|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 11 2016 06:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 05:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 05:40 Plansix wrote:On February 11 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 03:11 oneofthem wrote:On February 11 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 02:38 kwizach wrote:On February 11 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary. The delusion is strong with this one. Trump is absolutely terrible at debating, and the contrast between the two in terms of actual knowledge of the issues will be incredibly stark. If it's Clinton vs Trump, the Democrats have the election in the bag. Apparently you're not paying close enough attention to the dynamics of the republican debates. Do you really think that Clinton's policy wonk responses are really going to hold up to Trump's barrage of criticism -- particularly on foreign policy issues? It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for Trump. And when Hillary brings up her feminist credentials? Trump will slap her down as an empowerer of a serial womanizer/abuser of women/rapist/however far down that particular rabbit hole Trump wants to go. These debates aren't going to be graded and assessed by the voting public in an informed, technical sense. It's going to be a brawl in the mud, and no candidate can hang with Trump in that arena. voter base will be different. not all americans do gop primary I think that it is a mistake to presume that the norms, standards, and expectations of previous elections are going to hold true in this one. The big tell here is how wrong the experts repeatedly have been this election cycle. The rules are being substantially bent and broken in both primaries. That is reflective of how shitty, click baity and meritless-pundit driven the main stream political news has become. They don’t want to be accurate. I listen to NPR and read Fivethirtyeight and they have been accurate and informative. Don’t just assume that people will be impressed by the walking Youtube comment section. To date, he has only been able impress 1/3 of Republican primary voters. 538 hasn't been any better than other mainstream experts. Go look at what 538 said last summer and last fall about the viability of the Trump and Sanders campaigns and have a good laugh. Statements that early have never been accurate. Its like trying to project next years weather...
Cloudy with a chance of Donald.
|
I think the Republican attack line will look something like this:
Sanders is a socialist. He graduated from UChicago (a bastion of socialism), then was an unemployed schmuck "labor organizer" until around 40, living off government benefits with no real career. Along the way he had a child out of wedlock. Then somehow he went into "public service". He did a *great job* as mayor with prior experience as of Burlington, a city so insignificant that if you google it Burlington coat factory comes up first and you could fit its population in a couple blocks of NYC. He then drew pay from the government in Congress where he didn't do much of anything, except the one time he supported the VA instead of our veterans. He said a lot, but did nothing but get a few bills for post offices and military contracts in his state (what a hypocrite!). He's Jewish but doesn't really support Israel, so he's kind of a race traitor too. Oh, and he doesn't know diddly squat about foreign policy and hates our military. Oh right, he helped with Obamacare-- we hate that too. His wife was also an incompetent university administrator with shady dealings. They also went on a honeymoon in the USSR. Sanders also supported the Sandinistas. Did we mention he's a socialist?
This is what I've come up with in about 5 minutes. Imagine what the media will dig up, and then imagine what the rightwingers will dig up and how they'll spin it.
|
On February 11 2016 06:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the Republican attack line will look something like this:
Sanders is a socialist. He graduated from UChicago (a bastion of socialism), then was an unemployed schmuck "labor organizer" until around 40, living off government benefits with no real career. Along the way he had a child out of wedlock. Then somehow he went into "public service". He did a *great job* as mayor with prior experience as of Burlington, a city so insignificant that if you google it Burlington coat factory comes up first and you could fit its population in a couple blocks of NYC. He then drew pay from the government in Congress where he didn't do much of anything, except the one time he supported the VA instead of our veterans. He said a lot, but did nothing but get a few bills for post offices and military contracts in his state (what a hypocrite!). Oh right, he helped with Obamacare-- we hate that too. His wife was also an incompetent university administrator with shady dealings. They also went on a honeymoon in the USSR. Sanders also supported the Sandinistas. Did we mention he's a socialist?
This is what I've come up with in about 5 minutes. Imagine what the media will dig up, and then imagine what the rightwingers will dig up and how they'll spin it.
To add to this, imagine this question in a general debate:
"Socialism: Good or bad? What do you think America could gain from socialism"
His answer would make his campaign dead in the water for a giant number of people.
|
Voters that would otherwise vote for Sanders should he not be asked questions in regards to socialism are an imaginary demographic.
|
On February 11 2016 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 06:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the Republican attack line will look something like this:
Sanders is a socialist. He graduated from UChicago (a bastion of socialism), then was an unemployed schmuck "labor organizer" until around 40, living off government benefits with no real career. Along the way he had a child out of wedlock. Then somehow he went into "public service". He did a *great job* as mayor with prior experience as of Burlington, a city so insignificant that if you google it Burlington coat factory comes up first and you could fit its population in a couple blocks of NYC. He then drew pay from the government in Congress where he didn't do much of anything, except the one time he supported the VA instead of our veterans. He said a lot, but did nothing but get a few bills for post offices and military contracts in his state (what a hypocrite!). Oh right, he helped with Obamacare-- we hate that too. His wife was also an incompetent university administrator with shady dealings. They also went on a honeymoon in the USSR. Sanders also supported the Sandinistas. Did we mention he's a socialist?
This is what I've come up with in about 5 minutes. Imagine what the media will dig up, and then imagine what the rightwingers will dig up and how they'll spin it. To add to this, imagine this question in a general debate: "Socialism: Good or bad? What do you think America could gain from socialism" His answer would make his campaign dead in the water for a giant number of people.
Medicare. *drops mic*
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2016 06:07 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 05:55 oneofthem wrote:
you can't equate gop conspiracy attacks on obama with sanders' repeated proclamations of his own position as well as the big numbers from his platform. he is as big government as they come and that is not really a winning position since the 70's. I'm not, I'm equating the GOP conspiracy attacks on Obama with the notion that simply calling Sanders a socialist and a communist is enough to defeat him. It isn't. Sanders needs to be attacked on substance to be defeated. Obama lost his footing to Romney after the first debate not because of labels or character attacks, but because he underprepared for the debate and lost to Romney when it came to discussing substance. If you can't defend your policies it's your opponent who appears to have substance, not you. So if Republicans successfully bang the "big government" drum and Sanders can't turn it around on them then he'll probably lose, but that's an entirely different proposition to simply calling him a socialist and a communist and expecting the specter of the Cold War to bury him.
problem is a large part of his platform just screams socialism as americans understand it.
|
On February 11 2016 06:19 farvacola wrote:
Voters that would otherwise vote for Sanders should he not be asked questions in regards to socialism are an imaginary demographic.
Isn't Clinton's entire support base essentially people who like democrat ideas but aren't on board with the whole socialism thing?
|
On February 11 2016 06:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 06:19 farvacola wrote:
Voters that would otherwise vote for Sanders should he not be asked questions in regards to socialism are an imaginary demographic. Isn't Clinton's entire support base essentially people who like democrat ideas but aren't on board with the whole socialism thing?
I would think it more fitting to describe her base as that of the Democratic establishment, many of whom are already on board with "the whole socialism thing" via their support for Obamacare, Social Security, and like Stealth said, Medicare. Those folks simply share oneofthem's views as to the political indefensibility of the term "socialism" whereas Sanders and his camp think its high time that we confront such a wooden caricature of a concept that's been a part of federal governance for over 70 years.
|
On February 11 2016 06:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 06:19 farvacola wrote:
Voters that would otherwise vote for Sanders should he not be asked questions in regards to socialism are an imaginary demographic. Isn't Clinton's entire support base essentially people who like democrat ideas but aren't on board with the whole socialism thing?
Democrat’s ideas and socialism on a similar line of reasoning. Most of the programs democrats want to create “socialist”, better government safety nets, more social services, government systems for things people need that can’t be handled by the free market without being exploited(healthcare, public transportation). Democrats are practical socialist that set goals that they believe are achievable within the US political system.
Clinton's group are on the more practical side of democrats.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the basic idea is that people know candidates through media crafted impressions. this idea that there is no demographic that would be swayed by a 'socialist' portrayal of sanders is akin to denying the effectiveness of advertising in creating rather than informing consumption. etc etc
|
|
|
There was just wayy too much that's wrong here to touch on all of it.
I don't think any of you can be following this race closely with the analysis you all are putting out.
Just about the "attacks" from Sanders supporters. Hillary said Bernie wants to dismantle the ACA and healthcare system while he debates a new system, she can go sit on one with that non-sense. The backlash at Hillary is her own fault from being a cynical politician.
That and it's the internet, this is nothing on what it would look like with a horde of Trump supporters in a heads up race. Every comment section, tweet, etc... would be flooded with "Bill's a Rapist That's the real war on women" "Hillary silenced victims of sexual assault", "Clinton's are owned by wall street", etc...
The easiest way to lose would be to nominate Clinton at this point. The only candidate she would of done well against was Rubio (0 experience) and his chances are all but over. Like I mentioned earlier, Trump got more votes than Clinton in NH and he had many more people competing for those votes. Hillary could lose NH and many other states. This will be more clear when you all realize the "race gap" in their support isn't anywhere near the 80-20 some old polls have suggested.
I get the feeling that the only people actually working with campaigns on the ground are Sanders supporters and everyone else is interpreting this race through the same media that never saw any of this coming.
EDIT: If Clinton supporters think that Sanders supporters are going to come together, sing kumbaya, and support Clinton, are totally disconnected from what Sanders appeal is. It's probably 50-50 at the moment, but every day of Clinton's campaign, more people go Bernie or Bust.
If Clinton supporters want a strong united democratic front they better get on board with Bernie sooner than later, If it comes to Clinton claiming a win based on super delegates (her plan in her loss memo) she'll lose ~1/2 the party.
|
On February 11 2016 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
the basic idea is that people know candidates through media crafted impressions. this idea that there is no demographic that would be swayed by a 'socialist' portrayal of sanders is akin to denying the effectiveness of advertising in creating rather than informing consumption. etc etc
Which isn't my point. My point is that Obama was portrayed as a socialist among other things and triumphed regardless, twice. The label in and of itself is insufficient.
There isn't a universal understanding and aversion to "socialism" in Americans. A great number at this point don't know what socialism is and/or have some vague notion that it's supposed to be a bad thing. Those people will hear Sanders' stump, come to their own conclusions about him, and the label will be inconsequential.
If a media narrative sinks Sanders it's not going to be due to the "socialist" label, but due to being hammered on foreign policy and on raising taxes (despite the fact that he won't be raising taxes on the vast majority of voters).
|
Seuss ninja'd me 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh again obama was attacked as socialist but the label did not stick except with the gop base. this is the result in part of obama actually denying such charges. it would be delusional to use this as evidence that same attack would not work vs sanders given his substantive policy positions and all that.
so far ive just seen leftists thinking it is no biggie that sanders would run on an openly socialist platform. good luck with that
|
he's still not running a socialist platform, he's about as socialist as the Tories. He should just drop the word.
|
On February 11 2016 07:04 oneofthem wrote:
uh again obama was attacked as socialist but the label did not stick except with the gop base. this is the result in part of obama actually denying such charges. it would be delusional to use this as evidence that same attack would not work vs sanders given his substantive policy positions and all that.
so far ive just seen leftists thinking it is no biggie that sanders would run on an openly socialist platform. good luck with that
I usually don't agree with much you say (:p) but you are spot on on this one.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
outside of supporting da amerikan security state i dont see much big disagreements but anyway i am thinking of a potential hard choice for the bernie democrats.
say he loses and people produce numbers say that bernie won the popular vote but lost the ec(superdelegates), there may just be a split in the democrat party. how would you bernie bros feel about this sort of a move. what if we have a tea party of the left
|
On February 11 2016 07:29 oneofthem wrote:
outside of supporting da amerikan security state i dont see much big disagreements but anyway i am thinking of a potential hard choice for the bernie democrats.
say he loses and people produce numbers say that bernie won the popular vote but lost the ec(superdelegates), there may just be a split in the democrat party. how would you bernie bros feel about this sort of a move. what if we have a tea party of the left
It's already there. The party is called "Bernie Supporters."
|
On February 11 2016 07:29 oneofthem wrote:
outside of supporting da amerikan security state i dont see much big disagreements but anyway i am thinking of a potential hard choice for the bernie democrats.
say he loses and people produce numbers say that bernie won the popular vote but lost the ec(superdelegates), there may just be a split in the democrat party. how would you bernie bros feel about this sort of a move. what if we have a tea party of the left
We may end up with 3 parties, a left, right, and centrist party. Considering how the demos are shaping out, the centrists and right are only a couple decades from dying into near irrelevance.
If Hillary stole the election from the people it's only a matter of time before the demographics of old voters vs younger more left leaning voters plays out and people realize under 60's who make less than $200,000/yr have many, many, many more potential votes than those folks who usually pick the winner.
On February 11 2016 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 07:29 oneofthem wrote:
outside of supporting da amerikan security state i dont see much big disagreements but anyway i am thinking of a potential hard choice for the bernie democrats.
say he loses and people produce numbers say that bernie won the popular vote but lost the ec(superdelegates), there may just be a split in the democrat party. how would you bernie bros feel about this sort of a move. what if we have a tea party of the left It's already there. The party is called "Bernie Supporters."
"Berniecrats" is the loose name that's been adopted.
Lot's of Bernie supporters are involved in the process exclusively for Bernie and would not have ever voted for Hillary anyway. Hell there's a whole group who would normally be in GOP primaries but have been so disaffected they support Bernie now, they ain't going to Hillary either.
As the polls have shown typical party folks favor Hillary, Bernie crushed her in NH on the backs of independents (and in every demo that wasn't 65+ making 200k a year...except non white where Bernie got 49%).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
