EPTI initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3645
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:04 OtherWorld wrote: So if you feel like there's no candidate who's representative of yourself and your ideas and opinions, you should just vote for someone who you do not support? That's not democracy. "That's not democracy" is a meaningless statement here. I don't see why other people not agreeing sufficiently with your views to fail to vote enough for the candidate you personally prefer the most to make him a contender would not be democracy. The fact that most other citizens do not agree with you with regards to who they would like to see in office is not undemocratic in any way. And if this means that among the two real contenders for the election (in this case, the Democratic and Republican nominees) there is no candidate with whom you align perfectly, that's too bad, but let me point out that's hardly ever the case -- you'll virtually always find some aspects of a candidate that you'll dislike more than others. Voting is therefore a matter of choice between candidates that you don't 100% agree with, but among which you still tend to have a preference. Even if you don't like your choices much at all, Clinton and Trump are so different in their record, discourse, and advocated policies, that trying to paint them as "the same" is extremely fallacious. Again, though, I'm not saying that you and others don't have the right to send whatever message you want through your vote -- that's up to you. But like I said, it's this kind of reasoning (this candidate doesn't align with my views as optimally as I'd like, so I'll vote for someone else to send a statement/feel better about my vote, even if that someone else has no chance in the election) which gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore, resulting in a much worse result for everyone in the nation. Support is always a matter of degree, and I'm pretty sure plenty of people who voted third-party "supported" Al Gore more than Bush, in that they would have preferred to see the former as president rather than the latter. In swing states in particular, there is a very strong argument to be made in favor of harm reduction, as farvacola explained. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote: I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability. I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:08 farvacola wrote: Kwisach is getting at the inevitable balancing test that one must undertake in deciding not to vote for someone. While there's certainly an argument that one ought not vote for someone who does not appropriately represent them or their views, that logic runs directly up against the perceived costs of abstaining to vote should an opposing candidate who is even less representative get voted into office. Harm reduction (or "the lesser of two evils" idea) is a controversial concept when it comes to voting motivations, but I definitely think it coexists with the notion of democracy generally. That's true, but it is always a delicate path. When too much people start to "vote against" instead of "voting for", you run the risk that democracy ends up taken hostage by big parties, and then half the country is basically forced to vote for one of the two parties on the sole basis that who they're voting for is "less worse" than opposing candidate/party. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote: Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:01 kwizach wrote: That was the great reasoning which gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore. Yes, and that one gave you Obama instead of Hillary nepothism Clinton. Short term, sure it can hurt what you wish, in the long run tho if you truly think you are right, screwing "your" party over will make them re-consider their candidates later. On April 21 2016 00:08 farvacola wrote: Kwisach is getting at the inevitable balancing test that one must undertake in deciding not to vote for someone. While there's certainly an argument that one ought not vote for someone who does not appropriately represent them or their views, that logic runs directly up against the perceived costs of abstaining to vote should an opposing candidate who is even less representative get voted into office. Harm reduction (or "the lesser of two evils" idea) is a controversial concept when it comes to voting motivations, but I definitely think it coexists with the notion of democracy generally. Of course, but that's a personal opinion on when you do want change to happen. If sooner, you better let the lunatic craptastic in goverment so more people start sharing your sentiments as he polarizes more and more the electorate and the democrat party feel compelled to make seat for your ideas, or you just sit down and hope that the democratic party don't take your vote for granted, which they will, for the very same reason he is doing. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:28 Godwrath wrote: Yes, and that one gave you Obama instead of Hillary nepothism Clinton. Short term, sure it can hurt what you wish, in the long run tho if you truly think you are right, screwing "your" party over will make them re-consider their candidates later. Obama won the primary. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote: Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man For the most part, Bernie has mainly won in states with low voter turn out. So if he really wanted to win he would enforce voter suppression. He doesn't, of course, because to Bernie simply saying things that he knows isn't working is better than doing what needs to happen in order for him to win. Which, strangely, is also very fitting of his platform. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
Now you get to hope that the next Bernie you'll have in eight years (or four) is as good as him, cause the climate is going to be much better for him to get elected. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21948 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote: Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are being called shallow because he has no idea how to actually implement them. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:35 Nebuchad wrote: Chirac was not representative of plenty of people in 2002 and it was still an obvious vote. Bernie or bust is not a sustainable position when bust is something that is so clearly worse. It was good to learn that a center left platform in the US is viable and it was good to have some sensible debates, it bodes well for the future, but moderate right wing is better than far right on any scale and you ought to know that. If you're a rational left wing person and you're not doing your best to keep someone who pretends not to think climate change exists out of the White House, you're doing something wrong. Now you get to hope that the next Bernie you'll have in eight years (or four) is as good as him, cause the climate is going to be much better for him to get elected. Chirac in 2002 is a special case, which I don't think has an equivalent in the US. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
That's what he means, that staying true to the candidate you favor instead of going with the consensual choice (which was Clinton) gave you Obama as a President. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote: Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man Blaming red baiting is a lazy argument. His arguments are shallow in the sense he doesn't have viable plans to solve many of the problems he's centered his campaign about-- what he's offered has been thoroughly dumped on by experts. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:28 Godwrath wrote: Yes, and that one gave you Obama instead of Hillary nepothism Clinton. Short term, sure it can hurt what you wish, in the long run tho if you truly think you are right, screwing "your" party over will make them re-consider their candidates later. It's not the Democratic party leaders who received your message, "re-considered their candidates" and gave Obama the victory instead of Clinton. It's the electorate in the Democratic primary who granted him the nomination, and I fail to see how third-party voting in 2000 pushed them to vote for Obama rather than Clinton in any sizeable way which made the difference. On April 21 2016 00:36 OtherWorld wrote: Chirac in 2002 is a special case, which I don't think has an equivalent in the US. Uh, of course it has an equivalent. It's literally the exact same argument we're making right now. Either do not vote at all for one of the two only candidates from which a victor is going to emerge, and risk the victory of the one you despise the most, or vote for one which you prefer between the two even though you disagree with him/her to a larger extent than you'd like in order to avoid seeing the one you hate the most get elected. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:36 OtherWorld wrote: Chirac in 2002 is a special case, which I don't think has an equivalent in the US. I mean it's not the exact same situation but there are similiraties. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 21 2016 00:04 OtherWorld wrote: So if you feel like there's no candidate who's representative of yourself and your ideas and opinions, you should just vote for someone who you do not support? That's not democracy. You should vote based on how you want to sculpt the government and not on which douchebag in front of the mic makes you excited. You should care as much about local elections as general elections and spend as much time agonizing about your mayors and city councilmen as you do the president of the united states. You should spend your energy generating a coalition of senators, congressmen, and presidents who all have the different skill sets needed to get stuff done when used as a whole. THAT is democracy. Democracy is not about who says the most far out crazy things during the primaries, democracies is not just about who runs for president, democracy is voting and helping local elections so much that the president that shows up can't help but be the kind of person you agree with because the politicians he needs to pander to in order to get the nomination forces him to believe in the values you already believe in. You know what Hilary has learned from the Obama Administration? She learned that simply having majority democrats in the house and senate means JACK SHIT if you don't also have their support, their backing, and have something in it for them. Which is why she is the one with less FEC problems than Bernie, why she is the one getting funding for fellow dems than bernie, why she is the one who has been working on getting superdelagate support, instead of bernie. because while she's busy trying to get ready to run the country, bernie is just trying to get his face on another facebook meme. | ||
| ||
