-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
So would it be fair to say that if Hillary had been in Obama's place, she would be equally as paralysed/ lame-duck from a policy direction standpoint?
I never understood why the Presidential Race gets all the attention. The House and Senate election remains just as important as they set the budgets and the legislation. Is there really zero chance of dems gaining control of the HoR & Senate?
Crimson_Gold
Member
The president is the face of the nation. Everyone wants to have an attractive face. (Attractiveness is subjective). Many forget about the organs that make the body function and the systems that are required to operate properly to ensure optimal health. That's why people forget about the legislative branch and only acknowledge the judicial branch when a decision is made that favors or angers them.
Gotcha thanks for the info!
It's impossible to know, but Republicans would likely have been just as obstructionist.
As to your second point, yes, the Senate and House are equally if not more important. The Senate is something reasonably attained by Democrats this fall given the seats up for reelection. The House is significantly more difficult due to redistricting done following the 2010 Census, which Republicans controlled due to a rout of Democrats that year done via attacking Obama's healthcare initiative. Some Democrats believe that a Trump nomination might give Democrats a chance to overcome the significant structural disadvantage they're facing in House elections.
That said, the Presidency is important as a check on Republicans' congressional power even in a scenario where the Congress remains under GOP control, to keep many of their policies from becoming enacted.
The Presidential race is a national election, with no incumbent, the House and Senate are local, and the vast majority of the time, your incumbent Representative or Senator is going to win.
...."Take note blacks," he said before promptly deleting his Twitter account.
Do people like this just go radio silent while the heat is on, and then pop up again once the spotlight has moved on to someone else?
he already popped up again.
His huge loss in SC isn't going to change his strategy, he will continue running beyond Super Tuesday unless he suffers similar crushing loses and fails to win any state beyond Vermont.
Black Republican
Member
balladofwindfishes
Member
If he hits what is expected on ST, or worse, he has no way to realistically win and will just be wasting money after that. He has to exceed expectations, and by a lot, to remain relevant.
r/politics is also a huge Sanders circlejerk.
There is no message of hope coming from Bernie anymore. Just the rants of a bitter guy who isn't getting his way. He was hopeful a few weeks ago but the 1-2 punch of Nevada and SC has left him acting whiney and bitter on the stump.
His speech last night was downright embarrassing and painful to witness. He clearly knows it's over.
He is coming across like Jeb did in the last days of his campaign after Trump was cleaning everything up
This is pretty unfair and not at all reality. Good caricature of the talking points though.
Entirely fair and entirely real. Care to disprove it?
Pamplemousse
Member
How is it not fair? She doesn't support public healthcare because she's bought off by the insurance industry. That's one of the biggest reasons I don't like her. We need public healthcare like every other developed country in the world, yet she wants to keep the status quo in which we get financially raped by health insurance companies.
Besides, look at who has contributed to her campaign. Lots of big banks there.
UltimaPooh
Member
Psh.
Screw that defeatest attitude. It's over when its over.
It doesn't look like he'll pull it out but still wanting the Bern to do well or hoping he pulls out a sweep isn't denial.
People want Bernie's blood so bad.
Whatever makes you feel better about the likely Dem nom we're getting.
I guess the last three caucasus besides SC had abysmal trust/honestly ratings for Hillary because of her choice in clothes, right?
This is misleading. She supports universal healthcare, but doesn't believe in tearing up the ACA to get there. Saying she's bought by the insurance industry ignores everything she's stood for since First Lady.
plagiarize
Banned
I wonder how many of them are even registered to vote. Almost no one I know on facebook openly supports Clinton, it's all Sanders all day. Yet only 1 in 6 voters yesterday were under 30.
White people under 30 trying to blame black voters for the drubbing yesterday genuinely need to look in the mirror.
Sanders did better than anyone expected. He was in the discussion for a while. He did get Clinton to speak on more liberal issues than she had been (mainly since she was focused on November a little too early).
And yes, he was polling way better now than he was three months before Iowa. But he didn't gain nearly enough to actually put himself in a position to win, and those gains were going to flat line once he started losing states.
Clinton barely won Iowa, yes, and Sanders had been well behind in the polls just a month or two earlier, but a lot of us recognized that he needed to win Iowa. Iowa was clearly one of the most demographically favorable states to him. And momentum is a very real thing in primaries. Ask Clinton about the 08 primaries. Early upsets gave people doubts about Clinton which slowly snowballed into an Obama win.
Bernie wasn't doing the numbers he needed, and since so many of the earlier states are demographically more favorable to Clinton... that was the sign that it wasn't going to happen. The numbers keep getting worse with each primary. Things are clearly shifting back to Clinton. Whether it's because Trump is looking more likely to be the candidate, and people prefer someone more mainstream to counter him, whether people are questioning the hype and excitement... whatever it is.
Whether he wins or loses MA on Tuesday, that in the last week or so he's lost the lead in polls there shows that wins truly matter.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...forecast/massachusetts-democratic/#polls-only
And those under 30s... if they don't think Bernie can win, they're going to stay home.
Something they better not keep doing. If you want to be taken seriously by politicians you have to vote. That high numbers of black people vote is very much to their credit. That Bernie cannot get his strongest demographic out to vote in anything like the numbers Obama did is very much a knock on how excited young people really are about him.
nitekrawlwer
Member
There is no problem is you dont try to true scotsman being informed.
Pamplemousse
Member
Wrong. She wants everyone to have private health insurance. I said we needed public healthcare. She supports the insurance companies who rip sick people off to make a buck; Bernie doesn't. Healthcare should NEVER be about profits, and as a so-called "progressive," Hillary should understand that.
Macho Madness
Member
What do you think a public option is?
No, it's not wrong. Universal healthcare doesn't imply public. And that's fine that you want single payer or a public option, I do too. But it's not grounded in reality and is why I can't take anyone who promises that seriously.
She starting in 1993 with the Health Security Act to get universal healthcare for Americans, but was shot down pharmaceutical, conservatives, and the healthcare industry. When that failed, she has supported many versions of universal healthcare that lead to the same goal. So tell me how can she bought out by the insurance industry when she continues to push forward on universal health care?
You realize that she was pushing for public heath care twenty years ago in 1993, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
Getting from America's current situation to single payer is a huge lift. We are much, much closer to a Dutch-style universal health care system with an individual mandate, community rating, and severely regulated utility-style insurance companies. In fact, as you might notice, Obamacare implements most of this already, and Hillary wants to support and expand that system.
If you think that the Dutch-style is inherently corrupt and evil, I mean, I guess that's possible, but I would like to see the reasons you think Dutch people, or Swiss people, or Singaporean people, have significantly worse health care in terms of cost and outcomes than other Europeans or Asians.
So it's okay to bring up Clinton's former views, but only if they're ideas you agree with?
The same applies to Bernie? Gun control, voting for most of the same stuff as Hillary?
But she is a evil shedevil amirite?
Pamplemousse
Member
That's over 20 years ago; she does not currently support public healthcare for all. She supports for-profit healthcare. Giving everyone a private health insurance plan does not solve the problem. Someone who supports for-profit healthcare is not a progressive, and people wonder lefties aren't enthused to vote. This is our so-called "progressive" candidate?
Something something gateway to progressiveism.
I guess Bernie is only 5% more progressive then Hillary based on his voting record so he isnt very progressive at all either.
You don't get it both ways. That's for Reddit.
Until the general election starts.
I think voting is an absolutely fine metric, and Bernie had a few bad legislative decisions. But I've noticed that Clinton supporters often get really defensive when her earlier comments on "superpredators", marriage equality, or increased incarceration are brought to light.
"More left than Bill Clinton" is hardly an achievement. Clinton is a progressive on a few easy social issues, issues which essentially all Democratic politicians also support.
6 years.
plagiarize
Banned
Well she needs to win.
Who doesn't move to the center after the primaries? You think Bernie wouldn't have?
cartoon_soldier
Member
Hillary has always been more progressive than Bill.
no. His adviser Tad Devine confirmed such. He's going far left for the general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYe_0CRfU-Q
He'll probably be in the Senate for another decade, given his dominance of Vermont politics. I'm curious how he'll try to use his influence and followers after presumably losing the primary.
Saddam Hussein was arguably more progressive than Bill Clinton. He's the most right-wing candidate to head the Democratic party since the realignment, so being more progressive than Bill should be the most basic expectation of a non-Republican.
Bernie is within a few percentage points of the same voting record.
So Bernie is barely more progressive then Hillary.
So by your own logic, Bernie is not much of a progressive.
Macho Madness
Member
You always pivot towards the center in the general because of the huge percentage of "independents" who at least say they're open to either candidate. You want to appeal to as many people as possible.
So was also opposed to same sex marriage and for locking up super predators. Do things she supported back then count now?
Angelus Errare
Banned
It writes itself lol.
Pamplemousse
Member
Who supported the war on drugs, gutted welfare, and repealed Glass-Steagall? What an achievement!
Macho Madness
Member
Well Bill Clinton has been compared to Saddam Hussein, I'm out.
So was Bernie for both AND he opposed gun control in his own state.
'Fighting for same sex marriage is too divisive' - Bernie Sanders 2006
How in the world can you justify this?
soundscream
Member
Holy Shit.
Getting real silly in here.
Getting real silly in here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked