US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3012

On February 24 2016 15:38 TheFish7 wrote:
We can make the assumption that this election isn't about left v right, rather it's about establishment v anti-establishment. In that scenario Bernie is the anti-establishment guy with the better chance in the general election.

On February 24 2016 15:46 Toadesstern wrote:

do you really see conservative people voting for Bernie in the general elections because he's not establishment if (and only if) the Republicans end up with Rubio?
Or the other way around, do you see liberals voting for Cruz or Trump if the Democrats end up with Hillary?
I doubt it.
And the swings voters will just pick whoever is less crazy so being in the middle really helps there.

On February 24 2016 16:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
There's already lots of Republicans that support Bernie. They are anti-establishment and anti-crazy. They don't agree with Bernie on a lot but they want nothing to do with the Republican candidates.

Like was said, if someone isn't sure on Trump, Bernie is a much better alternative than Hillary.

On February 24 2016 16:15 Toadesstern wrote:
well, if you listen to the guys that are more on the right side on here I get the impression that Bernie, to them, is as crazy as Trump/Cruz is to everyone else. Aside from being genuine and honest which is certainly a plus.

That being said, I'm some random guy from Germany so it's really just my perception from reading online and nothing else.

On February 24 2016 16:23 acker wrote:

Less than a quarter of the Republican base would vote for a socialist under any circumstances. Less than half of the Republican base would vote for an atheist. This is before any policy whatsoever is considered by a voter. And Sanders happens to be an atheist-socialist.

During primaries, parties prioritize attacking stronger opposing candidates over weaker ones to improve their chances for the general election. There's nothing new here.

On February 24 2016 16:29 darthfoley wrote:
Sanders performs very well with independents, who are crucial to the general election. Indies want nothing to do with Clinton

On February 24 2016 16:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's fair interpretation. We're more talking about Reagan democrats that have been hanging out in the republican party for as long as they could stomach.

Young Republicans too, ones that care more about the social stuff than they do the economic, and religious folks who have an interpretation closer to Kasich than Cruz, one that prioritizes how we treat the least among us over stuff like railing against gay marriage (even if they are personally against it).

On February 24 2016 16:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well technically he's Jewish, which the Republicans love. They say they wouldn't vote for a socialist, but they would vote for socialist policies (Keep your government hands out of my medicare!)

On February 24 2016 16:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
But ~25% who may listen isn't a bad starting point considering Hillary's would be ~0%

On February 24 2016 16:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
Of course that isn't really accounting for only ~28% of the country identifying as Republican so getting Republican votes doesn't really matter for a Democrat. And the whole part about the difference between socialism in those respondents head and what Bernie is actually proposing.

Bernie may have a struggle to appeal outside of the party but Hillary's struggle would be so much harder especially since she's had to go so far left on identity politics just to stay competitive. It's not like Hillary is going to be pandering to black folks in the general.

On February 24 2016 16:32 acker wrote:

Sanders is the only candidate who has a positive reputation with independents as of now (+3). Clinton is down -8. Trump is down -25.

However, Sanders has not spent any time being criticized by the opposing party (The Drudge Report hasn't publicized his honeymoon in Russia and The National Review hasn't raked over his support of the Sandinistas). This means that his current approval rating is his ceiling. The same is not true for either Clinton or Trump; both candidates have spent over a year under intense scrutiny. Their current approval rates are a floor.

The fact that Clinton's current approval rating is still higher than that of her main Republican challengers (barring Rubio) is a rather large problem for the Republican Party. Unless Rubio manages to lock up the nomination somehow.

On February 24 2016 22:12 On_Slaught wrote:
In what bizzaro world will trump be good at foreign policy? Setting back ties with Mexico\SA decades? Starting an economic war with China? Building relations with Arab nations by banning Muslims and putting cameras in mosques? Establishing US moral authority by bringing back torture methods "worse than waterboarding?" Going off on any world leader with the audacity to speak ill of him because of his comically thin skin? He has already switched his stance in Putin multiple times. By committing war crimes, like those he has suggested in the ME? By tearing up an Iran deal hundreds of real experts and military generals have approved as good, or at least a step in the right direction?

Foreign policy is something Presidents have a huge impact on. Say what you want about Hillary, but Trump is dangerous.

On February 24 2016 22:36 zeo wrote:

How can anyone mess up foreign policy more than our favorite Nobel Peace Prize laureate and his trusty sidekick Secretary Benghazi? Who else could have destroyed half of North Africa, destroyed the Middle East and brought US-Russia relations back 30 years while at the same time continuing the downward spiral and alienation of Americas European allies.

Muslims must love him for all the hard work he has done the past 8 years, only Trump could ruin that glowing image among Muslims. Why just yesterday, he even said he was going to close Guantanamo Bay, sure he said he would close it down within a year every year since 2008 but he won't let us down this time... right guys?

We should give him another Nobel Piece Prize, he only bombed 7 countries. Booo Trump for saying the US should not have meddled in the Middle East, practically Hitler.

On February 24 2016 22:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I'd say Bush did a pretty good job at destroying the Middle East, alienating European allies, letting Africa go to hell, and doing nothing to Russia besides looking into Putin's soul, so your rhetorical questions fall kind of flat here.

On February 24 2016 22:46 zeo wrote:

When Bush left the only countries with active hostilities/insurgencies were Iraq, Afganistan and Yemen. I'm sure its much better over there now after 8 years. Maybe we can blame the catastrophe that was the Arab Spring on Bush too?