Ziltoidia 9
Member
Thats the thing tho, he could. Say if Trump gets nomination, Cruz drops the R brand and runs as a tea party member.
Then you have Trump/Cruz/Clinton or Sanders.
-
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.
Fox News Poll: Shakeup in GOP field after first debate, Sanders surges on Clinton
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
Thats the thing tho, he could. Say if Trump gets nomination, Cruz drops the R brand and runs as a tea party member.
Then you have Trump/Cruz/Clinton or Sanders.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Coulter knows Sanders is an easy win for them.
I thought that he looked like the sleaziest used car salesman ever when I saw him wink at the audience during his introduction.
And when you read about how he operates in Wisconsin, that isn't far from the truth.
Big Green Anus
Member
Yeah he looks really good for his age! He can easily pass as a 45 year old.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I really hope Americans are better at realizing the difference between a genuine debate and attack ads.
In my country, aggressive attack ads, smear campaigns and soap operas often backfire because it ends up saying more about the person doing the attacks than the receiver.
I'm not American and I don't understand why you are so upset about the label that has been put on him. I just hope that many Americans educate themselves on the internet. Critical thinking skills and doing your own research is important to being informed. I just don't see people being so naive. If there is a strong grassroot movement, they absolutely can change peoples deception.
If people don't elect Bernie Sanders now, I don't America will ever have a president again who is elected who is not bought by big money.
The most important thing Bernie Sanders have to do- Is overruling the citizen united ruling. A ruling we need overturned in many countries in Europe. In Italy, Berlusconi is a perfect example of this IMO being one of the biggest threats to democracy.
Secondly, Bernie has to facilitate at least a third party, but possible more, destroying the 2-party gridlock. Perhaps a big third party that can house progressive republicans as well as moderate democrats.
I think you're greatly overestimating what a president can do, if Sanders were president he can't just overrule a Supreme Court ruling, it's not that simple. And secondly, how would he make a viable third party? That also sounds like something that's far outside presidential powers.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The thing that baffles me is that people don't seem to understand that Bernie Sanders gaining on Hilary Clinton is incredibly predictable and mostly meaningless to what will actually happen in the primaries. Did anyone *really* believe there wasn't going to be any opposition whatsoever to Clinton getting the nod? It seems like there was always going to be some politician who was going to be the 2000s John McCain, 2004 John Edwards or 2008 Barack Obama.
Actually, in a roundabout way, that's exactly what the President does. The inexorable march of time makes it incredibly likely that one or more of the 5s in the 5-4 decision are going to die/be replaced within the next 4 or 8 years.
TheSecondSpitter
Member
I just want Brainless the Third to drop out so I can sleep a little better at night.
The steady and relatively quick gain is the news. Search this forum for threads on Bernie back in May or June and look at all the people being smug about Clinton having a 50 point lead on Sanders, and saying that he can't possibly catch up because it's too much ground to cover.
Now the conversation has shifted to "he can't catch up because he hit a ceiling, which is whatever he's at right now."
Well yeah, the President will pick Supreme Court nominees, but the President him or herself can't just wave away Court rulings they don't like, also Hillary and Sanders would likely both pick liberal judges who are against Citizens United anyway.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't think that is surprising in any real way either.
And it works both ways in any case: there are lots and lots of Sanders supporters going on and on about Sanders being the new 2008 Obama, except its not even debatable that Obama was a better candidate than Sanders was by virtually every metric.
Something like 95% of the positions Sanders and Clinton take are the same to begin with. I'm legitimately don't understand what the political goals are of the people who claim they would vote third party over Clinton if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. Most of the difference between the two politically is in people's heads.
The gain up to 30% nationally is certainly beyond what some people on here were willing to admit was possible by mid-August.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
No offense, but I find it highly unlikely that specific question was ever even brought up.
They don't have to specifically say it to doubt it in their heads, and it's pretty obvious from their smugness that they didn't think he could do this much. Look at the numbers they posted and claimed he couldn't catch up. Then look at the ground he's covered. He has covered more by this time than what would be allowed under their claims that he would not get there in the end.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Fair enough, but I assume, just like Obama had to press for Obamacare no matter what happened, if the president keeps fighting for it, he must be able to repeatedly try to punch it through.
It's ironic that people who don't want to jump on the BernTrain are simultaneously arguing "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" while arguing that if Bernie can't get everything he wants done during his presidency, then it's not worth electing him to fire the first shots of the war. Take your own advice and realize that you have to put up someone willing to start the fight if you ever want to win the fight. Just because the person starting it won't likely be the one crossing the finish line doesn't mean you should just go with someone who won't actually fight for it at all.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
If the choice was between Sanders and [GOP Candidate] I'd vote for him, but I just don't like him as much as Clinton.
Team Alucard
Banned
Their platforms are very similar on paper, the difference is that people believe Sanders is actually sincere while Clinton is a fake.
At least you like Clinton more. The people who like Sanders more but think Clinton is more electable are spineless and don't have as strong standards as they think they do, especially considering how pitiful the Republican options are if Bush or Kaisich don't win the nom.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
It scares me. A Republican president who is in denial about climate change is... It's almost unbelievable that this is an actual possibility.
RustyNails
Member
I'm not willing to put up a weak general election candidate like Bernie and risk all the major progressive accomplishments over the past 8 years all because "start teh fight!!". This is how democrats lose elections and give the oval office back to GOP troglodytes.
not to mention Democrats pulling it off is going to be historic since they have not done so in the modern era. The last time they did it was through FDR and that was in 1940. Don't also underestimate the chance to make history again with the first female president. I don't want to see the party fall short again like in 2000 where we were left with W.
https://www.periscope.tv/w/aKJYmjU2NzMxMHw2MzcxNjkyMZOfKyVx0bS5g-6NtkkckFJFjC3dwTpgh-uCuaiF1JWm
Sanders is speaking at a fundraising event in Chicago right now .. Dude is so on point it isn't even funny.
The comments make me weep for this country.
Sanders is speaking at a fundraising event in Chicago right now .. Dude is so on point it isn't even funny.
The comments make me weep for this country.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
If in 6 months, Hilary is still going strong I can't see taking the risk with Bernie considering the Supreme Court alone.
We could be fucked over for DECADES with that alone.
Yup.
John Paul Stevens served from 1975 until 2010.
Whomever we elect is going to be gone in a very fast 4 or 8 years. 35 years is an entirely different kind of mistake to make.
Imagine the GOP winning 2016 and replacing Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia.
And then the Democrats sweep 2020 and 2024 and start passing godly Bernie-tier progressive legislation.
Then this legislation is challenged.
And SCOTUS nixes it.. year after year after year.
Vote for whomever you like in the primaries.. that's fantastic. But I seriously question the political literacy of any swing state self-proclaimed progressives who are willing to throw a voting booth temper tantrum if they don't get the nominee of their choice.
People are emotional and illogical. You can ca them stupid and politically illiterate, and you wouldn't be wrong. But if you'd rather they come out and vote for Hillary in the general, the right approach could involve something more tactful than questioning their political literacy. Also, maybe direct some criticism at Hillary's allies. Hillary's allies like Anthony Weiner writing an opinion piece demanding that Bernie explain why he is running as a Dem isn't helping to get Bernie supporters to warm up to Clinton. Neither is it helpful that Peter Rosenstein is writing pieces like An Open Letter to Bernie Supporters that basically claim Hillary has the same policies as he does. If you want Bernie's people to warm up to setting aside their differences with Hillary, don't pretend there aren't any differences. Don't pretend Hillary isn't a flip-flopper. Don't try to convince Bernie supporters that she genuinely changed her mind on alllllll those issues. Don't insult Bernie supporters the way NeoXChaos does. Just make the case that the GOP is the bigger enemy, but wait until after the nomination is given to do it.
Or watch some voters throw away their vote and complain about it after the fact. Your choice
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Bush in 2004 received 61 million votes. McCain in 2008 received 60 million votes. Romney in 2012 received 61 million votes.
Kerry in 2004 received 59 million votes. Obama in 2008 received 69 million votes. Obama in 2012 received 65 million votes. Dems tend to swing wildly. And these totals can make the difference between a small loss, to a large victory.
I have some very "radical" ideas compared to the electorate at large. Some far to the left of Sanders. First and foremost through necessity I'm a pragmatist. I'll play the numbers game each and every time.
What they tell me is that Republicans, no matter the candidate, have a base of 60 million voters they can rely on. While Dems can shift wildly depending on the popularity of the candidate.
I don't think it's spineless to be realistic.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Marxist, Socialist, Communist.
All mean the same thing in America, each more insidious than the last.
We are a very special people.
Expected results, Clinton doesn't have a chance at the election - people can't relate to her, she seems cold, she seems untrustworthy and her voting record and actions speak louder than words. The fact that she has the full support of the Democratic establishment and can't attack Bernie on any issue is funny as hell. Because the establishment realizes that she has no enthusiastic support and they cannot afford pissing anyone off. Sadly they picked the wrong horse and just like the previous election her character is going to sink her whole nomination. Questionable decisions, big time silver spoon stuck in her mouth, with no position of her own and no morals to stand on - that's the biggest problem. She is the democratic version of Mitt Romney - flip flopping all the way to the primaries as her campaign tries to see which way the wind blows.
Republicans are just driving the Clown Cart straight into the election that will make it beyond a shadow of a doubt that their party has no future. It's funny watching them as they double down on failure after failure in policy as they stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes failing to see the truth. Frankly at this point Trump is the person that seems the one of the more normal candidates out of them and that's a joke. He has driven them into a corner and everything they thrown at him he has thrown it right back in their faces.
Spineless is to settle for one of two lesser evils, because all these favorites the statuesque is propping up are just positioned there to move forward vested interests. Mitt Romney would have beaten Clinton and if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. Clinton doesn't inspire any enthusiasm, people see her as cold, calculated and untrustworthy she compounds this by decisions and votes she has made. People preaching about her being the safe choice - only do it because they don't see a better candidate but what they don't realize is that their realistic expectations are vested in a higher turn out by democrats and independent voters. Hilary is not a save option in fact her record is going to be torn to shreds and her character called into question. It's all part of the perception she has build for herself over the years and there is no overcoming that - not without charisma which she is completely devoid of. She would have lost to Romney because shockingly not as many people would have gone to vote for a person they don't feel enthusiastic about dat youth vote Obama got, yep that's not going to Hilary infact it's likely those people will just skip voting altogether if she is the race.
Republicans have gotten what they wanted for far too long and it's exactly because of this spineless people who push democrats into the center. There is a reason Congress has ratings similar to most Republican combined IQ Score, 4 years of getting nothing done will show how much of a joke the Republican Party has become - just a disruptive force spreading misinformation and making democrats go down to their level.
Republicans are just driving the Clown Cart straight into the election that will make it beyond a shadow of a doubt that their party has no future. It's funny watching them as they double down on failure after failure in policy as they stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes failing to see the truth. Frankly at this point Trump is the person that seems the one of the more normal candidates out of them and that's a joke. He has driven them into a corner and everything they thrown at him he has thrown it right back in their faces.
Spineless is to settle for one of two lesser evils, because all these favorites the statuesque is propping up are just positioned there to move forward vested interests. Mitt Romney would have beaten Clinton and if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. Clinton doesn't inspire any enthusiasm, people see her as cold, calculated and untrustworthy she compounds this by decisions and votes she has made. People preaching about her being the safe choice - only do it because they don't see a better candidate but what they don't realize is that their realistic expectations are vested in a higher turn out by democrats and independent voters. Hilary is not a save option in fact her record is going to be torn to shreds and her character called into question. It's all part of the perception she has build for herself over the years and there is no overcoming that - not without charisma which she is completely devoid of. She would have lost to Romney because shockingly not as many people would have gone to vote for a person they don't feel enthusiastic about dat youth vote Obama got, yep that's not going to Hilary infact it's likely those people will just skip voting altogether if she is the race.
Republicans have gotten what they wanted for far too long and it's exactly because of this spineless people who push democrats into the center. There is a reason Congress has ratings similar to most Republican combined IQ Score, 4 years of getting nothing done will show how much of a joke the Republican Party has become - just a disruptive force spreading misinformation and making democrats go down to their level.
hydragonwarrior
Member
It swings both ways though. A far right winger can easily find information that supports any clouded or misguided opinion he wishes to validate on the internet. For example, they can go to Drudge and be guided to some biased article about how much of a hoax climate change is.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Conservatives are right when they say there isn't a problem with racism anymore if racism is only active hatred toward an entire race. The main problem with race relations is that subconscious stereotyping you're talking about, which is exactly what liberals are usually talking about when they call someone a racist.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You know she's winning right
The GOP has called Obama a socialist for the past 7 years ad nauseam and we've turned out all right, what could they possibly do to Bernie besides "THIS TIME IT'S FOR REAL GUYS!!"(and still manage to miss their mark because he's a dem. socialist)?
boiled goose
good with gravy
The trend you posted suggests that democrats rally behind progressive seeming candidates but can be indifferent.
Issue by issue americans are center left overall. Why can republicans go far right but democrats have to go center right?
The answer is not voters. It is money in politics.
In a presidential election a populist can win.
I'm sure you might believe that. Too bad she lacks what is needed to win an election, principles, charisma and the capability to appeal to the swing voters that end up deciding elections based on which candidate seems more down to Earth to them. Hilary is sitting too high up on that pedestal and much like her centrist predecessor Mitt Romney will never win any election - she is too out of touch with the people and people can see right through her lack of genuinity. In the end in recent memory, politician that managed to win an election that seems of her ilk was Bush Sr. Voters have moved away from such pragmatic people who tilde which ever way the wind blows and don't hold any strong values during elections. She is in fact the best Republican politician running in this election - standing for no principles of her own and changing her position depending on what the establishment, lobby and poling opinion is at any given time
Clinton 2002 on Iraq
"I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."
Clinton 2004 on marriage
"I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.
Now her positions are different, what an epiphany she has had through those years.
Hilary Clinton, what a joke of an idea to push her again. Even after countless years prepping up and the Establishment doing everything to build her resume, she still finds ways to put it in danger. The ammo in that chamber is even more deadly than the words socialist, libertarian, religious, non-religious. There is just one word that will definitely lose you an election - FAKE
Besides your pretty terrible analysis of Hillary Clinton (and elections in general), this one example is particularly amusing.
Obama, 1996:
Obama, 2004:
Obama, 2008:
Obama, 2012:
Fake, right?
I have some unfortunate news for you.
Syph Medwes
Member
unfortunately being a good candidate and having a chance of winning are two completely different things, never more pertinent then this election cycle on both sides of the aisle
Obama has more charisma which leads to more people trusting him. Hence him trouncing Clinton and Mitt Romney - you do realize this proves my point? Whether he flip flops or continues Bush foreign policy is irreverent for what we are discussing. He has an ace up his sleeve and Presidential campaigns are about popularity far more than actual positions. There is a large majority of people that vote based on preconceived believes and than there are the rest who actually decide elections. Some of them vote based on platforms but a large majority of undecided voters make a decision based on more primal feelings they have for candidates.
Exactly Clinton isn't a good candidate, never been one, never gonna be one - there are somethings you can teach. Sadly this old dog has only learned one political trick and that's to flip flop from positions if she learned how to be charismatic than there might have been a different ball game. Sadly being Bill's wife didn't rub off on her.
Exactly Clinton isn't a good candidate, never been one, never gonna be one - there are somethings you can teach. Sadly this old dog has only learned one political trick and that's to flip flop from positions if she learned how to be charismatic than there might have been a different ball game. Sadly being Bill's wife didn't rub off on her.
timetokill
Banned
On point as usual (The Onion)
exmachina64
Banned
Are you a heterosexual, college educated, white male? If so, you're the only demographic Bernie is winning. The average voter (on either side) doesn't give things like voting records and actions more than a cursory inspection -- mainly what they see/hear on the news, through a friend, etc. Mentally, we exaggerate to ourselves the level we (and other people) pay attention to these things because of inherent biases.
Women and minorities don't seem to be unable to relate to her, find her cold or untrustworthy.
Lord_Byron28
Member
So you're saying white males are the only people who educate themselves on politics and elections?
Yeah, but, like... people do this she has some sort of X factor to win an election that has to be a bit broader than electability.
Her 51.6% approval rating over her Democratic challengers in the primary says something about her ability of her as a candidate. Her leads in Virginia, Iowa, Florida, and Pennsylvania show, at least at this point, people disagree with your assessment that she's somehow unelectable due to this traits that somehow people only care about because they don't trust Hillary Clinton. Her ability to weather Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Emailgate, Benghazi, and a host of other "scandals" along with Monica Lewinsky throughout her career show a tenacity that almost no other candidate would be able to weather.
So no, your original assessment that she "doesn't have what it takes" for X, Y, and Z reasons doesn't really hold up to data. At least not as of today. So it doesn't really prove your point because people don't really seem to give a shit.
exmachina64
Banned
shinra-bansho
Member
Do people point out Biden's vote and reversal or any of the other 29 Senators who in folly authorised W's war with such regularity?
Are these indications that he is untrustworthy or power-hungry?
I'm somewhat curious the extent to which some of these labels are applied due to [subconscious] gender trait prescription.
Are these indications that he is untrustworthy or power-hungry?
I'm somewhat curious the extent to which some of these labels are applied due to [subconscious] gender trait prescription.
You notice when she actually started to campaign her numbers drop? I dunno if it was her concussion or what but she is a horrible public speaker now.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's pretty unfair to leave out the second part of my post there.
I agree with Bernie slightly more than Hillary on the issues.
But I'm also convinced that, in these political circumstances, with Congressional gridlock very likely to continue well into the next administration, a Bernie presidency wouldn't look dramatically different from a Hillary presidency or a Biden presidency. We're not electing the President into a vacuum; we're putting him/her into a very specific political scenario, with very specific limitations on what policies are politically achievable.
Given this lack of strong difference, I look at probability to win the general election. And this "fake", this "joke" Hillary is still outperforming Bernie in general election matchups. If that should change such that Bernie begins to outperform Hillary in general election polling consistently, I won't hesitate to change preference in a heartbeat. Any of the major Democratic candidates will do fine policy-wise in this specific situation, so probability to win the general takes precedence in my mind - especially given how close elections have been in the post-Reagan era, where a swing of a few points can alter the outcome.
Seems pretty logical to me.
You can point to a few headliner issues where you don't trust Hillary, but those of us who have been observing her for a few decades know that she's been pretty damn consistently liberal. We can argue over likeability (you'll actually find in my history no shortage of comments noting that she's lacking in the charisma department), but the suggestion that she's anything but liberal is laughable, and it flies in the face of her overall record.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked