Support NeoGAF

[thepotatoman]

If Sanders ever somehow became the nominee, could he win a general election?

Warren and Biden both don't do so great in the head to head polls against republicans, and I doubt Sanders would be doing much better. But if he found a way to do well enough to somehow win the primary, I think that would prove he has the stuff to do well in the general, unless he only won because scandal or illness took out Hillary.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_40715.pdf

Warren 39% - Walker 43%
Biden 40% - Walker 46%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22515.pdf

Warren 41% - Bush 43%
Biden 39% - Bush 45%

 

[Yellowtail]

Sanders would never win a Democratic primary. The party would never allow that to happen. If somehow Clinton totally imploded or died then other candidates like Biden or Gillibrand or Kerry or even Gore would be drafted in immediately.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sanders would never win a Democratic primary. The party would never allow that to happen. If somehow Clinton totally imploded or died then other candidates like Biden or Gillibrand or Kerry or even Gore would be drafted in immediately.

Yellowtail your speaking my language. You should post more in poligaf.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Totally, if he's on the ballot.

Btw even though he's a registered independent he can still run as a Democrat. Obama could have run as a Republican if he wanted.

Cool. I am voting for Hillary in the primary.

 

[Coriolanus]

A mixture of drive-by agitators, historically illiterate posters, and people policing speech/thought.

A lot of bad and uneducated opinions, mixed with a deep emotional response to having the status quo challenged.

And, y'know, truckloads of

 

[Abinash117]

If Sanders ever somehow became the nominee, could he win a general election?

I think he would considering the demographics, but I feel a moderate republican can make it hard. The country is center-left I believe so Bernie could be seen as extreme and I think many people want a tougher foreign policy approach than Obama's , I can see Bernie flip flopping on that if he has a very liberal approach to foreign policy.


No way he would win the nominee in the first place Hillary has the endorsements, the influence, the money, the popularity, etc Bernie can't beat that and she is far ahead of all candidates than Obama vs Hillary was at the same time in this year. Hillary can also position herself that can get some left-wing people as well. Plus I think Obama would campaign for her. He is basically Ron Paul with less support.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think he would considering the demographics, but I feel a moderate republican can make it hard. The country is center-left I believe so Bernie could be seen as extreme and I think many people want a tougher foreign policy approach than Obama's , I can see Bernie flip flopping on that if he has a very liberal approach to foreign policy.


No way he would win the nominee in the first place Hillary has the endorsements, the influence, the money, the popularity, etc Bernie can't beat that and she is far ahead of all candidates than Obama vs Hillary was at the same time in this year. Plus I think Obama would campaign for her.

But some progressives feel that he could win based on his beliefs. For example, Mitt was the "most electable" like McCain and they lost. Well conservatives say if we elect the "true conservative", "we can win". How much is that really a reality? Can both parties run a Warren Vs Bush or a Hillary Vs Cruz and have a chance?

Its very interesting and hard to contemplate. Sanders supporters believe he could win and the assumptions that he cant are just that, assumptions. If the Dems nominate a Sanders, he can win according to them. Party elites on either sides disagree heavily.

tdlr; what makes hard left and hard right bad in a general election?

 

[Coriolanus]

Its very interesting and hard to contemplate. Sanders supporters believe he could win and the assumptions that he cant are just that, assumptions. If the Dems nominate a Sanders, he can win according to them. Party elites on either sides disagree heavily.

tdlr; what makes hard left and hard right bad in a general election?

That supporters of a candidate assume that the candidate is electable goes without saying.

Even outside of such realms, however, there is still space for discussion on specific matchups, like, say, Sanders vs Carson, or, more realistically, walker or the jebster, which would be more interesting.

Sanders vs Walker would be particularly fascinating since they're extremes. Sanders vs Jeb, one would be inclined to believe that jeb's more moderate stances, if the primary doresn't push him too far to the right, would give him quite the edge. So on and so forth.

But yeah, general consensus, despise some evidence to the contrary, generally leans that moderation is favoured in general elections.
-

Anyway, was comparing the last republican primaries, and man, the fragmentation is real. 2000. 2008. 2012.
Also laughed a bit at the Rudy numbers. Gawd damn.

 

[Abinash117]

But some progressives feel that he could win based on his beliefs. For example, Mitt was the "most electable" like McCain and they lost. Well conservatives say if we elect the "true conservative", "we can win". How much is that really a reality? Can both parties run a Warren Vs Bush or a Hillary Vs Cruz and have a chance?

Its very interesting and hard to contemplate. Sanders supporters believe he could win and the assumptions that he cant are just that, assumptions. If the Dems nominate a Sanders, he can win according to them. Party elites on either sides disagree heavily.

tdlr; what makes hard left and hard right bad in a general election?

IMHO 'beliefs' only go so far you need a lot more stuff to back up your campaign you need charisma, a good campaign team, tons of money, lots of influence to get endorsements, donors, donations; and more, I bet there been plenty of people that think we need "true X" , but those people either don't do well in polls or not as well as the moderate candidate and the true X loses primaries to the point the moderate guy( or whomever is deemed electable to win) gets the nominee .

I think usually people are going to choose who is most likely to win. Plus if the candidate can get away with more further to the left or right views( like what Hillary can) they can do and most likely people will vote for them. In Hillary's case, she supports issues that many Americans already agree with and if she needs to she can probably get some liberals on her side if she plays her cards right. Bernie is far far behind Hillary regardless of what excuse, to think that suddenly she lose like dozens of points and which most of that goes to Sanders is crazy. IMHO, some liberals are just idealistic. Some cite that Hillary was sure to win in 2008, but I think some people here have evidence that it was closer than what some thought. I think Hillary's support is unprecedented is what one article said, or perhaps I read wrong.

We all assume who as a chance, we never know for sure, but looking at evidence when it comes to the electorate and campaigns, there can be educated guesses and analysts.

The reason is as I already said; I think most people are center right or center left. These are national elections not state or local were crazies can get away with it.

So basically, some liberals or some people that support conservatives can believe what they want, unless they have factual evidence to back up their assumptions, they are just bullshitting. Using "I feel" or " some random person(s) I know supports this X candiate " arguments doesn't mean jack.

 

[Jackson50]

Now that Jackson50 is back in poligaf, I'm gonna fess up about Libya. Jackson50 and PD were correct in the sense that we should not have deposed Col. Qaddhafi. I remember arguing vehemently especially with Jackson50 on the merits of UN led intervention, citing Just Cause and other stuff. Shit is not good. Libya has descended into chaos and probably gonna head the path of Somalia.

That was one of my fears, and it came true unfortunately. It is nigh impossible to construct a functional state, let alone a democracy, in a chaotic, ravaged environment. And the consequences for the broader region, which I also noted, have been deleterious. Transnational networks have dispersed throughout the region at an alarming rate. I sympathize with your position though. It's uncomfortable to admit that my preference would have benefited an autocrat. I would have supported a limited intervention to stop a humanitarian crisis in Benghazi, but I thought regime change was a mistake.

But some progressives feel that he could win based on his beliefs. For example, Mitt was the "most electable" like McCain and they lost. Well conservatives say if we elect the "true conservative", "we can win". How much is that really a reality? Can both parties run a Warren Vs Bush or a Hillary Vs Cruz and have a chance?

Its very interesting and hard to contemplate. Sanders supporters believe he could win and the assumptions that he cant are just that, assumptions. If the Dems nominate a Sanders, he can win according to them. Party elites on either sides disagree heavily.

tdlr; what makes hard left and hard right bad in a general election?

The median voter theorem asserts that in a majoritarian system where voters can place candidates along a one-dimensional political spectrum, that the most successful strategy is to appeal to the median voter. Consider the graph on Wikipedia that moving from the center reduces the appeal of the candidate to a broader pool of voters. The closer a candidate is to you, the stronger their appeal. Thus, candidates near the center automatically win the support of voters to their extreme, but they also appeal more to centrists and conservatives. Consider a moderate Democratic candidate. A hard left voter will automatically choose the moderate Democrat over the Republican because they are closer to to the Democrat. The Moderate Democrat automatically wins their support. But by virtue of being closer to the center, the moderate Democrat also appeals more to centrists and conservatives. Thus, a hard left candidate might appeal more to hard left voters, but they also weaken their appeal to moderates and conservatives. So moderates ostensibly can attract more voters than extremist candidates by appealing to a larger pool of potential voters.

 

[NeoXChaos]

IMHO 'beliefs' only go so far you need a lot more stuff to back up your campaign you need charisma, a good campaign team, tons of money, lots of influence to get endorsements, donors, donations; and more, I bet there been plenty of people that think we need "true X" , but those people either don't do well in polls or not as well as the moderate candidate and the true X loses primaries to the point the moderate guy( or whomever is deemed electable to win) gets the nominee .

I think usually people are going to choose who is most likely to win. Plus if the candidate can get away with more further to the left or right views( like what Hillary can) they can do and most likely people will vote for them. In Hillary's case, she supports issues that many Americans already agree with and if she needs to she can probably get some liberals on her side if she plays her cards right. Bernie is far far behind Hillary regardless of what excuse, to think that suddenly she lose like dozens of points and which most of that goes to Sanders is crazy. IMHO, some liberals are just idealistic. Some cite that Hillary was sure to win in 2008, but I think some people here have evidence that it was closer than what some thought. I think Hillary's support is unprecedented is what one article said, or perhaps I read wrong.

We all assume who as a chance, we never know for sure, but looking at evidence when it comes to the electorate and campaigns, there can be educated guesses and analysts.

The reason is as I already said; I think most people are center right or center left. These are national elections not state or local were crazies can get away with it.

So basically, some liberals or some people that support conservatives can believe what they want, unless they have factual evidence to back up their assumptions, they are just bullshitting. Using "I feel" or " some random person(s) I know supports this X candiate " arguments doesn't mean jack.

I suppose Goldwater, McGovern & Dukakis would be examples of the hard left and right. I dont know much about Mondale. Any Democrat posisbly would have been trounced by Reagan.

Gone are the days of 400+ electoral vote landslides.

 

[HylianTom]

I love that Hillary's logo is going to essentially be a Google doodle for the next 18 months. Clever idea for some soft online coverage.

 

[RustyNails]

Sanders would never win a Democratic primary. The party would never allow that to happen. If somehow Clinton totally imploded or died then other candidates like Biden or Gillibrand or Kerry or even Gore would be drafted in immediately.

The right wing and the media in general has dukakised Gore to hell and back. There is no plausible path for Gore in politics.

 

[Tamanon]

Sanders won't run for President as an Independent. He knows that he can get his message out in the Dem primaries without running the risk of taking a few percentage points away from the D candidate in the general which might actually change things for the worse.

 

[Aureon]

The median voter theorem asserts that in a majoritarian system where voters can place candidates along a one-dimensional political spectrum, that the most successful strategy is to appeal to the median voter. Consider the graph on Wikipedia that moving from the center reduces the appeal of the candidate to a broader pool of voters. The closer a candidate is to you, the stronger their appeal. Thus, candidates near the center automatically win the support of voters to their extreme, but they also appeal more to centrists and conservatives. Consider a moderate Democratic candidate. A hard left voter will automatically choose the moderate Democrat over the Republican because they are closer to to the Democrat. The Moderate Democrat automatically wins their support. But by virtue of being closer to the center, the moderate Democrat also appeals more to centrists and conservatives. Thus, a hard left candidate might appeal more to hard left voters, but they also weaken their appeal to moderates and conservatives. So moderates ostensibly can attract more voters than extremist candidates by appealing to a larger pool of potential voters.

While i'm not arguing (in general) against the Median Voter Theorem, a pretty large addendum has to be made for the USA:
* "Not considering voter turnout".
Society at large is increasingly disenfranchised from politics, and (As the Tea Party 2010 win handily demonstrates) 'strong' support is worth more than 'weak' support, due to the threshold of it needed to get the voter to show up at the polls.

The effect is easily seen by comparing olympics-years elections with off-years, where the threshold of support\interest is lower, and thereby the less cohesive party (Dems) fares a lot worse.

(Not that i think that Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell to win a general election in the USA, but i also don't think that's an artifact of the voting system)

 

[BertramCooper]

I love that Hillary's logo is going to essentially be a Google doodle for the next 18 months. Clever idea for some soft online coverage.

This is why the initial bashing of her logo was dumb and shortsighted.

Seemed pretty obvious (to me, at least) that we were going to see about a billion different variations of it throughout the campaign and that the logo was very well-suited for this sort of thing.

Rand Paul probably has the best logo of the GOP candidates and not even his logo has this sort of versatility.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Clinton gave a great speech today. She's running to the left of Obama.

 

[Abinash117]

Here's the speech .

 

[ivysaur12]

Here's the speech .

Hillary!

EDIT: How far we've come since The Third Way: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...lking-up-tough?utm_term=.nxZXaYYLr#.lk11G522k

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Wednesday for ending “the era of mass incarceration.” Clinton’s remarks, as noted by many in the media, specifically reject the “tough-on-crime” mantra and legislation advocated by her husband during his time as president.

The shift in rhetoric and policy around criminal justice issues has been significant over the last two decades. In fact, 21 years ago, Hillary Clinton as first lady spoke to a conference for female police officers where he pushed her husband’s agenda in New York.

At the time, Clinton said the 1994 crime bill — which called for 100,000 more police officers, more prisons, and harsher sentencing for crimes, and enacted stricter gun laws — would “make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.”

“We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door,” remarked the then-first lady.

Clinton also noted that the crime bill would help build more prisons.

“We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons,” she said. “It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.”

 

[Coriolanus]

Well. I'll be. That's one crow that i'm more than glad to eat.

 

[BertramCooper]

Clinton gave a great speech today. She's running to the left of Obama.

Domestically, I think Hillary probably will end up being a more progressive president than people expect, simply because there's a growing appetite for progressive policies. I think recent state ballot initiatives bear that out.

Bill and Hillary, for better or worse, are shrewd opportunists. Bill tapped into the politics of his era and I think Hillary will as well.

 

[Jackson50]

While i'm not arguing (in general) against the Median Voter Theorem, a pretty large addendum has to be made for the USA:
* "Not considering voter turnout".
Society at large is increasingly disenfranchised from politics, and (As the Tea Party 2010 win handily demonstrates) 'strong' support is worth more than 'weak' support, due to the threshold of it needed to get the voter to show up at the polls.

The effect is easily seen by comparing olympics-years elections with off-years, where the threshold of support\interest is lower, and thereby the less cohesive party (Dems) fares a lot worse.

(Not that i think that Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell to win a general election in the USA, but i also don't think that's an artifact of the voting system)

True. There is more complexity to the theory. I don't entirely agree with your addendum though I am open to it. It's true that strong support is worth more because strong partisans typically have higher turnout. But do more partisan candidates motivate strong partisan voters? And is that sufficient to offset a loss of support among other voters? Voting behavior is not my field, so that might be true. But Gelman has found that moderate Congressional candidates typically have a slight electoral advantage over more partisan candidates, so there seems to be some truth to the median voter even if the effect is weak. Nevertheless, it is a precarious balance. The candidate has to avoid alienating other voters, but they also have to distinguish themselves from their opponent. Where turnout might have a pronounced effect is on the location of the median voter. Bartels and others have demonstrated this.

I suppose Goldwater, McGovern & Dukakis would be examples of the hard left and right. I dont know much about Mondale. Any Democrat posisbly would have been trounced by Reagan.

Gone are the days of 400+ electoral vote landslides.

Don't forget Reagan. He was considered a strong ideologue, but he still won a majority. Ideologues can win given the right circumstances. Since you mentioned Reagan, consider the economy in 1980. Annual inflation was over 13%, and the job market tanked. Any Republican would have defeated Carter.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I wouldn't consider Obama too far to the left, but he's certainly perceived as being so - and he's probably the most liberal president the U.S. could have elected in 2008.

The 2016 candidate could probably stand to be a bit more to the left especially on social issues like gay marriage and marijuana. After all Obama 2012 was in favor of gay marriage whereas Obama 2008 wasn't.

 

[Wilsongt]

Christians are above the law, apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/

“We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”

And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

 

[Coriolanus]

After all Obama 2012 was in favor of gay marriage whereas Obama 2008 wasn't.

Still hold that only reason '12 Bams openly came out for gay marriage was because Biden forced him to.

 

[Wilsongt]

Also, an anti-gay Republican was outed after sending nudes on Grindr.

 

[B-Dubs]

Also, an anti-gay Republican was outed after sending nudes on Grindr.

The website keeping track of this stuff is going to have to reset that counter again.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Christians are above the law, apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

 

[Grexeno]

Christians are above the law, apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...supreme-court/

I would LOVE to see them try.

 

[Snake]

Still hold that only reason '12 Bams openly came out for gay marriage was because Biden forced him to.

Well you'd be wrong then, since it was well-known that they were going to make gay marriage officially part of the Democratic Party platform at the 2012 DNC, with Obama coming out officially in support of it slightly ahead of that.

Biden just caused it to happen a few months early.

 

[B-Dubs]

Still hold that only reason '12 Bams openly came out for gay marriage was because Biden forced him to.

They were coming out with it anyway, the plan was for a big announcement. Probably a big speech and a whole thing, Biden just jumped the gun. If he hadn't said anything we would have found out in September.

 

[Jackson50]

Christians are above the law, apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/

I don't doubt their sincerity. I know the conservative Christian mind intimately. They truly believe God is going to fuck our country up if we accept gay marriage. It's going to be the American version of Sodom and Gomorrah. 9/11, Katrina, the Oklahoma City bombings, HIV...simultaneously and on an unprecedented scale. God is going to unleash holy hell on us.

 

[Wilsongt]

I don't doubt their sincerity. I know the conservative Christian mind intimately. They truly believe God is going to fuck our country up if we accept gay marriage. It's going to be the American version of Sodom and Gomorrah. 9/11, Katrina, the Oklahoma City bombings, HIV...simultaneously and on an unprecedented scale. God is going to unleash holy hell on us.

Shouldn't he have done that the last 35 times gay marriage was accepted?

 

[BertramCooper]

Christians are above the law, apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/

What a bunch of thugs.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Cruz and Rubio loading up with Iowa GOP activists/chairs.
https://www.facebook.com/StevenDeace/posts/10204065455181650?notif_t=like

I know Deace doesn't like Rand Paul which could lead to a biased view, but I've been interested in his dismissal of Rand's chances in Iowa. I've long assumed Rand would outright win the caucus. That being said, the Iowa GOP has purged most of the Paul folks out of the caucus' committee over the last couple years.

 

[Jackson50]

Shouldn't he have done that the last 35 times gay marriage was accepted?

No, because they still oppose it. You have to understand the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They believe its destruction was a factual event. They believe it was caused by their acceptance of homosexuality. But God also promised Abraham that he would spare the cities if Abraham could find ten righteous people. They believe they are the righteous people, and only they stand between America and judgement.

 

[Fenderputty]

How does one not recognize the ruling? How does that manifest through peaceful protest.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Louisiana Medicaid expansion effort dies again in House, Senate panels

http://theadvocate.com/news/12236102-123/medicaid-expansion-effort-dies-again

Legislative panels Wednesday killed yet another effort to allow Medicaid expansion in Louisiana.

It marks the third straight year Medicaid expansion efforts by Democratic legislators have died at the hands of their Republican colleagues.

The Senate’s Health and Welfare Committee voted 5-3 against the legislation which would have provided health insurance to upwards of 240,000 Louisiana residents.

 

[Wilsongt]

Louisiana Medicaid expansion effort dies again in House, Senate panels

http://theadvocate.com/news/12236102-123/medicaid-expansion-effort-dies-again

It died in South Carolina, also.

Fuck Republicans.

 

[Teggy]

How does one not recognize the ruling? How does that manifest through peaceful protest.

I was wondering this myself. The only thing I could come up with is blocking the entrances to city hall where they give out marriage licenses.

 

[Teggy]

Hey, any of you guys in Texas? Make sure to get stocked up, martial law is coming.

 

[thepotatoman]

How does one not recognize the ruling? How does that manifest through peaceful protest.

Pastors who are licensed to marry people refusing to marry gay couples, and county clerks refusing to give gay couples marriage certificates would be what I'd think of.

They invoke MLK, but it'd probably be easier for them to look to protests about interracial marriage becoming a thing to see what a protest like that would look like.

 

[Black Mamba]

Ted Cruz literally making up stats and lying about the 2008 recession by claiming Obama is the cause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...to-accuse-barack-obama-of-being-jimmy-carter/

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Hey, any of you guys in Texas? Make sure to get stocked up, martial law is coming.

Which is funny, because Texas is supposed to be the last free place to live once the government goes full communist.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Tom cotton being a war monger/idiot on twitter today. Otherwise known as Wednesday.

 

[Teggy]

Ted Cruz literally making up stats and lying about the 2008 recession by claiming Obama is the cause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...to-accuse-barack-obama-of-being-jimmy-carter/

Grrr. Pure snake oil salesman. I tried to explain to my dad how bad he was during the net neutrality dustup, but no, said dad, he's just "idealogical". Oh, and of course that he's really smart because he went to Harvard and Princeton.

 

[Wilsongt]

Cartoon villains.

Some Republicans argue that birthright citizenship incentivizes unauthorized immigration and birth tourism. They add that the 14th Amendment, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," has been misinterpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) have both introduced bills this year to end birthright citizenship, but neither has gone for a vote.

Even if those bills never get a vote -- and they likely won't -- the fact that the issue got a hearing at all provided fuel for Democrats, who were fiery in their defense of the right for babies born on U.S. soil to be citizens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...ship_n_7174686.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[NeoXChaos]

Cartoon villains.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...ship_n_7174686.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Vitter will be gone from the Senate in about 8 months anyway so its nothing to worry.

 

[ivysaur12]

My intense Libertarian friend is so excited that Bernie Sanders is running for president. I don't think she understands what Libertarianism is.

 

[Coriolanus]

Well you'd be wrong then, since it was well-known that they were going to make gay marriage officially part of the Democratic Party platform at the 2012 DNC, with Obama coming out officially in support of it slightly ahead of that.

Biden just caused it to happen a few months early.

They were coming out with it anyway, the plan was for a big announcement. Probably a big speech and a whole thing, Biden just jumped the gun. If he hadn't said anything we would have found out in September.

If you say so.

My intense Libertarian friend is so excited that Bernie Sanders is running for president. I don't think she understands what Libertarianism is.

Maybe she saw the way Rand tends to vote.