It really comes down to 8 years with a democratic president + him being black that's getting the votes. Bush managed to do it in 2000 and still lost the popular vote.
-
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.
April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
It really comes down to 8 years with a democratic president + him being black that's getting the votes. Bush managed to do it in 2000 and still lost the popular vote.
Just saw this shared on Facebook. What would happen if Bernie ran as an independent in November.
Cute. They think Bernie would win the states where he got spanked HARD.
Ugh. I want this all to be over. I am tired of seeing the shit and people ignoring the numbers.
That's just ... wow. Just wow.
If Bernie ran independent and got any sort of meaningful support, this is more or less what the map would look like;
Florida is actually super close, if Bernie stole support from Hillary there Trump would easily win it.
Bernie needs to end his campaign like this...
perfect
I'm excited to see what happens in California because it's such a huge crutch for them to win the nomination.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Just saw this shared on Facebook. What would happen if Bernie ran as an independent in November.
Cute. They think Bernie would win the states where he got spanked HARD.
Ugh. I want this all to be over. I am tired of seeing the shit and people ignoring the numbers.
This map is somewhat old, so whoever made it was being optimistic in projecting Bernie to win states like New York which hadn't voted at the time. It still projected Bernie to win several states that already had gone for Hillary (e.g. Iowa). The version I first saw was accompanied by text explaining that he would win those states because of, and I quote, "retroactive momentum."
This covers off some points that I, as an outside observer, agree with completely:
Heres the Thing So Many Americans Cant Grasp About Bernie Sanders
Fully expect it to get shouted down or argued against. I just hope at least some people here can read it and understand the perspective of people who can't influence the election in any meaningful way, but are in a lot of cases more interested than those who can.
Heres the Thing So Many Americans Cant Grasp About Bernie Sanders
Fully expect it to get shouted down or argued against. I just hope at least some people here can read it and understand the perspective of people who can't influence the election in any meaningful way, but are in a lot of cases more interested than those who can.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
omg.
Lazy attempt but that map reminded me of this.
So 39 for Trump from Penn from the 54. If you use this (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/can-you-get-trump-to-1237/)
That easily puts him above what he needs.
Holy shit, I think I love you.Bernie needs to end his campaign like this...
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Perfect
Lazy attempt but that map reminded me of this.
excelsiorlef
Member
Who is the author arguing against?
Also, not a big fan of military spending but this:
I guess Pearl Harbor never fucking happened lol.
Who is has attacked Sanders and called him a communist?
And this is so hilarious and tone deaf, and completely ignores the history of colonization.
I mean honestly who the fuck is this author actually talking to, other than a straw-man American?
Also not a good idea to open up your argument with does it really matter if he can pay for his plans and then conclude nah it doesn't.
I mean two can play this liberalier than thou card, author lives in Australia, a country that hasn't legalized same-sex marriage yet and has just as patchy abortion laws, for example.
Also I wouldn't be tossing out accusations of caring more about the election than those who can influence the election, given that Sanders primary demographic despite being the largest overall age demographic, is the demographic that is least likely to vote.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Hillaryis44 was/is run by some troll who didn't even support Clinton. It's now a pro-Trump site.
j_k_redtail
Member
No, they really don't. Bernie Sanders' weakness isn't ideology - it's the fact that he has not demonstrated himself to be a savvy enough politician to accomplish what he intends.
One thing that gets lost pretty often on this board is that a Clinton or Sanders presidency would actually be pretty similar. Neither would be able to pass meaningful reform through a Republican congress. I laughed at the idea that Bernie could bring in either free college or repeal Glass-Steagal or literally any of his agenda. To me this race is about practicalities and not ideology. Even if I prefer Sanders plan, which I mostly do he would amount to a do-nothing president anyway.
Clinton has the best chance of securing a Democrat in the White House as well as Democrats in congress, so she is the better option.
excelsiorlef
Member
Exactly. The article comes across like the author thinks all Clinton supporters are right wing republicans.
Bernie needs to end his campaign like this...
lmao. awesome.
This article hits many great points, albeit somewhat sensationalised. Of course, as you rightly said, I also fully expect it will get criticised and ridiculed to hell and back, with more insular rebuttals. I'd imagine many also think the author just doesn't understand how things in America work, and that the same rules simply don't apply.
The next line and accompanying paragraph are so true though. I'd argue the bulk of arguments I've heard against Bernie over the months has been that his policies are simply too leftist, too idealistic and don't stand a chance at getting through. That he's unelectable, that he'd lose against Trump and that his socialist leanings would make him a massive target. The Author touches on many of these things.
Also love his points on the military spending, because you can't afford public healthcare even with higher taxes, but you can afford $660 billion a year on military budgets, or just under 20% of the entire annual federal tax budget. He also made some great points on opportunity, social security, the class and wealth inequality divide etc.
Beer Monkey
Member
Could Germany pay for free college if as high of a percentage of their population attended college as ours does?
GoldenEye 007
Member
These bills and laws getting passed across the country.... Simply magnifies the importance of getting downticket Dem support as much as possible. I hope ultimately Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC can properly align on this focus.
GOP leaders are disgusting and borderline inhuman. I'm struggling to find less inflammatory ways to describe that, but I'm struggling.
GOP leaders are disgusting and borderline inhuman. I'm struggling to find less inflammatory ways to describe that, but I'm struggling.
excelsiorlef
Member
That's the other thing the US is 300 million + people.
GillianSeed79
Member
There's no way in fuck Bernie would win WV unless he was handing out assault rifles at the polls. Obama almost lost the last primary there as a sitting president to a federal inmate. All Bernie would do is split the vote on the left and hand Trump the white house
Free college, especially in the United States but in most countries is an expensive pipe dream. What's funny is despite the article being from Australia we don't even have it. It was abandoned in the eighties after it got to expensive and was replaced by a combination of capped fees, subsidies and zero interest loans which are payed back at a certain income threshold which in my view is the way to go.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
And the problem of the reality being that not everyone should go to college. Not exactly the most popular thing to state publically in a campaign, but it's true.
"So many Americans"
Pretty sure you've missed the point if all you get is an "America vs. everywhere else" argument out of that article.
I agree on it being too sensationalised. If he'd left out the whole Marxist/communism thing it probably would've been easier to stomach.
Appreciate the input on this though, folks. As an outsider it can be hard to grasp many of the things being put forward in this thread and others, but I think this article pretty much covers what how Sanders supporters outside of the US feel about the whole situation.
I also have to wonder if the online/social media support of him owes more to international perspectives where his ideals are seen as more core and attainable and less is really known about how the "system" works in detail. I personally know quite a number of people who could probably fit into that category, and it would also explain why he seems to do so well in public, open polls that don't translate to actual votes.
Cheers!
Edit:
Is Sanders for free college (as in, our equivalent of university) or just free education up to year 12? I was under the impression that free education in the US refers to all years through to high school and not beyond that.
I actually had to refer to this. How sad.
Box of Kittens
Banned
First of all, I hope this reply doesn't come across as an attempt to shout you down. It is offered in the spirit of discussion and mutual understanding. I appreciate it when people offer their perspective, and I wish to share my perspective as an American who follows politics closely and finds articles like this deeply frustrating.
The opinions expressed by the author are ones I hear fairly commonly from outside observers commenting on this election. While the author does make some salient points (in particular how the safety net and laws protecting employees are typically and shamefully weaker in the US than in other developed countries) the overall premise of the article is both misguided and condescending.
The basic mistake made by the author is to assume that a lack of support for Bernie Sanders necessarily means a lack of support for his goals, either from an ideological opposition to those goals, or a belief that they can't be achieved. The truth is far more complicated. The reasons why one might prefer another candidate over Bernie Sanders vary a lot from person to person.
A major reason why I find outside observers lecturing Americans about politics to be so often condescending is because the people who do so rarely understand how American politics work. American politics are very complex and, quite frankly, even most Americans have significant misunderstandings about the process. I could go on and on about how our government was designed in the 18th century with only piecemeal changes over time, but I want to emphasize one point in particular, one which is a major factor in my decision to support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The United States is a federal republic with strict separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. This severely limits the powers of the president because, first, much policy is actually made at the state level rather than the federal level and, second, the president cannot enact any laws without them passing through Congress first. Therefore an important part of being the president is building relationships and alliances within Congress to get the bills you want passed. Sanders has, throughout his career, done much less on this front than Clinton has. When asked how he will get his plans through Congress, his answers have been quite unsatisfactory. In short, he has no political plan to enact any of his agenda.
The truth is that Clinton and Sanders share a great many policy goals, and indeed their voting record while they were both in the Senate was largely similar. Both support expanding access to health care, federal paid family leave, increasing the minimum wage, campaign finance reform, and a host of other goals. To the extent their are differences, they come from legitimate differences of opinion on how far we should go (e.g. $12/hour vs. $15/hour minimum wage) or because Clinton's plan takes into account the political situation better than Sanders's plan (e.g. working towards universal health care within the framework of Obamacare vs. immediately implementing single payer at the federal level). Another reason Clinton appeals to me more than Sanders is that her plans are generally more fleshed out and I see her as having a much stronger command of policy than Sanders, as well as being a more effective politician.
There's much more that I could go into here, such as the absurdity of saying Donald Trump would be off the political scale at a time when the far right is prominent in Europe, but this post is probably too long as it is. I would be happy to discuss any of the points I made in greater detail if you so desire.
We also have universal health care, but not single payer healthcare.
Bernie needs to end his campaign like this...
Lazy attempt but that map reminded me of this.
LMAO
That we do, but I brought up free college because it was mentioned in the article.
excelsiorlef
Member
So by so many Americans you mean a strawman gotchya.
Considering the article is based on look what we have and you don't, pretty sure that's exactly what the article is about
Wait... wait do you think High School isn't free in the US? Because if so you cannot claim to care more about this election than actual Americans do.
Also noticed you ignored the fact that a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters have the same impact on the election as you do (that is to say none) because they don't vote.
ShironRedshift
Member
Agreed, and it's unfortunate that this point isn't addressed more. In addition, university's not even an efficient way to prepare or train people for careers due to that not being their original purpose, which is why I'm required to get 124 credits for my B.S. even though like only half of those having anything due to my major, due to the arbitrary minimum number of credits, gen-ed and other university-required-regardless-of-major classes, etc. I mean, I definitely love a lot of the electives I've taken like my cultural anthropology classes and I'm glad I took them, but they still have nothing to do with my psychology major at all and it's still an extremely inefficient, wasteful system that shouldn't be pushed as a one-size fits all approach at all. If universities really are to become about just career prep, there should at least be an option to drop that stuff and just focus on the stuff that actually prepares people for their future occupations to save everyone some time and money, but those don't really exist (outside of diploma mill nonsense) since that's just not the purpose of universities and would mean less money coming in.
I mean, personally, in a perfect world, I'd of course love for universities to be completely open to anyone and everyone should be able to get as many degrees as they want because education should be a fundamental right and shouldn't be locked to an institution only some are able to afford. Just in the classes I've been fortunate enough to take, I've learned so much about the world and I definitely feel that everyone should ideally be able to have access to the information and understanding of the world that can be gained from attending such institutions, and it shouldn't be limited to people such as myself who have been fortunate enough to be able to attend and such open access to education would only be a net positive for us all.
But that's in a perfect world, whereas as things currently stand there would be no way that would be fiscally feasible at all and has nothing to do with their increasing use to prepare people for various careers, which they are definitely an inefficient and wasteful approach to the problem to begin with and that aside, as you said, college isn't a one-size-fits-all approach and that completely neglects alternative options such as trades, which are just ignored and undervalued too much period and too often treated as an afterthought if they get brought up at all instead of making sure that young adults options are as open as possible after high school.
Of course, this isn't to say that universities aren't also important and shouldn't be reformed and improved--they definitely are important, and they definitely should continue to be improved and better funded and be made more accessible. But they're definitely not the be-all, end-all answer, with plenty of alternatives also available that sadly don't get anywhere near as much discussion as they should since so much focus is currently placed on 4-year degrees.
I fail to see why I shouldn't "shout down" an article that begins by constructing a massive straw man in the very first paragraph and proceeds to wax poetical on the same theme with no substance for an additional five or six.
There was nothing insightful on that for anyone that's read beyond Youtube comments on the policies of the different candidates.
If you think the left in the US has preferred Clinton over Sanders because he was demonized as a Marxist, you haven't paid an ounce of attention to the primaries.
There was nothing insightful on that for anyone that's read beyond Youtube comments on the policies of the different candidates.
If you think the left in the US has preferred Clinton over Sanders because he was demonized as a Marxist, you haven't paid an ounce of attention to the primaries.
If Bernie went third party, Trump probably would win Florida and many other states
eBay Huckster
Member
He's for free university; we already have free K-12 in all 50 states, though YMMV on the quality of public school systems (especially relative to private schools and especially in big cities)
Thank you, that's a fantastic post! I'm now actually more sympathetic to the people here who weren't able to take the time (or patience) to respond in such a well thought out manner. Sincere apologies to those here who were frustrated by the piece, I'm sure if something similar were posted here (or anywhere else, for that matter) regarding Australian politics I would not have been able to keep my composure either.
Is there anywhere in particular you learned about your insight, or is it just a fascination? If there were a dummies guide for US politics, I'd sure love to read it.
Edit: After reading this post I'm not necessarily changing my opinion on annoying posts outright dismissing supporters of one Democratic runner over another ("yas queen", "bernie bros", release the transcripts etc.), I'm definitely more sympathetic to people who lean on either side. An honest thank you!
PS. If you feel like elaborating on anything you wrote, absolutely go right ahead. But only if you enjoy writing and don't find it too much of a chore! Don't ask me to find anything specific though, pretty sure I just want to know more about everything
Once nerves have calmed down from these primaries, it would be fruitful to have a discussion on why tackling the level and prevalence of debt and driving down costs of education should not be a priority over free college.
Why is a lower income post-graduation due to higher taxes inherently preferable to a lower income due to monthly payments towards restructured, income-specific, and reasonable tuition debt?
Why is a lower income post-graduation due to higher taxes inherently preferable to a lower income due to monthly payments towards restructured, income-specific, and reasonable tuition debt?
I'd also be curious on the impact of having compulsory voting in the US. I can only assume there are some less significant (such as council) elections that may be mandatory, but a nationwide one, as well as conducting them on weekends and allowing for absentee votes I can only see as being a good thing.
Is there ever much debate about voter turnout and compulsory voting? Does it normally happen around the time of elections (specifically when it would favour one candidate over the other, I guess) or has there been actual, productive discussion outside of those times?
Is there ever much debate about voter turnout and compulsory voting? Does it normally happen around the time of elections (specifically when it would favour one candidate over the other, I guess) or has there been actual, productive discussion outside of those times?
Box of Kittens
Banned
Thank you, that's a fantastic post! I'm now actually more sympathetic to the people here who weren't able to take the time (or patience) to respond in such a well thought out manner. Sincere apologies to those here who were frustrated by the piece, I'm sure if something similar were posted here (or anywhere else, for that matter) regarding Australian politics I would not have been able to keep my composure either.
Is there anywhere in particular you learned about your insight, or is it just a fascination? If there were a dummies guide for US politics, I'd sure love to read it.
Edit: After reading this post I'm not necessarily changing my opinion on annoying posts outright dismissing supporters of one Democratic runner over another ("yas queen", "bernie bros", release the transcripts etc.), I'm definitely more sympathetic to people who lean on either side. An honest thank you!
PS. If you feel like elaborating on anything you wrote, absolutely go right ahead. But only if you enjoy writing and don't find it too much of a chore! Don't ask me to find anything specific though, pretty sure I just want to know more about everything
I'm glad you liked it! I can certainly understand why a lot of outside observers like Sanders so much (honestly, even though didn't vote for him in my state's primary, I like him myself) and I also get why it seems so strange when people say Bernie is being unrealistic when he proposes something that exists in their country. The thing is it can often be unclear what someone means when they question whether a proposal is realistic.
It's hard for me to say exactly where my knowledge of US politics comes from because there's many sources. Some just comes naturally from voting in and following elections, some from classes that I took (oddly enough, I gained a lot of insight into US politics from a comparative politics course I took in college, in that having a better understanding of foreign politics made me think of aspects of the US system I hadn't considered much), and some comes from reading about politics and history a lot. I'm not sure if I can think of a good primer on US politics off the top of my head, but if I remember one I'll try to let you know.
US politics can be tough to follow partly because it is so convoluted. Just to scratch the surface here, our method of indirectly electing the president is bizarre. In reality what we call "the presidential election" is really 51 separate elections to elect a body, the Electoral College, whose purpose is to elect the president, one for each state plus Washington D.C. Each state conducts the election according to its own rules (when you can vote, the method by which you vote, requirements to be a voter, etc.). Also, states with greater populations are allocated more votes in the Electoral College, but not in direct proportion to population (essentially, states with smaller populations are somewhat overweighted). The provision for electing the president if no one receives a majority in the Electoral College (which, thankfully, hasn't happened since 1824) is even stranger (a second vote is taken in Congress in which each state, regardless of population, gets one vote). If your eyes are glazing over at this point, I don't blame you. Even most Americans are, at best, dimly aware of the details of this system. It made sense to the people who designed it back in the 1780s, but try to describe it now and you really have to wonder why it hasn't been changed.
And, don't worry, I enjoy writing about this stuff. My concern is often that no one will read what I write because I can be a bit long winded at times (you may have noticed).
I'm not aware of any places in the US where voting is mandatory, though apparently Georgia had compulsory voting at one time in the 19th century. It gets talked about occasionally (and Obama has spoken positively of the idea) but it seems unlikely to be implemented any time soon.
Voter turnout can be a politically charged issue here, in that Republicans generally benefit from lower turnout. Basically, Republican voters tend turn out more reliably for a variety of reasons. This leads to a situation where Democrats generally advocate policies that make voting easier (e.g. early and absentee voting) while Republicans generally advocate policies that make voting harder (e.g. strict voter ID laws). How easy or hard it can be to vote in a given state often depends on the party in power.
Looking at Trump reading from a teleprompter for that foreign policy speech hurts. The guy really can't sound even vaguely natural speaking in full grammatically correct sentences. I wonder how painful to watch he'll be when he really pivots in the GE.
Trump will never pivot, will he?
Trump will try to pivot but it'll never last more than a few hours. Being attacked constantly by Obama, Bill and every other big name Democrat nonstop for months is going to drive him insane.
He'll feel the need to respond to every insult and is going to stay some nasty stuff, i.e. calling Warren "the Indian."
He'll feel the need to respond to every insult and is going to stay some nasty stuff, i.e. calling Warren "the Indian."
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Nm. Already covered multiple times.
Bernie needs to end his campaign like this...
Beautiful.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
So did Trump exceed expectations so much that it's likely it's a voter reaction to the unholy alliance of Cruz/Kasich?
Hah, I didn't notice this before. Too appropriate.Bernie needs to end his campaign like this...
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Thank you for taking the time to post this. You managed to so eloquently summate some of the reasons that I - and others - plan to vote for Hillary, despite largely paralleling Bernie on an ideological front.
The majority of us share the same goals, regardless of whether we are voting for Hillary or Bernie, but I find the key reasons for our unfortunate disagreements to be compromise and patience. I am wholly sympathetic to my fellow voters who harbor an innate dissatisfaction for the current system and reluctance to continue on a path of gradualism with regard to reform. If Rome could be built in a day while eliminating any and all associated complications, that would be great, but that is not a possible reality, especially in America where even the smallest of reforms have been shown to be nigh insurmountable.
We aren't compromising and patient because we want to be - we are this way because we have to be. This is the nature of the beast that is the United States. Hell, this is the nature of human beings overall. We have to compromise to get anywhere in our lives, and very rarely can we pivot and refuse to budge while simultaneously acquiring the results we intend. Look no further than the current Congress, one comprised of unfaltering, uncompromising individuals who intend to forego any and all progress lest their ideological desires be fulfilled.
I implore any Bernie supporter to continue supporting and voting on his behalf up until the convention. It is your right to do so and you have my full support. But please do not abandon us come November by abstaining from voting or voting for Trump. To do so would be an antithesis to your progressive beliefs, should they be true. We aren't blind to some of Hillary's faults, but we also recognize greater positive implications of her presidency versus a Republican one.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Cruz got a pseudo-endorsement from Indiana Governor Mike Pence, i.e., Pence announced he is voting for Cruz but said voters should make up their own minds. Given that this endorsement is pretty tepid and Pence is a fairly divisive figure within the Indiana Republican Party (he's popular with religious conservatives, but not well-liked by business conservatives) I don't expect this to have much effect. The people who like Pence probably like Cruz already.
Abinash117
Member
Many Hillary supporters agree with Sanders on many issues, and I don't see were this myth that somehow they are Republican-lite or anything. Although, a great deal of Hillary are more conservative in their outlook. They might not necessary agree with Sanders on free college, but I guarantee that they want it to be more affordable somewhat.
Hillary pretty much worked on forming alliances and relationships to a wide ranging group of people that is why she has such a huge lead in the popular vote and superdelegates, that is absolutely needed when it comes to winning elections because otherwise like the other poster said, you can't get anything passed whatsoever in Congress if you don't have the confidence of the party to back you up. Some people think stuff like this is basically compromising because you have to consider many balance interests, but the system is built that way for a long time. Additionally, just because you compromise on something does not mean you can't make it progressive or get policies out that you prefer. I believe Hillary can do that, and I don't trust Bernie to be effective at doing anything of that, while I agree on some of his ideas.
Bernie is losing/lost because he did not form the alliances he needed to and his only really reliable support comes from liberal, and white-working class people. This people needed a voice and many thought that he was talking for them, but you can't rely on that you needed to have diverse group of people voting for you. Hillary Clinton done just that from the very beginning of her campaign. Some might see it has pandering, even if it was it clearly helped her immensely and those people trust her. But at the same time, Hillary has a hard time of appealing to many younger voters and parts of the white-working class, I hope she works on that more effectively.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, I especially agree with you on the bolded.
- Status