was from rural Vermont where even very socially liberal people are seriously pro gun. It's what politicians do. I'm not questioning where he is, I believe it was a necessary concession to win office in his state.

Other democrats should be able to do the same in their states. It's better for them to win on punting certain issues than lose because they couldn't let key votes go because they ideologically disagreed with them

He is on record voting FOR instant background checks WHILE voting against mandatory federal 5 and 7 day waiting periods. He's also on record voting AGAINST removing state waiting periods. That would have removed the mandatory waiting periods already in place, so his issue wasn't with waiting periods, it was with federally mandated waiting periods.

Pinning him down on this issue as simply "against the Brady bill" is too simple to the point of deceit.

When the concern farming really only ever boils down to "he won't be able to work with republicans", it's amazing how somehow this isn't viewed as an indicator that as an independent, that's kind of what they're good at.

 

[RustyNails]

Secretary of Veteran Affairs wouldn't give Bernie much spotlight but would be a good role for him.

Absolutely or secretary of labor/commerce. But Vet Affairs is the best fit.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

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

But they'll work with Bernie? There's no way that the same people who threw the word "Socialist" at Obama as an insult are going to work with an actual Socialist.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Reverend Wright, Kenya birth certificate, and so on. Like Benghazi and the emails, they'll just make it up or take something mundane and turn it into a thing.

And they won't find something on Sanders?

 

[Interfectum]

What was Obama's email and Benghazi scandal? He had none, and they have shown him zero cooperation

For both Obama and Hillary the goal is to make their presidency seem illegitimate. With Obama it was his birth certificate (he's not one of us, not born here, Muslim, terrorist, etc). With Hillary it's going to be the emails and how she's not qualified and/or should be in prison.

 

[noshten]

Tea Party is being financed in the large part by Republican & Libertarian Think Tanks, they utmost interest is pretty much grid-locking government. That's why one of the main reasons why campaign finance reform also must tackle merchants of doubt who doubt science and try to muddy issues where there is already a pretty widespread scientific consensus.

I find the notion of Sander's movement being paralleled with the Tea Party very worrying - since the only reason why Tea Party candidates have been so successful is the amount of money being spend promoting candidates who are anti-science, have no interest in raising taxes for anyone and who want to dismantling and privatizing all government provided services. Pretty much their main message is Government is rotten so lets just give private enterprise and job creators more power to fix this broken system.

They wouldn't even exist or they would have been very different if there were billions being pumped in their organizational capability. When talking about campaign finance reform local elections are the ones that would be the most profoundly effected. Simply put huge amounts of outside money in a Presidential election is unable to move the needle as much as a few million in a local election. The millions being pumped at a smaller scale have a direct correlation with voter turnout - since you are able to muddy the water and remove focus from issues that actually matter. This has been utilized by the Tea Party to great success as they have romped to power across the nation. This is barely the beginning but we are already seeing that anyone failing to fall in line with their extremist views is being removed from the Republican Party and how they pump millions into also removing any moderates who might want to actually work on getting something done in Washington.

If the majority of people want more progressive candidates on the Democratic side and there is a movement to support such candidates - that's one thing. If money'd interest hijack the grass roots than I'd draw the parallel to the Tea Party.

I made this point to my wife last night - Bernie is a great idea man, and would be a great advisor.

But one a global stage, where you have other world leaders looking for an inch to fuck with the U.S. (especially Russia lately) - would you rather have a powerful leader like Hillary, or "That smart uncle you have who might also be totally nuts" Bernie?

Hillary is just more presidential, she is a figurehead, which is what a POTUS should be. Obama was a mix of the two types IMO.

Can I just re-frame the question you are asking, so you'd have the opinion of something who has great concerns about Hillary on foreign policy.

Would you rather have a warhawk in such delicate times, or someone that takes his time deliberating decisions and sometimes draws on historical precedent and is able to question authority.
Hills might be more versed in foreign policy but her actual actions are far more worrying then the perceived lack of experience of both Bernie or Obama. There was a reason why Obama garnered the anti-war vote in 08 and it's something Hillary hasn't been able to shake since - her actions on Libya, her policy towards Syria and Iran I find them all very troublesome.
You might want a warhawk for your SoS but in the end the president needs to make the tough decision when considering extreme outcomes of his actions.

So there is always another side of the coin.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

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

And you think they'll work with a self described socialist?

 

[B-Dubs]

He is on record voting FOR instant background checks WHILE voting against mandatory federal 5 and 7 day waiting periods. He's also on record voting AGAINST removing state waiting periods. That would have removed the mandatory waiting periods already in place, so his issue wasn't with waiting periods, it was with federally mandated waiting periods.

Pinning him down on this issue as simply "against the Brady bill" is too simple to the point of deceit.

When the concern farming really only ever boils down to "he won't be able to work with republicans", it's amazing how somehow this isn't viewed as an indicator that as an independent, that's kind of what they're good at.

He's also on the record giving the firearms industry a legal immunity that no other industry in the country has. States were suing them to try and fight for gun control and they were winning, then the GOP, along with Bernie, shut them down. All the pro-gun control stuff he's voted for has been small potatoes while the stuff he's voted against has been the stuff that matters.

And they won't find something on Sanders?

Oh, he's given them more than enough to work with already. They won't need to make shit up.

 

[damisa]

Tea Party is being financed in the large part by Republican & Libertarian Think Tanks, they utmost interest is pretty much grid-locking government. That's why one of the main reasons why campaign finance reform also must tackle merchants of doubt who doubt science and try to muddy issues where there is already a pretty widespread scientific consensus.

I find the notion of Sander's movement being paralleled with the Tea Party very worrying - since the only reason why Tea Party candidates have been so successful is the amount of money being spend promoting candidates who are anti-science, have no interest in raising taxes for anyone and who want to dismantling and privatizing all government provided services. Pretty much their main message is Government is rotten so lets just give private enterprise and job creators more power to fix this broken system.

They wouldn't even exist or they would have been very different if there were billions being pumped in their organizational capability. When talking about campaign finance reform local elections are the ones that would be the most profoundly effected. Simply put huge amounts of outside money in a Presidential election is unable to move the needle as much as a few million in a local election. The millions being pumped at a smaller scale have a direct correlation with voter turnout - since you are able to muddy the water and remove focus from issues that actually matter. This has been utilized by the Tea Party to great success as they have romped to power across the nation. This is barely the beginning but we are already seeing that anyone failing to fall in line with their extremist views is being removed from the Republican Party and how they pump millions into also removing any moderates who might want to actually work on getting something done in Washington.

If the majority of people want more progressive candidates on the Democratic side and there is a movement to support such candidates - that's one thing. If money'd interest hijack the grass roots than I'd draw the parallel to the Tea Party.

This post is so rage worthy. Not everything you dislike is due to corporations and millionaires and billionaires giving money to politicians. Companies do not want to have government shut down over planned parenthood. Wall street does not care about stopping abortion or stopping gay marriage.

As seen in the Obama "raise taxes on oil" thread, a lot of people HATE the idea of giving government ANY of their money in taxes. It's easy to support "free stuff" when other people are paying for it, but when it's their own money, then it's suddenly all about government wasteful spending and corruption.

 

[Zona]

This post is so rage worthy. Not everything you dislike is due to corporations and millionaires and billionaires giving money to politicians. Companies do not want to have government shut down over planned parenthood. Wall street does not care about stopping abortion or stopping gay marriage.

As seen in the Obama "raise taxes on oil" thread, a lot of people HATE the idea of giving government ANY of their money in taxes. It's easy to support "free stuff" when other people are paying for it, but when it's their own money, then it's suddenly all about government wasteful spending and corruption.

The American General Public reacts to the thought of someone raising (Their*) taxes the way a vampire reacts to the thought of a garlic and holy-water smoothie. A candidate who straight up says their going to raise taxes on the middle class, regardless of what words come after that statement, may as well just commit seppuku on stage for all the chance they have getting elected.

*Most people seem fine with raising Other Peoples taxes, except for the really anti-tax purists.

 

[noshten]

This post is so rage worthy. Not everything you dislike is due to corporations and millionaires and billionaires giving money to politicians. Companies do not want to have government shut down over planned parenthood. Wall street does not care about stopping abortion or stopping gay marriage.

As seen in the Obama "raise taxes on oil" thread, a lot of people HATE the idea of giving government ANY of their money in taxes as long as they are impacted at all. It's easy to support "free stuff" when other people are paying for it

You do realize that Heritage Foundation and similar organization are fueling a lot of the regressive social policies and that their talking heads are absolute racists and biggots who pivot back on their libertarian beliefs whenever challenged. Businesses are free to discriminate and break laws and the free market will correct them.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/bigoted-heritage-at-right-wing-think-tanks-racism-as-usual/
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/05/heritage-foundation-jason-richwine/65005/
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/heritage-foundation-website-sex-marriage-will-lead-abortions/

 

[Taco_Man]

I'm betting you actually do understand his logic, you just don't like it. Because what he's saying is actually the most reasonable conclusion when factoring pragmatism and an understanding of the current state of politics.

Right now I'm just happy that Bernie is blazing the path to a more progressive America, and that he's having so much success doing it. This the clearly the direction America is heading, I just think it's a bit soon, and that Bernie is not the right canditate. In 8 years or so, expect a younger charismatic progressive to pick up the torch and really shift the party to the left. That will be our time.

Meanwhile, the absolute worst thing we can do is start infighting and ruin the democrats chances of winning. Because even Hillary is a million times better than the repub candidates.

I agree that infighting leads nowhere and in the worst case cause a republican to take office. But what I don't get is why not try and get someone who is so progressive in to at least start turning the ship?

At the very least he is causing people to start asking questions and exposing some of the fucked up things going on in politics right now. This is causing Hillary to at least talk about the same issues, but will she continue on so strong with that or is this all talk right now for the election? It sucks that the only way to know is with time.

However, I do agree that someone a bit younger with the same views would easily sweep an election in 2020.

American democracy is chess. People voting for Bernie and Trump are playing checkers. Bernie is DOA on national stage with his comments on increasing taxes and total bewilderment on foreign issues. The grand prize is the general election and you dont send a single issue candidate to GE. The downticket effect of Bernie will be total destruction of red state and swing state democrats in congressional, local and governorship elections. If they were begging to campaign with Obama in 2008, they will be running the fuck away from Bernie in 2016. If you care about planting a flag on the territory we gained over the last 8 years under Obama/Biden, then do them a solid and send someone who can finish the fight. Bernie will just make it considerably easier for GOP to win.

Could you expand on what you mean about the total destruction of red/swing state democrats?

The only way I see Bernie losing in the GE is if he doesn't strengthen himself on foreign policy. Last night's debate completely exposed how weak he is on that front and I think that was great, IF his team decides to prep him better for that. He still has time to turn things around there and really get the attention of a lot of people if he gets a good group of people together to further educate him on the issues and prepare him not just for the next few debates, but for the GE debates.

However, and I was thinking heavily about this last night, do we want to see more of America focusing and spending so much on foreign policy? Or do we make a more drastic turn to look inward and start spending more money on our issues (infrastructure, education, housing, etc.)

On any given day I understand how priorities may shift, but in my personal opinion, I think domestic issues should still always be our highest priority, even if only slightly so on some days. I mean, even when we are dealing with foreign policy issues, most are tied to our domestic interests (whether that be protecting the homeland, developing better relations, business dealings, etc.) are they not?

No one is saying the job of president is easy, no one is saying they should do it alone, but I think if he can demonstrate that he has a solid team behind him who understands all of the greater picture issues then he has a better chance of wooing people.

 

[Black Republican]

Reverend Wright, Kenya birth certificate, and so on. Like Benghazi and the emails, they'll just make it up or take something mundane and turn it into a thing.

Dont forget Bill Ayers! pallin around with them terrorists!

 

[A Human Becoming]

Absolutely or secretary of labor/commerce. But Vet Affairs is the best fit.

Labor might be even a better fit now that I think about it. Commerce wouldn't be since that's the business aspect, more of a Trump area.

 

[Valhelm]

lol what?

You must be joking, right?

I've been under the impression that the Tea Party pumped some new life into American conservatism, despite the rising tide of demographic change. Is that wrong?

I get your point that the Republicans are doing very well outside the Presidency but that's because; 1. conservatives vote in off year elections and liberals don't and 2. they have far, far, far more money to throw at down ballot races. A liberal tea part equivalent would be a disaster.

Wouldn't a major populist movement on the left help assuage the problem of voter non-participation.

 

[SolarPowered]

I made this point to my wife last night - Bernie is a great idea man, and would be a great advisor.

But one a global stage, where you have other world leaders looking for an inch to fuck with the U.S. (especially Russia lately) - would you rather have a powerful leader like Hillary, or "That smart uncle you have who might also be totally nuts" Bernie?

Hillary is just more presidential, she is a figurehead, which is what a POTUS should be. Obama was a mix of the two types IMO.

As an American I have a hard time imagining any country except Saudi Arabia or China being a threat to us. Russia will continue to meddle with the EU's affairs (the same organization that currently most member states missing their 2% military spending quota) and North Korea will continue to be a threat to South Korea (and Japan to a lesser extent) so long as China allows NK to exist, but none of them are particularly threatening to the USA militarily or economically imo. The only reason I put Saudi above the rest is that they can manufacture terrorist agents, mess with the energy markets and spread a wahabbi message that is currently causing terrorist attacks all over the world. Iran at the very least manages to keep most of their terror related business in the ME region and their impact on energy at this point in time... is negligible to say the least? China could be a threat, but they're a country of more than a billion and rocking the economic boat and hurting the global economy will probably be more dangerous for their government than the USA.

I definitely can't argue that Bernie is stronger than Hillary on foreign policy (well, maybe on the "judgement" issue where I don't expect him to be a war hawk), but it's just not as large a priority to me as the US economy, income inequality, immigration, health care, college tuition, campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, etc. Luckily for me a lot of emerging millenial democrats (and at least some of Gen X and Hispanics going by Iowa and other post Iowa polls) feel the same.

 

[Prodigal Son]

New Polls finds Clinton and Sanders at a virtual tie nationally.

EDIT: There's a thread on it already.

 

[Father_Brain]

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.

Sorry, but "better at reaching across the aisle" is not a good argument, regardless of whether it's made in favor of Clinton or Sanders.

If there's one thing we've learned from the Obama administration, it's that Republicans in Congress simply will not negotiate in good faith with a Democratic president on anything resembling progressive legislation.

 

[Pyroclastic]

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

no one? someone usually compiles on on here and Idon't want to look through several pages, please forgive me.

 

[RedSparc]

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.

That is the only way to get liberals to the polls though. Democrats won big in 2006 and 2008 due to there anger at Bush and the hope Obama sold. He became a centrist trying to work with republicans instead of using his mandate and control of Congress. He capitulated on the stimulus (mostly tax cuts), took the blame for the skyrocketing deficit on the chin and tried to work across the isles with people out for negro blood. The results speak for themselves. Lost the house in 2010, redistricting/gerrymandering will keep it as such until 2020 and then lost the Senate in 2014 when everyone stayed home except for the Republican crazies.

Does anyone really think Hillary will inspire the Democrats as an incumbent president in the 2020 elections to drive the numbers needed to retake the house and Senate as a corporate candidate? Her legislation sure wont, because Obama's didn't, especially with the "No we can't" primary she is running now.

Electing HRC = No change. If that's what people want then get ready for another 14 years of Republican control in Congress and possibly a single term for Hillary because 12 years of a Democratic President in which Wall Street won't be held accountable, income inequality will rise to its highest % in the last 130 years and the middle class will shrink to its lowest numbers since the great depression.

Perhaps another generation of wars, for profit prisons, financial deregulation, kyrocketing education costs and personal debt accumulation under a republican president is what is needed to bring progressives to the voting booth. I don't see a 1970s republican, aka 2016 center-left corporate Democrat driving them.

 

[ApharmdX]

And you think they'll work with a self described socialist?

1) The GOP has a visceral hate of Clinton. She's slipped out of their grasp at every turn, and before that, Bill did the same thing.

2) She's a woman.

3) She's establishment.

I think gridlock will be worse with Hillary. You think it was bad under Obama? You haven't seen anything yet.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

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

And who knows, Clinton was also very much aware of what was happening to Obama in his first term. The moment she sees obstruction, she may be more pro-active against it.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

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 for saying this.

I think Sanders potential impact on the party is overstated but I do wonder if one day we see a group of tea party type liberal absolutists get into congress.

 

[Ape]

where can i rewatch this

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Oh, he's given them more than enough to work with already. They won't need to make shit up.

Exactly, which is why I say that the argument that Clinton would be a worse president because republicans hate her is a fallacy. For republicans, being a socialist is like being a nazi, and sanders proudly says he's a socialist

Honestly, I would love a Clinton/Sanders ticket

 

[ivysaur12]

Thank you for saying this.

I think Sanders potential impact on the party is overstated but I do wonder if one day we see a group of tea party type liberal absolutists get into congress.

And that will be a horrible, horrible day.

Getting more progressives is fine, as long as it's done in a way where these candidates can win (see: Sherrod Brown in Ohio). Getting progressive who aren't willing to govern, ala the Tea Party, would be a travesty. I don't think we're there yet.

 

[xfactor99]

A far-left progressive base in Congress would operate far differently than the Tea Party. The ethos of the Tea Party is that government is the problem, which explains their do-nothing and make government seem as impotent as possible governing strategy.

A left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party would be more likely to push through big, sweeping changes to government policies. The one equivalent I can think of in American history would be the Radical Republicans.

 

[televator]

Exactly, which is why I say that the argument that Clinton would be a worse president because republicans hate her is a fallacy. For republicans, being a socialist is like being a nazi, and sanders proudly says he's a socialist

Honestly, I would love a Clinton/Sanders ticket

Mark my words, the republicans won't hesitate to call Clinto a socialist, or a terrorist sympathizer

If the opposition calls you a socialist, Marxist, or communist, well there really would be no point in pretending not to be in fruitless effort to appease them. For a long time now the republicans pull the strings and democrats dance.

 

[onipex]

That is the only way to get liberals to the polls though. Democrats won big in 2006 and 2008 due to there anger at Bush and the hope Obama sold. He became a centrist trying to work with republicans instead of using his mandate and control of Congress. He capitulated on the stimulus (mostly tax cuts), took the blame for the skyrocketing deficit on the chin and tried to work across the isles with people out for negro blood. The results speak for themselves. Lost the house in 2010, redistricting/gerrymandering will keep it as such until 2020 and then lost the Senate in 2014 when everyone stayed home except for the Republican crazies.

Does anyone really think Hillary will inspire the Democrats as an incumbent president in the 2020 elections to drive the numbers needed to retake the house and Senate as a corporate candidate? Her legislation sure wont, because Obama's didn't, especially with the "No we can't" primary she is running now.

Electing HRC = No change. If that's what people want then get ready for another 14 years of Republican control in Congress and possibly a single term for Hillary because 12 years of a Democratic President in which Wall Street won't be held accountable, income inequality will rise to its highest % in the last 130 years and the middle class will shrink to its lowest numbers since the great depression.

Perhaps another generation of wars, for profit prisons, financial deregulation, kyrocketing education costs and personal debt accumulation under a republican president is what is needed to bring progressives to the voting booth. I don't see a 1970s republican, aka 2016 center-left corporate Democrat driving them.

Obama came off as a centrist during the election to me. To me he always seemed to be more to the right than Hillary. People got caught up in the hope and change and got upset at any comprise. Bernie or Hillary will have to compromise too. Bernie is promising a revolution that really just boils down to the underdog beating the establishment.

Congress was lost because Democrats are weak idiots that ran away from the good Obama did and instead were afraid of the Tea Party anger , and leftist disappoint of compromise. All that did was piss off their voting base and made more people stay at home. You think they are not going to run away from Bernie after he calls them fake progressives that are in the pockets of big business superpacks? You think the public option healthcare plan that raises everyones taxes is going to popular when the mandate that taxed you was the most unpopular part of ACA? Bernie is pushing more hope and change than Obama did and has much less of a chance of getting it through. His voters will be just as upset when he has to compromise and he will be more abandoned by the Democrats during the midterms than Obama was.

 

[Neuromancer]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

 

[John Dunbar]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

well that sound incredibly pathetic. would make sense if she could name certain speeches of interest that are known to have transcripts, but this is some matrix level dodging.

 

[phanphare]

Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on his morning show today that she is not going to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc unless Bernie Sanders and the Republican candidates release transcripts of all of their speeches throughout the years.

well, that's one way to deflect