|
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. |
The more important context is that the Republican race currently features a contender who's much more polarizing within the party than Sanders and Clinton in the Democratic race. High turnouts in their primary therefore seem to me to be a poor measure of what the general election is going to look like, considering the amount of Republicans who went to vote against Trump. We'll have to see how things turn out later this year,
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 02:00 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 01:59 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. Tough fighter for the less privilegied, and you were laughing about the repartition if votes between Sanders and Clinton depending on education. You keep on givin' that's rather a reflection of information/knowledge. but if we want to poll amherst english majors maybe it's a better reflection of privilege? bernie would win that one hands down Yeah, classic poor people dont know where is their interest but I know better. That and your complaints about ideologues you sound like a trotskyst :D
they are not necessarily poor. poor people went for clinton and especially nonwhite poor.
they are rather young male college students or dropouts.
|
On March 03 2016 02:01 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. No, there's really no way for Democrats to take the gerrymandered House without something extraordinary. We can take the Senate but taking the House would require unprecedented turnout, which is tough for Hillary to garner. High-stakes election? Absolutely. Really I don't think there's such a thing as a non-high stakes Presidential election, although this is special due to Trump (but really, even if it wasn't Trump it'd be just as bad with Cruz or even Rubio). I know you have faith in Hillary. My beef is with the establishment as a whole. I would absolutely love to see the Democratic party crash and burn at this point. They need a wake-up call, just as the Republican party has needed one for a very long time and got one in the form of Trump.
The gerrymandering are being thrown out by the court. One of the appeals was just finalized and undid all the non-sense the Republicans did. More cases will follow I assume.
|
On March 03 2016 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
The difference is that while Bernie supporters are complaining about how unfair the system is Trump went and surged ahead despite facing imo stronger opposition from the establishment.
From the party? Maybe, yes.
From the media? Hell no, they love Trump (not for his merits but for his entertainment value, which seems to be enough for americans...).
From the other candidates? Hell no, Clinton is a perfect Presidential Candidate when compared with the Republican clowncar (well, maybe there were a few good ones, but they got overshadowed by the media storm/too big field/trump).
|
These days I think "polarizing" is a closeted attack meaning close to "I don't like what he does and stands for." He won many states with great margins. He won states with huge unheard-of turnouts. That's very importantly a mark against the polarizing charge. Otherwise, your point has no basis to the alternative, that the other candidates turned out their own voters because of their qualities.
It's seen also in how many voters put Trump as second-place behind their preferred nominee. That's why nobody believes candidates that drop out will hurt Trump by coalescing behind one challenger.
|
On March 03 2016 02:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 02:00 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:59 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. Tough fighter for the less privilegied, and you were laughing about the repartition if votes between Sanders and Clinton depending on education. You keep on givin' that's rather a reflection of information/knowledge. but if we want to poll amherst english majors maybe it's a better reflection of privilege? bernie would win that one hands down Yeah, classic poor people dont know where is their interest but I know better. That and your complaints about ideologues you sound like a trotskyst :D they are not necessarily poor. poor people went for clinton and especially nonwhite poor. they are rather young male college students or dropouts.
Educated poor are less informed or black uneducated poor more informed than white ? Clintonians are more than sandernistas is the only clear thing.
|
On March 03 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:
This backs ups every interaction with Sanders supporters I have had in the past months. One tried to lecture me on being to pro-establishment, but could name his house rep or his senators. And didn’t know what state Sanders was a senator for.
Edit: Remember that how close the race is has a lot to do with turn out. The Republican race was much closer and people really didn't' know what was going to happen. Clinton and Obama was a full on knife fight right up until the end.
Ed Markey and Lizzy Warren \o/
Not sure on house reps, tbh
On March 03 2016 02:01 kwizach wrote:
The more important context is that the Republican race currently features a contender who's much more polarizing within the party than Sanders and Clinton in the Democratic race. High turnouts in their primary therefore seem to me to be a poor measure of what the general election is going to look like, considering the amount of Republicans who went to vote against Trump. We'll have to see how things turn out later this year,
You're not wrong, and I think part of that is how the establishment has thus far handled the opposition.
The Republican side has done nothing but admonish Trump and try to distance themselves from him. That's continued polarization and energized his base.
Over the last 6-8 months, Clinton has co-opted a lot of Bernie's talking points. People who start paying attention later see their speeches and think "hmmm they're really not that different" - which isn't entirely wrong, but the differences in talking points were much more apparent towards the beginnings of the campaigns.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
of course the democrats will have lower turnout than obama had, but that turnout was also driven by a lot of minority voting which was really key to overcome racists whites coming out more in florida etc.
like it or not identity politics is being used because it really works especially for democrats. if hillary wins it will be on the black and women vote.
black turnout is especially instrumental in florida and PA. sanders rather than hillary will depress turnout there, and you really don't want that. i can't help but lol at this sanders will beat trump nonsense. it will be reagan vs mondale if sanders is the nominee.
|
Well the establishment is trying harder to stop Trump, but they're just so low energy you know. Trump barely had to run a traditional campaign.
On the other hand, the Clinton political machine is incredibly powerful. Furthermore, Bernie has to try and compete in the traditional way and unfortunately he's basically a novice to campaigning on this sort of scale. South Carolina, I think, really showed that.
This Reddit post has a decent summary.
Sanders basically threw money and manpower at the problem and hoped for some sort of return. Not exactly astroturfing, but he tried to pay for a big local organization to compete with what the Clinton political machine had cultivated organically for 30 years-- basically he had to spend that much just to buy-in to the game. Beyond that, the Clintons took no chances and went very strategic as well to defend their share of the black vote as much as possible. For even greater contrast, the Sanders campaign failed to craft a coherent message and ended up with anecdotes of a staffer saying "Bernie is for welfare".
EDIT: Hillary's team has definitely changed it's rhetoric to something similar to Bernie's, but I don't think policywise she's moved a huge amount. So much of that was set before Bernie declared. It's painful to watch as a Bernie supporter I would think, but it underlines how much of a novice Bernie is compared to the Clintons that Hillary can do this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 02:08 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 02:03 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 02:00 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:59 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. Tough fighter for the less privilegied, and you were laughing about the repartition if votes between Sanders and Clinton depending on education. You keep on givin' that's rather a reflection of information/knowledge. but if we want to poll amherst english majors maybe it's a better reflection of privilege? bernie would win that one hands down Yeah, classic poor people dont know where is their interest but I know better. That and your complaints about ideologues you sound like a trotskyst :D they are not necessarily poor. poor people went for clinton and especially nonwhite poor. they are rather young male college students or dropouts. Educated poor are less informed or black uneducated poor more informed than white ? Clintonians are more than sandernistas is the only clear thing.
blacks also know about hillary's decades long history as a civil rights fighter. you are grasping at straws on my lawn here
|
Did he win by over 50% in any state? I didn't see one. And I know plenty of Republicans that have all but said “Literally anyone but Trump”. Primaries are a very small section of the overall voting population and always have been.
|
Norway28743 Posts
On March 03 2016 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
The parallels between Trump and Bernie are pretty apparent.
Both seek to achieve the same thing, rally non-voters and use them to upset the establishment.
The difference is that Trump is succeeding where Bernie is failing.
Both were seen as having no chance and both are obstructed by their respective parties.
The difference is that while Bernie supporters are complaining about how unfair the system is Trump went and surged ahead despite facing imo stronger opposition from the establishment.
While both cater to the anti-establishment voters, that's where the parallel ends. Bernie is unwilling to attack Hillary, he's unwilling to lie about what he wants or who he is, he refuses to have a dirty campaign.
Basically, Bernie is trying to be superior to the establishment (by playing a more fair political game than the norm), but not that many non-voters belong to the 'superior to the establishment' demographic. Trump caters to the lowest rungs of society - and there's a whole lot more anti-establishment sentiment to be found there.
What I'm trying to say is, Trump is WWE, Bernie Sanders is something out of NPR or PBS. Neither is 'establishment', but one is more energizing.
|
The difference between where the Republicans and Democrats are as parties isn't Trump. The difference is the level of disenfranchisement of their respective bases. The Republican party has failed its base since 2000, and has outright antagonized it since 2007. Trump wouldn't be where he is without this current level of dissatisfaction among Republican voters. There is no comparable history for the Democrats.
EDIT: While there is no comparable history for Democrats yet, there are some parallels between Obama and Bush. It will take some time to see how it develops.
|
On March 03 2016 02:07 Danglars wrote:
These days I think "polarizing" is a closeted attack meaning close to "I don't like what he does and stands for." He won many states with great margins. He won states with huge unheard-of turnouts. That's very importantly a mark against the polarizing charge. Otherwise, your point has no basis to the alternative, that the other candidates turned out their own voters because of their qualities.
It's seen also in how many voters put Trump as second-place behind their preferred nominee. That's why nobody believes candidates that drop out will hurt Trump by coalescing behind one challenger.
We have seen that there are many very enthusiastic supporters about him, people who're persuaded he's basically the second coming of G. Washington, and many people who completely hate and are persuaded he's basically a Mussolini in disguise. That's what I'd call polarizing.
|
Norway28743 Posts
On March 03 2016 02:07 Danglars wrote:
These days I think "polarizing" is a closeted attack meaning close to "I don't like what he does and stands for." He won many states with great margins. He won states with huge unheard-of turnouts. That's very importantly a mark against the polarizing charge. Otherwise, your point has no basis to the alternative, that the other candidates turned out their own voters because of their qualities.
It's seen also in how many voters put Trump as second-place behind their preferred nominee. That's why nobody believes candidates that drop out will hurt Trump by coalescing behind one challenger.
What? Firstly, polarizing doesn't mean 'has little support', it rather means 'strongly support' or 'strongly oppose'. And that is pretty dead on, no? A polarizing politician will have high favorability and high unfavorability ratings, whereas a non-polarizing politician will have neither. Then you look at Trump (considered very polarizing) and Kasich (considered very non-polarizing) and the numbers add up perfectly.
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
granted this is from january 18th and I'm sure things have changed slightly, but still, these numbers make it very clear that Trump is polarizing?)
Also, everything I saw on this subject matter showed that among non-trump voters, very few of them considered Trump their second choice? I'll try to find a link..
Second edit: I'm kinda wrong on this account, Trump had more second-choice votes than I remembered him having, especially among Cruz and Carson voters. (which does make some sense, as these are also anti-establishment. www.msnbc.com
Then this one is more like the one I remembered : ![[image loading]](http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/second_choice_among_registered_republicans_chartbuilder.png)
)
I guess my lesson for today is that if it's more than a couple weeks old, landscape might have changed since last I read about it? ;p
|
On March 03 2016 02:10 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 02:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 02:03 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 02:00 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:59 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. Tough fighter for the less privilegied, and you were laughing about the repartition if votes between Sanders and Clinton depending on education. You keep on givin' that's rather a reflection of information/knowledge. but if we want to poll amherst english majors maybe it's a better reflection of privilege? bernie would win that one hands down Yeah, classic poor people dont know where is their interest but I know better. That and your complaints about ideologues you sound like a trotskyst :D they are not necessarily poor. poor people went for clinton and especially nonwhite poor. they are rather young male college students or dropouts. Educated poor are less informed or black uneducated poor more informed than white ? Clintonians are more than sandernistas is the only clear thing. blacks also know about hillary's decades long history as a civil rights fighter. you are grasping at straws on my lawn here
Ah got it, black uneducated poor are more informed than whites because they vote for Clinton.
The problem is that I'm mocking your long trend posting logic which you are totally unaware of because you're so sure of your philo degree and of being informed. I hope you keep on with your "Bernie's supporters need to rally behind Hillary cause otherwise we might lose because of them" line.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 02:17 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 02:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 02:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 02:03 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 02:00 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:59 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. Tough fighter for the less privilegied, and you were laughing about the repartition if votes between Sanders and Clinton depending on education. You keep on givin' that's rather a reflection of information/knowledge. but if we want to poll amherst english majors maybe it's a better reflection of privilege? bernie would win that one hands down Yeah, classic poor people dont know where is their interest but I know better. That and your complaints about ideologues you sound like a trotskyst :D they are not necessarily poor. poor people went for clinton and especially nonwhite poor. they are rather young male college students or dropouts. Educated poor are less informed or black uneducated poor more informed than white ? Clintonians are more than sandernistas is the only clear thing. blacks also know about hillary's decades long history as a civil rights fighter. you are grasping at straws on my lawn here Ah got it, black uneducated poor are more informed than whites because they vote for Clinton. The problem is that I'm mocking your long trend posting logic which you are totally unaware of because you're so sure of your philo degree and of being informed. I hope you keep on with your "Bernie's supporters need to rally behind Hillary cause otherwise we might lose because of them" line.
uh you do need some economics sensibility to not be a full blown socialist, which is really what the enthusiasm for bernie is about, some vague anti-corporate thing with no solution or awareness of the tradeoffs.
philosophers are decidedly pro bernie. i would not say philosophers are informed though, the relevant subject matter is outside of area of expertise and is emotionally volatile
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/09/the-philosophers-have-spoken-bernie-sanders-by-a-landslide.html
|
So can someone explain Bernie's path to the nomination? His campaign people are citing Florida, New York and California but I'm gonna say I'm skeptical to say the least. Source
Hillary is a very popular two-term senator from New York. Bernie could pick off the rural areas and the youth vote as usual, but that's definitely not going to be a win. California and Florida have large Hispanic populations and I'm guessing Hillary will take those 2:1 like in Texas. Her having a ST party in Florida wasn't just because of the weather either.
There are other states, but curious to hear thoughts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^same unwarranted enthusiasm (which also makes one angry at people who do not think your solutions are good) that shaped his overall strategy of 'revolution' also leads to optimism in this case
|
United States43598 Posts
On March 02 2016 14:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2016 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 02 2016 13:59 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:"blood coming out of her wherever" What do you want him to say? Pussy? Cunt? Couldn't he just not make up a stupid line about a woman probably being on her period? It's tactless and juvenile. A lot of people found it funny. Which is why Trump's numbers went up after that exchange and Megyn Kelly was humiliated. I think it did its job very well.
Humiliating women by accusing them of being irrational objects controlled only by their hormones isn't actually a positive. It's not that people don't understand what he did, it's that what he did was fucking disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
