Support NeoGAF

[Elaugaufein]

Explain how he screwed up Iraq and took too long on IS.

Primarily by not using his time machine to stop Bush invading it. Apart from that , he had zero chance of taking the necessary long term action (reconstruction) with a Republican congress and public opinion wouldn't have been in its favor in any case. The right thing was simply not an option available to him.

 

[nel e nel]

Until we have viable third party candidates that get equal airtime and invited to debate, it's not going to affect our current system.

 

[Alienfan]

Can someone ELI5 why there were more young supporters of Bernie than supports of Trump/Clinton?

 

[MIMIC]

....

You know why right?

...

She was the first to want to really be politically active, she wanted to champion healthcare reform...

Yes, and the healthcare reform act failed. If you play a major role in something unsuccessful, you take the hits like you would the praise had it actually been successful. It's not Warren's, or anybody else's fault that she was part of something major that didn't work.

If it passed and her numbers skyrocketed, I highly doubt that her supporters would be as dismissive of her numbers.

 

[Maledict]

Until we have viable third party candidates that get equal airtime and invited to debate, it's not going to affect our current system.

No, this isn't how it works.

You will never have third party candidates in the American presidential system. It cannot happen. Ultimately, you always will have to chose between one candidate from the two parties. Any third party that gets big enough to challenge for the presidency will replace one of the two main parties. It's how the system works.

It's not to do with airtime and debates at all. If a third party candidate from the left or right grew big, it just guarantees the party of the other side wins.

The only way to have more than two candidates to choose from at the presidential level is to fundamentally change how the USA votes and chooses its leader. That is basically impossible (would require a constitutional amendment), but if you want that you need to be joining one of the two parties, getting involved at a heavy level, and changing the party platform.

The reason you don't have third party candidates isn't because of some nefarious plot between the two main parties (although they don't help) - it's just how a first past the post, winner takes all presidential system works with the electoral college. Debates and airtime won't change anything at all - ultimately, you only ever have a choice of two.

 

[Maledict]

While first lady, Hillary was the least liked of the last four....and by quite a margin. You can't just "make" people like you, and then blame her current numbers on "dumb attacks".

Clinton was attacked before they even took office. She was slammed by outright sexist attacks because she didn't want to bake cookies and stay at home. She's had 25 years of that. Thankfully the world has moved on since then and Michelle was allowed to be an independent woman - although notice she still has a lot less policy airtime and pushes than Hillary did.

Just go read up on what the republicans were saying about her over the last thirty years. It's frankly disgusting.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

This data tells me Obama could hit 400+ EV running against Trump.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I think a lot of young voters are simply disillusioned as kids often are that "their" candidate didn't get selected or just bitter at the political process in general.

They'll get over it as they age. Doubly so for kids whose first presidential election was in 08 for Obama.

 

[mo60]

This data tells me Obama could hit 400+ EV running against Trump.

Hilary has the potential of getting over 400 EV's to in this election even though it's kinda not likely at this point.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes, and the healthcare reform act failed. If you play a major role in something unsuccessful, you take the hits like you would the praise had it actually been successful. It's not Warren's, or anybody else's fault that she was part of something major that didn't work.

If it passed and her numbers skyrocketed, I highly doubt that her supporters would be as dismissive of her numbers.

Yes she was too progressive for a much more conservative America and that's why young people today should hate her too.


You are so obsessed with hating her that your points make no sense.

She wasn't hated because her health care reform failed she was hated because she tried in the first place.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I'm 98% in agreement with Jill Stein so as long as Hillary has a commanding lead in my state I'll vote for her. If the election is somehow close, I'll vote for Hillary.

How do you feel about NATO?

 

[MIMIC]

Yes she was too progressive for a much more conservative America and that's why young people today should hate her too.


You are so obsessed with hating her that your points make no sense.

She wasn't hated because her health care reform failed she was hated because she tried in the first place.

Errr.....I was explaining why her numbers were low back then. Her current numbers are a reflection of recent, more relevant missteps and controversies, not anything that happened in 1993.

It's not like Hillary is some perfect candidate that Americans "just don't get."

 

[Aaronology]

It's not like Hillary is some perfect candidate that Americans "just don't get."

Nor is she some abominable, corrupt politician completely "out of touch" with everyone. The difference between your post and my response, though, is that a number of people legitimately believe her to be that awful while not even her sturdiest of supporters will paint her as perfect.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I'm 98% in agreement with Jill Stein so as long as Hillary has a commanding lead in my state I'll vote for her. If the election is somehow close, I'll vote for Hillary.

Jill Stein is an idiot, unfit to be president and if taken seriously would only be for the briefest of moments. The only appeal of third parties is that they're the alternative to two long standing, well established parties. That's it. As political parties the Greens and Libertarians are just as bad if not worse than the Democrats and if another party does rise, it's going to be some extreme left arm of the democrats because the world is naturally progressive and the Republicans and other right-wing parties like the Greens and Libertarians just plain suck.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Obama did screw up Iraq pretty badly

Also in relation to that he took way too long to take action on IS

Obama didn't screw up Iraq pretty badly. Bush did, if you want to point at a singular person who would be responsible, although it's obviously more complicated than that with the history on the region. Obama was pretty much in a lose-lose with Iraq, but he inherited that from his predecessor. He also didn't take too long to take action against ISIS. I don't know where that came from. We've consistently assisted allies and used drone strikes against that movement since it's beginning. I mean, you can argue that's not as effective as boots on ground military support, but you can't say we were 'too late.'

 

[Seeya]

Can someone ELI5 why there were more young supporters of Bernie than supports of Trump/Clinton?

Bernie had the air of change (much like Obama) along with being able to communicate true passion and authenticity, something neither Hilary nor Trump give off.

 

[johnsmith]

Can someone ELI5 why there were more young supporters of Bernie than supports of Trump/Clinton?

Memes

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Obama didn't screw up Iraq pretty badly. Bush did, if you want to point at a singular person who would be responsible, although it's obviously more complicated than that with the history on the region. Obama was pretty much in a lose-lose with Iraq, but he inherited that from his predecessor. He also didn't take too long to take action against ISIS. I don't know where that came from. We've consistently assisted allies and used drone strikes against that movement since it's beginning. I mean, you can argue that's not as effective as boots on ground military support, but you can't say we were 'too late.'

im gonna be honest i just don't want to go back and source everything

Anyways I have watched a few frontline docs and read foreign policy writeups by third parties and most people agree he could have and maybe should have done more to push Iraq and go at Isis before they came into real power

Yes it may have been worse for him politically but what he did was not optimal in the least

Bc lets be honest we are the worlds superpower. If Iraq is fighting with us on something we don't have to just give in. We give in by choice by not putting up a fight (referring to Iraqs leader at the time purging their govt of political rivals which lead to govt collapse )

end unsourced post (but really the frontline docs show this)

 

[Macam]

Bernie had the air of change (much like Obama) along with being able to communicate true passion and authenticity, something neither Hilary nor Trump give off.

Or have.

Also, Trump's message is largely anathema to a huge portion of the electorate, and especially younger voters. Sanders just spoke to issues younger voters cared about more, and did so directly, consistently, and forcefully; plus he doesn't suffer from the significant trust issues that Clinton does.

 

[Lord Frieza]

im gonna be honest i just don't want to go back and source everything

Anyways I have watched a few frontline docs and read foreign policy writeups by third parties and most people agree he could have and maybe should have done more to push Iraq and go at Isis before they came into real power

Yes it may have been worse for him politically but what he did was not optimal in the least

Bc lets be honest we are the worlds superpower. If Iraq is fighting with us on something we don't have to just give in. We give in by choice by not putting up a fight (referring to Iraqs leader at the time purging their govt of political rivals which lead to govt collapse )

end unsourced post (but really the frontline docs show this)

A lot of that is an extreme oversimplification of the reality of the situation.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

A lot of that is an extreme oversimplification of the reality of the situation.

Well yeah like I said I didn't source any of it and wasn't trying to give a detailed account. But now you know where I'm coming from

 

[gutter_trash]

the irony is that Hillary Clinton will end up being the most Liberal and the most Progressive President in US history


but but not pure enough

 

[cw_sasuke]

They are waiting for Kanye to run.

 

[Eusis]

the irony is that Hillary Clinton will end up being the most Liberal and the most Progressive President in US history


but but not pure enough

It really is better to treat voting more like tug of war rather than all or nothing (at least when it comes to left side, the right side decided to just hook the rope to a truck and drive off a cliff.)

 

[Azzanadra]

Can someone ELI5 why there were more young supporters of Bernie than supports of Trump/Clinton?

I think Bernie himself said it best on Seth Meyers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP0-g5nmMqY

Tl;DW: Young people are idealistic by nature, that we can be better as a country rather than always settling with the status quo.

I am not surprised young people would not be enthused by either, the left wing embodied by most of the young is socialism/social democracy, while the right leans towards libertarian in this age group. Both candidates are moral red lines for some, so there's that too.

 

[Macam]

A lot of that is an extreme oversimplification of the reality of the situation.

An extreme oversimplification to say the least. You can shove all the troops and air power you want at Iraq, and it still isn't going to vanquish ISIS or solve the domestic issues plaguing the country. Maliki did virtually nothing to solve a lot of the key issues facing the country and al-Abadi has struggled to address them, partly in the face of parliamentary opposition. Those domestic issues (corruption, power, security, economic resilience vs falling oil prices, etc) are necessary issues to mitigate the appeal of ISIS and to begin to paper over the ethnic tensions with the country.

It also ignores the fact that, as far as Western powers are concerned, the bigger, tangible threat from ISIS is its social and ideological appeal, and not its territorial gains. From a Kissinger-esque, geopolitical, foreign policy perspective, you could argue the administration could've done more, but that would be a political nightmare and violate the Obama administration's "don't do stupid shit" rule. They've done about as well as one could expect given the realities, but it was never going to be some shining success story. The horses left the barn on that a long time ago.

 

[Macam]

the irony is that Hillary Clinton will end up being the most Liberal and the most Progressive President in US history

but but not pure enough

That's amazing considering she's done exactly nothing as president so far.

She's going to be the best president, have the greatest accomplishments. Make America Clinton again!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

the irony is that Hillary Clinton will end up being the most Liberal and the most Progressive President in US history


but but not pure enough

She'll do all kinds of liberal things like invade countries and pass free-trade agreements and help her friends at Wall Street and the pharmaceutical companies get richer!

THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVER

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's amazing considering she's done exactly nothing as president so far.

She's going to be the best president, have the greatest accomplishments. Make America Clinton again!

That's a nonsense argument.

She's coming in on the most Progressive platform and that was mostly true before Sanders got his stuff.... she's a proven progressive over her Senate career and her work as First Lady.

 

[Macam]

That's a nonsense argument.

She's coming in on the most Progressive platform and that was mostly true before Sanders got his stuff.... she's a proven progressive over her Senate career and her work as First Lady.

The nonsense arguments are stemming from people praising non-existent accomplishments from someone who hasn't even become president yet. I'm no historian, but last I checked, you have to first assume office and do something meaningful before garnering accolades.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Clinton's policies are not as appealing to younger voters as her rival Sanders was, and many find her an uninspiring candidate; it's hardly surprising disappointed voters would be seeking refuge elsewhere. She'll win regardless, it won't have much short-term consequence. It could be damaging for the Democrats in the future if they continue to take younger voters for granted, though.

You know what I find sad? That "inspiring" is the only adjective that some people care about. There's a fuckload of other qualities that make a good leader beyond being inspirational. And by the same token, there's been a shitload of inspirational and charismatic people who turned out to be really, really shitty leaders. Personally, I think it's selfish, entitled, and lazy to end one's interest at that point, instead of doing some fucking work and reading the policies of each candidate, then making a rational decision. Not every candidate can make you feel all fuzzy inside, but that shouldnt be the only criteria for earning one's vote.

 

[kirblar]

Can someone ELI5 why there were more young supporters of Bernie than supports of Trump/Clinton?

All successful non-LBJ Dem presidential candidates in the modern era have been young and got the nomination on their first attempt. That's who the base likes and leans towards, these JFK/Bill Clinton/Obama type figures.

Clinton is none of that. She's old. She's established. The anti-authoritarian streak in people wants to rebel. The GOP is the party where the runner up from the last cycle is usualy the presumptive nominee in the current one. Add in a populist backlash that was occurring on the left AND right this year (Bernie/Trump both having protectionist economic policies: not an accident) and you get what we saw this year.

That's amazing considering she's done exactly nothing as president so far.

She's going to be the best president, have the greatest accomplishments. Make America Clinton again!

In '08, Obama was the more centrist candidate.

 

[Quixzlizx]

The nonsense arguments are stemming from people praising non-existent accomplishments from someone who hasn't even become president yet. I'm no historian, but last I checked, you have to first assume office and do something meaningful before garnering accolades.

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize disagrees with you.

She'll do all kinds of liberal things like invade countries and pass free-trade agreements and help her friends at Wall Street and the pharmaceutical companies get richer!

THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVER

It's like she's a Republican in disguise amirite?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You know what I find sad? That "inspiring" is the only adjective that some people care about. There's a fuckload of other qualities that make a good leader beyond being inspirational. And by the same token, there's been a shitload of inspirational and charismatic people who turned out to be really, really shitty leaders. Personally, I think it's selfish, entitled, and lazy to end one's interest at that point, instead of doing some fucking work and reading the policies of each candidate, then making a rational decision. Not every candidate can make you feel all fuzzy inside, but that shouldnt be the only criteria for earning one's vote.

Being inspiring is hugely important for the role of president. Presidents don't actually have much legislative influence as people expect; their most important power is that they set the frame of the national conversation. An inspiring President brings the legislature with them by persuading people to support whatever issue is at task; and making it electorally damaging for the opposition not to follow. If Clinton can't inspire and she doesn't win the House, she'll be a lame duck before too long.

Obama's greatest asset isn't his policy knowledge, that's what think tanks and aides are for. It's his ability to persuade people to follow him, his personal charisma.

 

[Macam]

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize disagrees with you.

Ha, touché on that one.

If that's the cringe worthy pattern some forum members wants to pursue, by all means, continue with the imaginary presidential accomplishments.

 

[Macam]

You know what I find sad? That "inspiring" is the only adjective that some people care about. There's a fuckload of other qualities that make a good leader beyond being inspirational. And by the same token, there's been a shitload of inspirational and charismatic people who turned out to be really, really shitty leaders. Personally, I think it's selfish, entitled, and lazy to end one's interest at that point, instead of doing some fucking work and reading the policies of each candidate, then making a rational decision. Not every candidate can make you feel all fuzzy inside, but that shouldnt be the only criteria for earning one's vote.

I think "inspiring" would be less of an issue if trustworthiness wasn't such a huge issue for her.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Being inspiring is hugely important for the role of president. Presidents don't actually have much legislative influence as people expect; their most important power is that they set the frame of the national conversation. An inspiring President brings the legislature with them by persuading people to support whatever issue is at task; and making it electorally damaging for the opposition not to follow. If Clinton can't inspire and she doesn't win the House, she'll be a lame duck before too long.

Obama's greatest asset isn't his policy knowledge, that's what think tanks and aides are for. It's his ability to persuade people to follow him, his personal charisma.

I get what you're saying, but your conclusion doesn't really match. Taking away the GOP's public insanity and need to demonize the enemy, they have reportedly found Obama aloof and unpleasant to deal with on a personal level, while they speak much more highly of Hillary. Most of Obama's domestic policy accomplishments have been either when the Democrats had control of Congress from 2009-2010, or through unilateral executive action.

Not that I necessarily think that this will make much of a difference if Hillary is president, but I'm not sure when Obama's inspirational qualities made a big policy difference other than causing the 2008 wave election results which captured Congress for all of two years.

 

[Fluvian]

In the words of Nate Diaz, "I'm not surprised motherfuckers". I'm so glad I don't have to vote in this election, your choices are a Lawyer, a business man and some third party hippie.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I get what you're saying, but your conclusion doesn't really match. Taking away the GOP's public insanity and need to demonize the enemy, they have reportedly found Obama aloof and unpleasant to deal with on a personal level, while they speak much more highly of Hillary. Most of Obama's domestic policy accomplishments have been either when the Democrats had control of Congress from 2009-2010, or through unilateral executive action.

Not that I necessarily think that this will make much of a difference if Hillary is president, but I'm not sure when Obama's inspirational qualities made a big policy difference other than causing the 2008 wave election results which captured Congress for all of two years.

They speak much more highly of Clinton because she's not President. The GOP are not a functioning party at this point; they oppose things regardless. I actually agree that in some respects, this is the best time Clinton could have run - a credible Republican opponent would have given her a lot of trouble, but there isn't one; a credible Republican party could have exploited her inability to set the national conversation, but there isn't one. It's certainly not quite politics as normal in the USA at the moment.

 

[The Artisan]

It's the website this article came from.

The name of the website comes from the number of electoral college votes in a Presidential election.

Oh I see, silly me. Thanks

 

[Stumpokapow]

In '08, Obama was the more centrist candidate.

It's true that Obama nominally had a more centrist voting record in the Senate than Hillary, but the main issue of the 2008 Democratic primary was foreign policy and Obama won by running to Hillary's left, largely because as someone not elected in 2003 he did not have a record of waffling on Iraq. The economy only picked up steam as an issue going into the half-way mark of the general.

It's also worth noting that apart from the issues they actually ran on in 2008, Obama drew more support from progressives owing solely to racial issues. By this, I mean, as explained in Obama's Race, racial conservatives gravitated to Hillary--and later McCain in the general--while racial progressives gravitated towards Obama. Racial progressives are not necessarily social or economic progressives, but the correlation is high enough that Obama's support looked unusually progressive. I'm not alleging Hillary is in any sense a racial conservative, or even that she campaigned for them (although she did in the twilight days of her primary campaign, and it was ugly)--more that in ways different than previous primaries, race was a salient part of the voting calculus and this had the effect of skewing Hillary's support right an Obama's left more broadly.

 

[Ahasverus]

Hillary is not getting a second term that's for sure. This is the only scenario where she could have won, a disastrous candidate on the other side and no charismatic democrat.

 

[jack_package_200]

Hillary is not getting a second term that's for sure. This is the only scenario where she could have won, a disastrous candidate on the other side and no charismatic democrat.

She has the Obama coalition ie the minority vote and the over 30 crowd. They helped Obama win in 2012 when the youth vote did what they usually do and didn't vote.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Hillary is not getting a second term that's for sure. This is the only scenario where she could have won, a disastrous candidate on the other side and no charismatic democrat.

A president loses most of their pre-presidential baggage when they run for re-election and instead gets judged on their record, largely economic. Consider 2012--did Republicans run on "Obama is connected to Crooked Toky Rezko, Terrorist Bill Ayers, and the rest of his Chicago Politics Crew!!! And he doesn't have the experience to be president!!!" Or did they run on America's weak economic recovery and the evil of Obamacare?

It's hard to imagine any of the character or valence issues dragging Hillary down now will play a part in 2020. Maybe NEW ones will, depending on how many scandals she has. She does have a remarkable quality of attracting controversy across her career.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Living in a college town, I honestly believe that 90% of young adults supporting Johnson are doing so because he wants to legalize marijuana. If either Clinton/Trump were notably pushing for this, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a notable uptick in their support.



There would have been a lot of cons, more than Obama for sure, but I really think Romney would have been a decent president.

It'd have been interesting to see what a Romney presidency would have looked like; I'm certainly glad we got Obama for a second term, but I wonder if the Republicans had dropped their obstructionism since they'd have had a friendly executive, it might have blunted the tea party earlier and in turn prevented the rise of Trump/Trumplike candidates. Impossible to say that tradeoff would have been worth it, and it's not a gamble I would take even if I could, but interesting food for thought.

And yeah, I think a lot of libertarian support is purely marijuana. Which is another reason to decriminalize it and stop having idiot kids voting for a single issue.

 

[Dalibor68]

What could realistically make people start looking into renewing the election system (in terms of more focus on popular votes, more parties, etc)?

 

[Stumpokapow]

What could realistically make people start looking into renewing the election system (in terms of more focus on popular votes, more parties, etc)?

What could make America ditch the electoral college: Another Bush-Gore situation where the popular vote goes one way and the electoral vote goes the other way and the right states get screwed by the result.

What could make America have more parties? Nothing. It's the design of the system. Scrap your presidency altogether and adopt a parliamentary democracy with MMP or PR districts and you'll have more than two parties. If not, then the only way to make a new party would be to nuke one of the current parties. See also the entire history of party systems in America (Federalist vs. Democrat-Republican -> Jacksonian Democrats vs. Whigs -> Democrats vs. Republicans -> Civil Rights / Southern Strategy leads to party inversions)

 

[mentallyinept]

What could make America ditch the electoral college: Another Bush-Gore situation where the popular vote goes one way and the electoral vote goes the other way and the right states get screwed by the result.

What could make America have more parties? Nothing. It's the design of the system. Scrap your presidency altogether and adopt a parliamentary democracy with MMP or PR districts and you'll have more than two parties. If not, then the only way to make a new party would be to nuke one of the current parties. See also the entire history of party systems in America (Federalist vs. Democrat-Republican -> Jacksonian Democrats vs. Whigs -> Democrats vs. Republicans -> Civil Rights / Southern Strategy leads to party inversions)

Well, if you could change voting to instant runoff, you could get more than 2 parties with significant numbers.

 

[KHarvey16]

Hillary is not getting a second term that's for sure. This is the only scenario where she could have won, a disastrous candidate on the other side and no charismatic democrat.

It's hard to imagine anything but 8 years, unless something truly disastrous occurs. The demographics just don't favor a change and the Republican Party is probably going to be in bad shape for a bit.

 

[guek]

It makes me wonder if Bernie would have actually been better for the health of the Democratic party in the long run despite his outsider status, much like Trump has been detrimental to the Republican party.