Support NeoGAF

[Cybit]

That post you're confused by and several others are little more than a self-styled cognoscenti flailing about in an effort to maintain the appearance of intellectual and moral superiority over the unwashed masses on this board. Since it's a largely left-leaning place, the fights must necessarily occur between groups both on the left for who is the best of the left. After all, the right isn't present to engage and attack, so new enemies must be found to triumph over.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters are a nice enough proxy demographically for the right as you can find on the left, so here we are. This is merely Round 321.

Mercifully it will end once the primary is over.

Let nothing stand in our way of identity wars! If we don't have enemies, we'll have to make new ones to attack!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

If I was in a swing state, I would vote Clinton if sanders wasn't the nominee. Being from Texas, though, my vote is pretty meaningless. While I don't particularly like her, I want her more than any on the right.

Hey, if Hillary gets 90% of the Latino votes and Latino turnout spikes massively because of Trump, then Hillary wins Texas according to 538's projections, lol.

 

[sphagnum]

The circular firing squad in here is getting to be almost as bad as with actual leftists.

 

[East Lake]

Bernie Sanders' foreign policy is a disaster too. He called the king of Jordan a hero and seems to support Middle Eastern dictatorships. Otherwise, his foreign policy is nearly the same as Hillary's...

(Not related to article, related to discussion about Hillary's hawkishness)

This sort of collapses the narrative. It seems like it's being argued that there are virtually no policy differences. So the lesson is if they're both a disaster, and don't hold to the radical standard of noam chomsky, we can all feel good voting for Hillary knowing she'll probably kill more brown people, and maybe Bernie might have been also not perfect too?

 

[TyrantII]

I completely agree with this. The thing is, the people working to do this are backing Bernie. It helps to have someone pushing your agenda at the top of the ticket.

Also agree, but the people need to realize this and temper their expectations. The work is just starting again after some setbacks in 10/12/14.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This sort of collapses the narrative. It seems like it's being argued that there are virtually no policy differences. So the lesson is if they're both a disaster, and don't hold to the radical standard of noam chomsky, we can all feel good voting for Hillary knowing she'll probably kill more brown people, and maybe Bernie might have been also not perfect too?

What?

I'm arguing against the guy who says "Bernie is much better because of foreign policy!" when they have the same foreign policy. I hate the foreign policy ideas of everyone running for president other than maybe Rand Paul. I'm voting Hillary because I focus more on feminist issues, but I like Bernie too...

 

[excelsiorlef]

I must have. Are there seriously people like that? But I do believe Trump has an easier time against Hillary. She just fits into his game plan easier.

Spoiler

unless of course Trump is a secret democrat and is working with Hillary

Hillary survived an 11 hour kangaroo hearing and made the entire GOP look like fools. Sanders called PP the establishment, then had someone from his campaign go on TV and re-iterate that, and then went oops no they aren't the establishment in the span of about 24 hours.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I don't think the people who would respond to that messaging would vote for a Democrat anyway. If one of the only things low information know about Sanders is that he's a socialist, and that still hasn't sunk him in the polls, I think that actually bodes well for him. It's not like Sanders doesn't have the ability to raise funds to run a campaign of his own. The negative messaging wouldn't be the only thing out there.

Plus, the Cold War ended 25 years ago. I don't think that stuff is as salient anymore. It's certainly not for people under 40 or so.

Well, first of all, he's said he's not going to use any SuperPAC's, which means he's going to a 21st century war armed with only bayonets and a cannon, so that's a problem.

But yes, again, you're confusing with what your idea of a Democrat is compared to the reality of the actual cross section of that makes up a Democratic majority - and that majority includes socially conservative African-American's who may be frankly turned off by Bernie being pro-gay since the 70's and it includes suburban moms who vote for the DNC because they have gay friends and have some poor relatives, but still don't want taxes to be high or the "wrong kind of people" to be in their nice neighborhood and yes, it's upwardly mobile moderates of all races and genders who care more about social issues than economic issues, but don't want a radical in office, so they'll either vote for Marco Rubio or simply sit out the election if it's Sanders vs. Trump.

The Democratic Party is more than just urban white liberals.

 

[East Lake]

What?

I'm arguing against the guy who says "Bernie is much better because of foreign policy!" when they have the same foreign policy. I hate the foreign policy ideas of everyone running for president other than maybe Rand Paul. I'm voting Hillary because I focus more on feminist issues, but I like Bernie too...

I don't think that's accurate. Their past record is different and I think that's likely to continue into the future.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Maybe I'm not getting this..

But because Bernie has a strong white male liberal following, his positions and persona have to be at odds with minorities and true progressive values? I understand he might not be the best spokesman for minority specific issues, and that's a very valid criticism. But painting him as some sort of phony opportunist just seems wrong.

Let me be clear, criticism of Bernie or any candidate is and should be fair game for any issue including BLM.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Hey, if Hillary gets 90% of the Latino votes and Latino turnout spikes massively because of Trump, then Hillary wins Texas according to 538's projections, lol.

Then I will watch closely and if she is in the play, of course I'd vote for her. I'm just saying that if its basically impossible for her to win, I could vote for a 3rd party maybe, just to vote who I would want.

But that is under the notion that a 3rd party person says more that I like than her.

There is a lot up in the air about things. In general, the DNC hasn't been very good this year on talking about how we could help black Americans. It is very very systemic, and both her and sanders are pretty similar on their approach. I personally feel that sander's approach to income inequality is much better than hers. Because I feel that is the biggest issue domestically right now, I tend to agree with sanders more. Because this whole issue started about Reparations, it is worth noting that Coates did talk about how even black people who have money still have to deal with a flawed system that leads to racism. What if Reparations were given? Would it solve the problem? Not at the heart of it, it would seem, based on what Coates was talking about here:

Here is the great challenge of liberal policy in America: We now know that for every dollar of wealth white families have, black families have a nickel. We know that being middle class does not immunize black families from exploitation in the way that it immunizes white families. We know that black families making $100,000 a year tend to live in the same kind of neighborhoods as white families making $30,000 a year. We know that in a city like Chicago, the wealthiest black neighborhood has an incarceration rate many times worse than the poorest white neighborhood. This is not a class divide, but a racist divide. Mainstream liberal policy proposes to address this divide without actually targeting it, to solve a problem through category error. That a mainstream Democrat like Hillary Clinton embraces mainstream liberal policy is unsurprising. Clinton has no interest in expanding the Overton window. She simply hopes to slide through it.

 

[watershed]

I feel like the major point of the article is this:

Sanders’s basic approach is to ameliorate the effects of racism through broad, mostly class-based policies—doubling the minimum wage, offering single-payer health-care, delivering free higher education. This is the same “A rising tide lifts all boats” thinking that has dominated Democratic anti-racist policy for a generation. Sanders proposes to intensify this approach. But Sanders’s actual approach is really no different than President Obama’s. I have repeatedly stated my problem with the “rising tide” philosophy when embraced by Obama and liberals in general. (See here, here, here, and here.) Again, briefly, treating a racist injury solely with class-based remedies is like treating a gun-shot wound solely with bandages. The bandages help, but they will not suffice.

Supported by this:

Here is the great challenge of liberal policy in America: We now know that for every dollar of wealth white families have, black families have a nickel. We know that being middle class does not immunize black families from exploitation in the way that it immunizes white families. We know that black families making $100,000 a year tend to live in the same kind of neighborhoods as white families making $30,000 a year. We know that in a city like Chicago, the wealthiest black neighborhood has an incarceration rate many times worse than the poorest white neighborhood. This is not a class divide, but a racist divide. Mainstream liberal policy proposes to address this divide without actually targeting it, to solve a problem through category error.

As a Bernie supporter, I agree. This is the limit of "liberal imagination" Coates is talking about and Bernie certainly demonstrates this limit in some of his policy positions but not in all of them. See some of his policy outlines here:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I've always seen Bernie as a snake oil salesman (albeit one who believes his product works), but its weird to see so much pushback against him on GAF of all places.

 

[DragonSworne]

I feel like the major point of the article is this:



Supported by this:


As a Bernie supporter, I agree. This is the limit of "liberal imagination" Coates is talking about and Bernie certainly demonstrates this limit in some of his policy positions but not in all of them. See some of his policy outlines here:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

The problem is that Bernie's policies haven't been tried in America and neither has the rising tide approach. Writing them off when they can and will do good is not the approach to take.

 

[sphagnum]

I've always seen Bernie as a snake oil salesman (albeit one who believes his product works), but its weird to see so much pushback against him on GAF of all places.

GAF is a left-liberal kind of place for the most part, so while a lot of people may want a social democracy like in Europe, they don't want to risk letting Republicans get in power and so prefer to vote for the Democratic candidate with the better chance of winning. I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of the Hillary supporters here aren't fervently in love with her but find her acceptable.

It's more of the socialist/explicitly anti-capitalist element here that supports Bernie since even though he's not really a socialist he's the closest thing compared to anyone else under the D label.

I feel like in some way this comes down to a philosophical difference about whether we need to hunker down and consolidate the gains we've made while we try to wait and see if the GOP somehow tears itself apart of undergoes a shift in its ideology vs. those of us who think that attacking the enemy (ultimately, I would argue, liberalism itself) directly is the most important goal. Pragmatism vs. idealism. I think there's room for both. I just wish that after this is all over we can stop treating each other like shit and get some kind of solidarity again. Racial and gender issues have taken prominence in the progressive movement in the past few decades and that's a great thing since for so long those were swept under the rug, but we're finally getting back to talking about the class war as well and that has to be held up as an equal issue in and of itself.

 

[Squire]

GAF is a left-liberal kind of place for the most part, so while a lot of people may want a social democracy like in Europe, they don't want to risk letting Republicans get in power and so prefer to vote for the Democratic candidate with the better chance of winning. I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of the Hillary supporters here aren't fervently in love with her but find her acceptable.

It's more of the socialist/explicitly anti-capitalist element here that supports Bernie since even though he's not really a socialist he's the closest thing compared to anyone else under the D label.

I feel like in some way this comes down to a philosophical difference about whether we need to hunker down and consolidate the gains we've made while we try to wait and see if the GOP somehow tears itself apart of undergoes a shift in its ideology vs. those of us who think that attacking the enemy (capitalism) directly is the most important goal. Pragmatism vs. idealism. I think there's room for both. I just wish that after this is all over we can stop treating each other like shit and get some kind of solidarity again. Racial and gender issues have taken prominence in the progressive movement in the past few decades and that's a great thing since for so long those were swept under the rug, but we're finally getting back to talking about the class war as well and that has to be held up as an equal issue in and of itself.

I think fit a lot of people it comes down to choosing between idealism and pragmatism, yes.

 

[Lamel]

I didn't realize the Bernie vs. Hillary arguments had gotten so ugly.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Those same Republicans who actively want to put boots on the ground? Carpet bomb the Middle East until the sand glows? You're not paying attention if you think Hillary Clinton is that much of a "proven warhawk".

She advocated for mindless regime change in Libya and fiercely advocated for arming "moderates" in Syria who turned out to be not so moderate. She has a history of supporting interventionalist adventures in the Middle East and hasn't learned her lesson.

I'll be voting for her in November and definitely think she is far better than the republican alternative but there's no question that she is more hawkish than Obama and will likely make some bad decisions as president. But I'll take that over a full blown war, which is what every republican candidate except Rand Paul is advocating for.

 

[DragonSworne]

Also, one thing I don't understand is why Coates and others don't believe class and race are very much related in America.

Why else would Repulbicans constantly attack these social policies targeted to help the poor even though it will also help whites? There is a reason why racist stereotypes like welfare queens, Obama phones, etc exist. They attack these policies because it benefits black people the most.

The biggest issue is that racism will actually intensify in America if Bernie is elected because their is no check on the right from spewing their hateful speech about black people who benefit from government assistance.

This is the main problem and is what fuels racism in America.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Also, one thing I don't understand is why Coates and others don't believe class and race are very much related in America.

Why else would Repulbicans constantly attack these social policies targeted to help the poor even though it will also help whites? There is a reason why racist stereotypes like welfare queens, Obama phones, etc exist. They attack these policies because it benefits black people the most.

The biggest issue is that racism will actually intensify in America if Bernie is elected because their is no check on the right from spewing their hateful speech about black people who benefit from government assistance.

This is the main problem and is what fuels racism in America.

They are related in some ways and not in others. The issue is Sanders behaves like fixing one fixes the other and that ain't true.

 

[sphagnum]

I didn't realize the Bernie vs. Hillary arguments had gotten so ugly.

It's really no different from the Hillary vs. Obama arguments back in 2008 when it was pitched as a war between the "old Democratic party" that had kowtowed to post-Reagan politics and the "new Democratic party" that would surely usher in a new social democratic ideology.

Except this time people aren't projecting their beliefs onto Bernie, that's actually what he wants to do (although he wouldn't be able to).

There was a ton of enmity between the Obama and Hillary camps though, even spilling over into the campaigns themselves (Bill Clinton calling Obama's rise the "biggest fairy tale I've ever heard", Obama telling Hillary in a debate that she's "likable enough", etc.).

 

[Tabris]

You know to the rest of the modern world, Bernie Sanders isn't radical but just the only candidate you have that is talking about solving problems the rest of us solved over the last couple of decades.

Solving racism is something significantly more difficult and something most of the modern world hasn't solved.

But the rest are things you guys should have already solved by now and you should catch up with the rest of us.

It's comical to me that Americans think these things that the rest of us have are some liberal imagination dream. You guys have been beaten down by fiscal conservative politics and trickle down economic lies for the last 4 decades.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Also, one thing I don't understand is why Coates and others don't believe class and race are very much related in America.

Why else would Repulbicans constantly attack these social policies targeted to help the poor even though it will also help whites? There is a reason why racist stereotypes like welfare queens, Obama phones, etc exist. They attack these policies because it benefits black people the most.

The biggest issue is that racism will actually intensify in America if Bernie is elected because their is no check on the right from spewing their hateful speech about black people who benefit from government assistance.

This is the main problem and is what fuels racism in America.

It is easy to see when you look at how races align in each social class. All things are not equal just because you begin to balance out the economics.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Also, one thing I don't understand is why Coates and others don't believe class and race are very much related in America.

Why else would Repulbicans constantly attack these social policies targeted to help the poor even though it will also help whites? There is a reason why racist stereotypes like welfare queens, Obama phones, etc exist. They attack these policies because it benefits black people the most.

The biggest issue is that racism will actually intensify in America if Bernie is elected because their is no check on the right from spewing their hateful speech about black people who benefit from government assistance.

This is the main problem and is what fuels racism in America.

Here's the thing, and it's the argument for reperations beyond just socialism - even if Bernie or hell, even a more radical socialist somehow got complete control of the government and passed every program in the world, yes, black people would be helped. But, you know who'd be helped even more - white people. At the end of the day, white people would have more wealth than black people. That's not an argument against these socialistic programs, but as we've seen in Europe, socialism doesn't cure white supremacy.

 

[Your Entertainer]

But that's just it: Bernie acknowledging that he can't do what he promises alone, and that it'll take a "political revolution" to get it done is tantamount to asking Cinderella's fairy godmother to appear and Bippity Boppity Boo America's political system. It's asking for a miracle.

And honestly, that should be the lesson that everyone takes from the Obama presidency. Obama was a great president, got a lot accomplished. But look at what he got accomplished compared to what he ran on (and TRIED to get accomplished), and it's obvious that we didn't get that Hope and Change. And not because he broke his word, but because he had to deal with the reality of a political system dedicated to blocking his every move.

(I have yet to read the article)

That said, I still don't buy this line of thinking - it does absolutely nothing to convince me not to vote for the candidate I think has better positions nearly across the board.

Most Anything that any democratic president pushes is likely to get pushback given the current congressional makeup, many of whom made it explicitly clear that their goal is oppose, period. To get anything done, we need to change the makeup of congress, big time. That's possible, but only with increased enthusiasm and fervor from progressive voters.

A person like Bernie being in the White House is the perfect candidate to do just that. He's a legitimate progressive, and I feel like that can get people to turnout in the midterms. His grassroots is campaign is a perfect example of his ability to strike a chord with people and get them to actively participate in politics. Hillary -absolutely not. From a matter of principle, I think having better starting positions as a point of negation will lead to better positions post compromise.

 

[Armaros]

Also, one thing I don't understand is why Coates and others don't believe class and race are very much related in America.

Why else would Repulbicans constantly attack these social policies targeted to help the poor even though it will also help whites? There is a reason why racist stereotypes like welfare queens, Obama phones, etc exist. They attack these policies because it benefits black people the most.

The biggest issue is that racism will actually intensify in America if Bernie is elected because their is no check on the right from spewing their hateful speech about black people who benefit from government assistance.

This is the main problem and is what fuels racism in America.

They are related, but the entire criticism is Bernie and his supporters insistence of telling minorities that they don't need to talk about the racial issues because if they solved the class issues, it will be fine.

its a criticism of the constant deflection onto class economics every time race relations is brought up.

 

[sphagnum]

They are related in some ways and not in others. The issue is Sanders behaves like fixing one fixes the other and that ain't true.

I think it's well enough known that I'm a Bernie supporter and I'm not asking this because I want to deflect or something, but because I respect your opinion and I'm interested to know: considering both Hillary and Bernie would have to deal with a Republican congress, how beneficial do you think Hillary would be towards addressing both class AND racial issues? I can't really see anything that either could do that the other couldn't in terms of legislation at least.

 

[Wall]

Well, first of all, he's said he's not going to use any SuperPAC's, which means he's going to a 21st century war armed with only bayonets and a cannon, so that's a problem.

But yes, again, you're confusing with what your idea of a Democrat is compared to the reality of the actual cross section of that makes up a Democratic majority - and that majority includes socially conservative African-American's who may be frankly turned off by Bernie being pro-gay since the 70's and it includes suburban moms who vote for the DNC because they have gay friends and have some poor relatives, but still don't want taxes to be high or the "wrong kind of people" to be in their nice neighborhood and yes, it's upwardly mobile moderates of all races and genders who care more about social issues than economic issues, but don't want a radical in office, so they'll either vote for Marco Rubio or simply sit out the election if it's Sanders vs. Trump.

The Democratic Party is more than just urban white liberals.

I don't think New Hampshire is full of urban white liberals. It's full of white people, certainly, but I've been there; its not a particularly urban state. Its not particularly young, either. Nevertheless, Sanders is polling very well there.

Sander's base right now might be "urban white liberals", but that doesn't mean he isn't demonstrating appeal beyond that demographic.

There is also the matter that Sanders does better among young people then Hillary. Depending on the poll its either people under 35 or people under 30. It's disturbing to me that Hillary can't win this age group considering she is supposed to lead the party for eight years and Democrats are supposed to destroy Republicans among young people. As far as I can tell the plan for the party going forward is to wait for the rising generation to become a bigger part of the electorate because they do better among young people.

That's beside my main point, though. I still think Sanders is probably going to lose Iowa, and that in turn might cost him New Hampshire. Hell, the same thing could happen that happened to Obama eight years ago and Clinton could pull out a victory there despite the polling.

I'm just not going to discount an aggregation of polls telling me that Sanders does better than Clinton against Trump. What you say may be true, but it isn't showing up in the polling. I have reasons to believe it might reflect something genuine. If we were talking just 10 years ago I would probably be agreeing with you. I think the country has changed since then.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Toparaman]

You know to the rest of the modern world, Bernie Sanders isn't radical but just the only candidate you have that is talking about solving problems the rest of us solved over the last couple of decades.

Solving racism is something significantly more difficult and something most of the modern world hasn't solved.

But the rest are things you guys should have already solved by now and you should catch up with the rest of us.

It's comical to me that Americans think these things that the rest of us have are some liberal imagination dream. You guys have been beaten down by fiscal conservative politics and trickle down economic lies for the last 4 decades.

If you don't mind me asking, where are you from?

 

[watershed]

Also, one thing I don't understand is why Coates and others don't believe class and race are very much related in America.

Why else would Repulbicans constantly attack these social policies targeted to help the poor even though it will also help whites? There is a reason why racist stereotypes like welfare queens, Obama phones, etc exist. They attack these policies because it benefits black people the most.

The biggest issue is that racism will actually intensify in America if Bernie is elected because their is no check on the right from spewing their hateful speech about black people who benefit from government assistance.

This is the main problem and is what fuels racism in America.

I really don't think Coates doesn't understand intersectionality. I mean, why would that even be the case? One issue I see here is that Bernie often de-centers race from inherently racial issues. Whether he does that intentionally for political reasons or unintentionally because he sees racial issues through a fairly typical white, colorblind lens, I don't know. But it is a genuine issue when it informs his approach to public policy and again in relation to supposedly radical-left policies.

 

[sphagnum]

Here's the thing, and it's the argument for reperations beyond just socialism - even if Bernie or hell, even a more radical socialist somehow got complete control of the government and passed every program in the world, yes, black people would be helped. But, you know who'd be helped even more - white people. At the end of the day, white people would have more wealth than black people. That's not an argument against these socialistic programs, but as we've seen in Europe, socialism doesn't cure white supremacy.

When you say socialism, do you mean "Bernie's definition of socialism" (social democracy) or actual socialism (i.e. workers owning the means of production, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.)? Either way I think your statement still applies, as we can see that in the Eastern bloc there was still plenty of racism such as against Jews, but I just want to be clear.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You know to the rest of the modern world, Bernie Sanders isn't radical but just the only candidate you have that is talking about solving problems the rest of us solved over the last couple of decades.

Solving racism is something significantly more difficult and something most of the modern world hasn't solved.

But the rest are things you guys should have already solved by now and you should catch up with the rest of us.

It's comical to me that Americans think these things that the rest of us have are some liberal imagination dream. You guys have been beaten down by fiscal conservative politics and trickle down economic lies for the last 4 decades.

Canada didn't have to worry about losing the right to have an abortion if the Cons got into power, or worry that an outright racist might get elected.

 

[royalan]

(I have yet to read the article)

That said, I still don't buy this line of thinking - it does absolutely nothing to convince me not to vote for the candidate I think has better positions nearly across the board.

Most Anything that any democratic president pushes is likely to get pushback given the current congressional makeup, many of whom made it explicitly clear that their goal is oppose, period. To get anything done, we need to change the makeup of congress, big time. That's possible, but only with increased enthusiasm and fervor from progressive voters.

A person like Bernie being in the White House is the perfect candidate to do just that. He's a legitimate progressive, and I feel like that can get people to turnout in the midterms. His grassroots is campaign is a perfect example of his ability to strike a chord with people and get them to actively participate in politics. Hillary -absolutely not. From a matter of principle, I think having better starting positions as a point of negation will lead to better positions post compromise.

Again, this is another lesson I learned from Obama's presidency. If he couldn't keep people interested enough to turn out for the midterms, I just don't see Bernie accomplishing it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I I think the country has changed since then.

Agree to disagree I guess.

I agree with you. The country has changed. The House is the most Republican it's been since the 20's, the GOP hold most Governorships than they have in a generation, and they hold more state houses than they have in decades.

I've seen in dozens of states in this country what's in store for the rest of us in blue states if the GOP gets full national control and no matter how much of a neoliberal shill Hillary may be, the GOP is far, far worse, and I simply can't see a swing voter not falling for their BS if its Sanders vs. Anybody Except Trump and even then, I think it's much closer to a 50/50 proposition than many Sanders fans do.

When you say socialism, do you mean "Bernie's definition of socialism" (social democracy) or actual socialism (i.e. workers owning the means of production, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.)? Either way I think your statement still applies, as we can see that in the Eastern bloc there was still plenty of racism such as against Jews, but I just want to be clear.

Social Democracy, but yeah, ask Afro-Cubans how great actual socialism works for the darker folk in a country.

 

[Macam]

The circular firing squad in here is getting to be almost as bad as with actual leftists.

No joke. As someone who's followed politics and Bernie for some time, it's kind of fascinating to see. Some of that is election year emotions, and some of it is just bizarre. I can understand policy and philosophical disagreements, or wanting something more on this issue, but given the candidate, I find the vitriol is somewhat peculiar. I find the discussion around this issue really interesting, but then it goes and gets buried by all these insipid attacks.

If nothing else, at least I got some back reading to hear out TNC's critiques on the "rising tide" philosophy (which I'm inherently sympathetic to critiques against, just curious what his specific arguments are).

 

[Not]

Here is the great challenge of liberal policy in America: We now know that for every dollar of wealth white families have, black families have a nickel. We know that being middle class does not immunize black families from exploitation in the way that it immunizes white families. We know that black families making $100,000 a year tend to live in the same kind of neighborhoods as white families making $30,000 a year. We know that in a city like Chicago, the wealthiest black neighborhood has an incarceration rate many times worse than the poorest white neighborhood. This is not a class divide, but a racist divide. Mainstream liberal policy proposes to address this divide without actually targeting it, to solve a problem through category error.

I'm gonna beat so many people over the head with this quote

 

[Your Entertainer]

Again, this is another lesson I learned from Obama's presidency. If he couldn't keep people interested enough to turn out for the midterms, I just don't see Bernie accomplishing it.

And I like i said - Bernie is a legimate progressive. His grassroots effort is so far better than Obamas, which was the best in history. I don't think it's off base to say he can strike a chord in many that Obama did not 8 years ago. Obama was a powerful orator but Bernie is a different beast entirely. Of course, all of this is conjecture; but my motives are pretty simple. He has better ideas, so I'm voting for him.

Clinton will absolutely have trouble dragging people out for the midterms, easily more so than Bernie.

 

[Tabris]

Canada didn't have to worry about losing the right to have an abortion if the Cons got into power, or worry that an outright racist might get elected.

You guys have that worry because the sane half (over half) of your country has been beaten down by fiscal conservative politics and trickle down economics / income inequality to believe that those things aren't possible so they aren't as engaged in the political process.

Your real political revolution needs to happen in 2 years, and you need to elect Bernie Sanders to kick start that. He may not be able to do much first 2 years, but his agenda will be driving that political revolution into the mid-term.

Clinton won't be able to do that. Republicans will win the mid-terms without the sane half voting base being galvanized. You'll get 4 to 8 more years of something similar to what you got with Obama, but probably a bit worse as Clinton isn't as good as Obama and she'll have to contend with tea party politics for her entire term instead of the while Obama didn't have to deal with it to get his healthcare reform in (as stripped as it was).

 

[watershed]

And I like i said - Bernie is a legimate progressive. His grassroots effort is so far better than Obamas, which was the best in history. I don't think it's off base to say he can strike a chord in many that Obama did not 8 years ago. Obama was a powerful orator but Bernie is a different beast entirely. Of course, all of this is conjecture; but my motives are pretty simple. He has better ideas, so I'm voting for him.

The strength of Bernie's grassroots effort has not yet been proven. He has raised a lot of money yes, but grassroots is about a lot more than that. Let's see how he does in Iowa and New Hampshire before we say Bernie's grassroots organization is better than 08 Obama's.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think it's well enough known that I'm a Bernie supporter and I'm not asking this because I want to deflect or something, but because I respect your opinion and I'm interested to know: considering both Hillary and Bernie would have to deal with a Republican congress, how beneficial do you think Hillary would be towards addressing both class AND racial issues? I can't really see anything that either could do that the other couldn't in terms of legislation at least.

Just for the record I'm Canadian, I just like politics.


That said it's less about the Presidency and more about the GE. Say all you want about Sanders polling better than Trump and blah blah blah. The reality is Clinton has proven to be able to whether a storm, Sanders can't win debates and has frankly a horrible campaign staff (I point again to the PP debate).

You're right obstruction will be the name of the game and it'll suck either way. That said Clinton actively talks about minorities and women and Sanders pays lip service and calls PP the establishment (only to then not call them the establishment while calling their leaders the establishment). Sanders focuses too much on class will fix race and sex, and that's not good enough, you have to actively talk to these folks and about the issues, he doesn't because frankly he's kinda one note in that it all comes back to economics.

Also Sanders' idea for foreign policy has high potential to be a total fucking disaster

 

[Armaros]

And I like i said - Bernie is a legimate progressive. His grassroots effort is so far better than Obamas, which was the best in history. I don't think it's off base to say he can strike a chord in many that Obama did not 8 years ago. Obama was a powerful orator but Bernie is a different beast entirely. Of course, all of this is conjecture; but my motives are pretty simple. He has better ideas, so I'm voting for him.

Clinton will absolutely have trouble dragging people out for the midterms, easily more so than Bernie.

Obama had one of the most effective and widespread campaigns in history. Bernie's has not been tested beyond the first two primary states.

Its going to take more then just winning two primary states to say he has a bigger and better grassroots campaign then Obama.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You guys have that worry because the sane half (over half) of your country has been beaten down by fiscal conservative politics and trickle down economics / income inequality to believe that those things aren't possible so they aren't as engaged in the political process.

Your real political revolution needs to happen in 2 years, and you need to elect Bernie Sanders to kick start that. He may not be able to do much first 2 years, but his agenda will be driving that political revolution into the mid-term.

Clinton won't be able to do that. Republicans will win the mid-terms without the sane half voting base being galvanized. You'll get 4 to 8 more years of something similar to what you got with Obama, but probably a bit worse as Clinton isn't as good as Obama and she'll have to contend with tea party politics for her entire term instead of the while Obama didn't have to deal with it to get his healthcare reform in (as stripped as it was).

I'm Canadian

A Dem, any Dem has to win this election to secure the supreme court or abortion is toast possibly for decades. Among other things. That's why this is so intense, Sanders will not start a revolution, he's an ideas man without the charisma and orator skills to pull it off.

 

[sphagnum]

Just for the record I'm Canadian, I just like politics.


That said it's less about the Presidency and more about the GE. Say all you want about Sanders polling better than Trump and blah blah blah. The reality is Clinton has proven to be able to whether a storm, Sanders can't win debates and has frankly a horrible campaign staff (I point again to the PP debate).

You're right obstruction will be the name of the game and it'll suck either way. That said Clinton actively talks about minorities and women and Sanders pays lip service and calls PP the establishment (only to then not call them the establishment while calling their leaders the establishment). Sanders focuses too much on class will fix race and sex, and that's not good enough, you have to actively talk to these folks and about the issues, he doesn't because frankly he's kinda one note in that it all comes back to economics.

Also Sanders' idea for foreign policy has high potential to be a total fucking disaster

I'd agree with all that. He's a candidate who clearly has blindspots that need to be addressed.

That said, what I'm worried about is that if Hillary comes to power she won't do anything but give lip service to the labor movement. I think Bernie doesn't focus on race and sex as much as he should not so much because he doesn't care but because he's not used to it, coming from an older sort of progressivism where economics simply was progressivism, but that he's receptive to it and is willing to learn albeit in a herky-jerky way. We can see that in how he responded to BLM. To be honest, that resonates with me, as someone who is still learning (and will always be learning), having been a Republican for years.

Hillary, though, I don't think gives a shit about workers at all in truth and will just continue to merrily stroll down the neoliberal path like every other president since Reagan. She's an avowed capitalist, and I think that capitalism is just as heinous as racism and sexism and needs to be destroyed along with the others. I guess I can afford to care more about that because I'm not affected directly by other forms of oppression being a white male, but I would be lying if it was not in truth the thing resonates with me personally the most. I can't feel the same way that other people do; I an be empathetic but I'll never know the terror that black people can feel in America for example. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as I do keep that on equal footing with economic concerns. But they all end up being intertwined.

That's why I'll still vote for Hillary if it comes down to her being the nominee, but I just don't trust her at all.

 

[Yoda]

Again, this is another lesson I learned from Obama's presidency. If he couldn't keep people interested enough to turn out for the midterms, I just don't see Bernie accomplishing it.

Interest wasn't the reason, redistricting is a thing, and by 2010 the Republicans had chipped away at enough state elections to make the system favor them. On top of gerrymandering, Obama fumbled hard on the Health-care law; he didn't sincerely try for the public option. He opted to moderate his views and try to win over Republican votes. The Republicans in house correctly realized they had nothing to gain from helping him, so they stone-walled. You can't rally the left if you don't even try to push for it's Agenda on big ticket items. The 2010 blowout was purely his fault, not "disinterested liberals".

 

[Loki]

That's my point. If he wants to be a radical, he's gotta be radical across the board. Otherwise, why would I pick him over one of the better candidates? It's just silly.

This is silly. You would/should pick him over other candidates if you feel that the sum total of his policy stances mesh better with your own views or stand a better chance of effecting positive change in this country than theirs do. It is the SUM of his beliefs which makes him a better or worse candidate than someone else - not where he falls on some arbitrary spectrum of radicalism.

 

[Yoda]

I'm Canadian

A Dem, any Dem has to win this election to secure the supreme court or abortion is toast possibly for decades. Among other things. That's why this is so intense, Sanders will not start a revolution, he's an ideas man without the charisma and orator skills to pull it off.

The Supreme Court is already 5-4 in favor of conservatives?

 

[Armaros]

The Supreme Court is already 5-4 in favor of conservatives?

So we give them the opportunity to make it 6-3 and completely not need the centrist vote in most decisions?

 

[The Technomancer]

The Supreme Court is already 5-4 in favor of conservatives?

The gay marriage decision would not have happened if the court was 6-3. What other decisions of that magnitude might occur in the next 20 years?

 

[JesseEwiak]

Interest wasn't the reason, redistricting is a thing, and by 2010 the Republicans had chipped away at enough state elections to make the system favor them. On top of gerrymandering, Obama fumbled hard on the Health-care law; he didn't sincerely try for the public option. He opted to moderate his views and try to win over Republican votes. The Republicans in house correctly realized they had nothing to gain from helping him, so they stone-walled. You can't rally the left if you don't even try to push for it's Agenda on big ticket items. The 2010 blowout was purely his fault, not "disinterested liberals".

1. Actually, no. 2014 you can blame on gerrymandering, but even when you account for the gerrymandering already in effect, the GOP still would've won the House, let alone all the Senate seats they won without gerrymandering at all, because state wide elections in 2010.

2. He didn't "push" the public option because he knew there was no way to get Joe Lieberman to magically support it, along with all the other moderate Democratic votes. You can't make Senator's vote the way you want them too - it's not 1964 anymore. Especially in a world where they don't depend on the DNC for campaign funding.

3. All Obama did in his 1st two years was be the 1st Democrat to actually pass health care reform that will result in universal coverage, pass a stimulus bill that saved us from a Great Depression, and pass a financial reform bill that while flawed is still a step in the right direction. I know, that's not puppies and rainbows, but it's more than liberals have gotten since the freakin 60's, so yes, if any liberals didn't turn out because they were mad that Obama didn't fix everything in the six months he actually had 60 votes in the Senate, then screw them.

he Supreme Court is already 5-4 in favor of conservatives?

The Supreme Court is currently 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, 1 guy who checks in with the Chamber of Commerce before he votes, and 1 guy who votes depend on how he's feeling that way that morning, but lean libertarian-ish.

 

[East Lake]

1. Actually, no. 2014 you can blame on gerrymandering, but even when you account for the gerrymandering already in effect, the GOP still would've won the House, let alone all the Senate seats they won without gerrymandering at all, because state wide elections in 2010.

2. He didn't "push" the public option because he knew there was no way to get Joe Lieberman to magically support it, along with all the other moderate Democratic votes. You can't make Senator's vote the way you want them too - it's not 1964 anymore. Especially in a world where they don't depend on the DNC for campaign funding.

3. All Obama did in his 1st two years was be the 1st Democrat to actually pass health care reform that will result in universal coverage, pass a stimulus bill that saved us from a Great Depression, and pass a financial reform bill that while flawed is still a step in the right direction. I know, that's not puppies and rainbows, but it's more than liberals have gotten since the freakin 60's, so yes, if any liberals didn't turn out because they were mad that Obama didn't fix everything in the six months he actually had 60 votes in the Senate, then screw them.



The Supreme Court is currently 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, 1 guy who checks in with the Chamber of Commerce before he votes, and 1 guy who votes depend on how he's feeling that way that morning, but lean libertarian-ish.

To be fair if liberals like Hillary Clinton were aware enough about Iraq we might have had a few extra trillion to spend on a stimulus package and people's wages might have risen by now.