Support NeoGAF

[shinra-bansho]

It might not have, but the bailouts neccessary to save the economy would have been much easier. Glass-Steagal was about limiting the threat of moral hazard rather than preventing banks from failing. After all, part of a market economy is allowing under- performing firms to fail. Its just difficult to that when allowing an under-performing firm to fail would also take out peoples' life savings.

I mean it's not really a might not so far as I'm aware - the firms were largely purer focused, one wasn't actually a bank, so enforced separation wouldn't really have done much - although if you're referring to the prior weakening of regulation and/or as a symbolic standpoint I could agree to an extent.

The problem that remains is that breaking apart investment and commercial arms of these large institutions doesn't mean they won't still be systemically significant, so restraining moral hazard isn't really achieved. If the goal is to "break up the banks" further beyond that then it's also never well specified how small exactly, and on what metric of size, that one would like to see the banking industry capped at. Nor is there acknowledgement of the practical impact that would have.

Meanwhile moral hazard wasn't really limited to the large institutions. Many smaller community banks were bailed out under the TARP program, and I believe they were less likely to actually manage their repayments under the program. The issue is the way that banks operate, all banks, large and small is inherently risky. (Article's proposed is also impractical, but interesting as a solution.)

 

[Number_6]

I don't care that much if the rich get included in a debt-free public college plan, I was defending why it wasn't a terrible idea that they wouldn't be.

Also, you realize that we don't necessarily have to spend all tax revenues on one program right? If we can save tax dollars by a "complicated half-measure" that funds higher education for the people who need it and not the people who can afford it outright then we can fund other frivolous programs like government-mandated maternity/paternity leave, healthcare for children, or better services for our veterans? Let's spend those dollars where they can do the most good.

"The most good" is entirely subjective. It's all interrelated anyway, but I don't have to tell you that.

To me, breaking up a corrupt system, getting rid of the bought-and-paid for politicians, taking control away from corporations and lobbies and giving it back to the people, this should at least open the door to things like universal healthcare, and paid sick/family leave, and free college education, and everything else that other developed countries have as a given but fucking USA somehow kicks, screams, and fights against, often using the "justification" that someone who didn't earn help, or doesn't deserve it, or need it, might get it, so let's just scrap the whole thing, or waste years arguing about it until the other side gets elected and it's too late.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Let Trump's fucking kids get their tuition too, who gives a shit, it's a handful of people in a nation. Just get it done already.

Let the homeless guy get medicine. Let the unemployed or underemployed have their lives saved without becoming homeless themselves. Prioritize children? Why are we still fucking around? Get that shit for everyone. It's a thing, it works, look around.

But no, we have corporations and interest groups running things. Look no further than the classrooms full of kids that get shot to pieces resulting in much media coverage and talk right up until the networks move on and people get over it and nothing gets done about it because the rule in Congress is obstruct anything that is bad for business, and obstruct anything the other guy wants so that the businesses keep backing our party. Then spin it for the voters, they're idiots anyway. Like, there's actual people that believe Sandy Hook didn't happen.

I guess it really is idealism vs reality, or pragmatism, or something. You're talking about saving some budget to put towards other important programs within this status quo of our government. I'd rather see the whole game change, because we as common folk can't exactly win the way the government operates now.

 

[zero shift]

That's pretty much the same thing as what Bam Bam was saying.

No, Bam Bam is referring to just merely criticizing the economy and other factors for even more liberal measures. In contrast the Democrats during the primaries were either played scare tactics against the GOP (e.g. Wisconsin) or just stated that they weren't Obama and certainly were not a liberal (most red states and some purple ones). It was less of a go against the Democratic track record and more so trying to appeal to the Republican identity.

 

[Kathian]

Just seen that 9/11 clip; if this were a Republican we'd have a offshoot thread and everyone rightly mocking them. Quite bizarre; I know there's a group of people who have decided the Republicans can't win any election (yet mysteriously continue to win some) but those types of comments will not work in the broader policial stage - especially if she were against self funding Trump. Its quite an awful thing she said and anyone who wanted to.take her down for it would have slated her suggestion the only people impacted by 9/11 worked for the organisations donating to her.

Also all their answers on radical Islam were terrible.

 

[Hazmat]

"The most good" is entirely subjective. It's all interrelated anyway, but I don't have to tell you that.

To me, breaking up a corrupt system, getting rid of the bought-and-paid for politicians, taking control away from corporations and lobbies and giving it back to the people, this should at least open the door to things like universal healthcare, and paid sick/family leave, and free college education, and everything else that other developed countries have as a given but fucking USA somehow kicks, screams, and fights against, often using the "justification" that someone who didn't earn help, or doesn't deserve it, or need it, might get it, so let's just scrap the whole thing, or waste years arguing about it until the other side gets elected and it's too late.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Let Trump's fucking kids get their tuition too, who gives a shit, it's a handful of people in a nation. Just get it done already.

Let the homeless guy get medicine. Let the unemployed or underemployed have their lives saved without becoming homeless themselves. Prioritize children? Why are we still fucking around? Get that shit for everyone. It's a thing, it works, look around.

But no, we have corporations and interest groups running things. Look no further than the classrooms full of kids that get shot to pieces resulting in much media coverage and talk right up until the networks move on and people get over it and nothing gets done about it because the rule in Congress is obstruct anything that is bad for business, and obstruct anything the other guy wants so that the businesses keep backing our party. Then spin it for the voters, they're idiots anyway. Like, there's actual people that believe Sandy Hook didn't happen.

I guess it really is idealism vs reality, or pragmatism, or something. You're talking about saving some budget to put towards other important programs within this status quo of our government. I'd rather see the whole game change, because we as common folk can't exactly win the way the government operates now.

So, you want live in a fantasy world where we have the budget to get everything we want, but I (and you) unfortunately live in the real world where we don't.

Thanks for invoking Sandy Hook in the middle of whatever that was. If it wasn't for Hillary's 9/11 mess that would be the worst pivot to terrorism when discussing "anything else at all" of the night.

Good Lord, I'm arguing with Democrats that the underprivileged should get government services that the wealthy don't, and they're fighting me on it. God grant me strength.

 

[teruterubozu]

The Trump's kids retort was weak. She wanted that O'Malley cheer when he invoked Trump. I'm really surprised and kinda surprised with Hillary's low-brow attempts like 9/11. It was a bit 2008 Clinton last night.

 

[Number_6]

So, you want live in a fantasy world where we have the budget to get everything we want, but I (and you) unfortunately live in the real world where we don't.

Thanks for invoking Sandy Hook in the middle of whatever that was. If it wasn't for Hillary's 9/11 mess that would be the worst pivot to terrorism when discussing "anything else at all" of the night.

Good Lord, I'm arguing with Democrats that the underprivileged should get government services that the wealthy don't, and they're fighting me on it. God grant me strength.

Please, Hilary used 9/11 to weasel out of a difficult debate question. I invoked Sandy Hook as one example of how we, USA, are fucked up. Not the same thing.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

So, you want live in a fantasy world where we have the budget to get everything we want, but I (and you) unfortunately live in the real world where we don't.

Thanks for invoking Sandy Hook in the middle of whatever that was. If it wasn't for Hillary's 9/11 mess that would be the worst pivot to terrorism when discussing "anything else at all" of the night.

Good Lord, I'm arguing with Democrats that the underprivileged should get government services that the wealthy don't, and they're fighting me on it. God grant me strength.

Okay. We only have a budget for the military industrial complex to wage war for decades across the world. And a budget to fight a senseless war on drugs. And a budget to pay premium on healthcare that other "socialist" nations don't have to pay. And a budget for speculating in the market that really has no tangible value for a majority of Americans.

Welcome to the real world

 

[Tarkus]

No, because we have to compare the same kinds of data. Lots of people like to come up with alternative unemployment metrics and then compare them to standard unemployment metrics.

U3
Now - 5%
Then - 25%

U6 - 10%
Then - 40%

Those are estimates because U3 and U6 didn't exists then. But if Trump thinks there's a more accurate unemployment metric that is double U6, we can expect the corresponding Then measure to be 60-80%. U6 is as underemploymenty as it gets so I don't know what the heck you'd have to put in to get to 20% - underutilized child labor?

I'm not sure where Trump gets 20%. He shouldn't be making statements like that.

I don't why the unemployment number reported isn't the U-6 number, as that's the actual number. It's disingenuous to keep spouting out the U-3 number.

 

[davepoobond]

I'm not sure where Trump gets 20%. He shouldn't be making statements like that.

unemployment is at 99% in this country

 

[noshten]

What I'd like to ask is when is Debbie Wasserman Schultz going to hand in her resignation and where is the pressure from the DNC for her to step down. Yet another debate scheduled at the most inappropriate and laughable time.
Saturday night... really?

 

[Foffy]

So, you want live in a fantasy world where we have the budget to get everything we want, but I (and you) unfortunately live in the real world where we don't.

Thanks for invoking Sandy Hook in the middle of whatever that was. If it wasn't for Hillary's 9/11 mess that would be the worst pivot to terrorism when discussing "anything else at all" of the night.

Good Lord, I'm arguing with Democrats that the underprivileged should get government services that the wealthy don't, and they're fighting me on it. God grant me strength.

This is always a cop out answer by people. What is called the "real world" in almost every sense this shit is pulled is to accept mediocrity, and accept socially evocated ideas as norms, leaving them significantly unchallenged. If we can take a time to be sincere here, America already funds and budgets things that are already messy and considering quite worthless to the degree they spend on it, like the war on drugs and the military, which have been things stated already by at least another poster. We won't dare touch them, for their our worldly turds; they're the things that make America what it is.

The problem here, today, is this: America's love for guns and persecution complex for others is simply too fucking strong to actually do anything close to humanistic policies, which is where not only where the developed world wipes the fucking floor with us, but where nearly every developed nation needs to start expanding upon even in this century. We're not even halfway close to the decency of any democratic socialist nation, and we, somehow, are supposed to be number 1. Number 1 at living in fear? Maybe. Number 1 at caring about human beings? No way in hell.

We're going to need more of that, and we're not going to get it.

 

[Revolver]

Got caught up on the debate. I think Hillary just did okay and was weaker than the first debate. She's getting blasted for that 9/11 comment and she should be. That was on some Jeb Bush level of embarrassing.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Got caught up on the debate. I think Hillary just did okay and was weaker than the first debate. She's getting blasted for that 9/11 comment and she should be. That was on some Jeb Bush level of embarrassing.

Yeah it was horrible. She doesn't have an answer for being called on that. What's she supposed to say? She really can't say anything. I didn't find her other follow up response that great either.

 

[disastermouse]

Look, the point she was making is simple - Glass Steagal would not have prevented the 2008 financial crisis. That law forced banks to specialize in investment or personal banking. The institutions at fault were investment banks and insurance companise. Hillary's interested in making policy that has a shot at addressing problems. Sanders is just doing what's politically expedient - point to the one financial law a US history student would recognize.

I think that accusing Bernie Sanders, the legendarily 'self-avowed socialist' who isn't taking money from super PACS of supporting a Glass-Steagall-like law out of political expediency is the height of willful stupidity. He's pointing to G-S as an example of the reform necessary, not limiting himself to it.

 

[disastermouse]

I don't care that much if the rich get included in a debt-free public college plan, I was defending why it wasn't a terrible idea that they wouldn't be.

Also, you realize that we don't necessarily have to spend all tax revenues on one program right? If we can save tax dollars by a "complicated half-measure" that funds higher education for the people who need it and not the people who can afford it outright then we can fund other frivolous programs like government-mandated maternity/paternity leave, healthcare for children, or better services for our veterans? Let's spend those dollars where they can do the most good.

Fiat currency based economies don't have to worry about limited funds. If affordability was really a problem in government spending, ask why we've never not been able to afford a war.

 

[Pryce]

Sanders needs to come out with a tax plan. His line about Eisenhower was incredible, but a plan of how to pay for all of this would go a long way.

 

[Revolver]

Yeah it was horrible. She doesn't have an answer for being called on that. What's she supposed to say? She really can't say anything. I didn't find her other follow up response that great either.

Maybe she should acknowledge that as a former senator from NY she knows a lot of people from Wall Street from CEO's on down and they've donated to her in the past. She should stress that those donations haven't affected her policies or voting record. I don't know, she definitely needs to do better than sounding like Rudy Giuliani.

I liked Bernie's line about Eisenhower and O'Malley had some good moments. For the most part I think the debate was status quo. I thought CBS did a nice job despite that Twitter stuff at the end.

 

[Bronx-Man]

I think Hillary's greatest fault, and strength, is that she's a politician and acts like one.

She knows that to get things done, to navigate politics, and to get elected... you have to be pragmatic, you have to be negotiable, you have to flip flop at times, you have to tell people what they want to hear sometimes, you have to get large donations.

Unfortunately, this makes her come off as too fake, or too practiced, or not willing to go far enough, etc. She comes off as a politician, because she is one.

So it both helps and hurts her.

She's basically what Jeb Bush wishes he could be.

 

[kirblar]

I mean it's not really a might not so far as I'm aware - the firms were largely purer focused, one wasn't actually a bank, so enforced separation wouldn't really have done much - although if you're referring to the prior weakening of regulation and/or as a symbolic standpoint I could agree to an extent.

The problem that remains is that breaking apart investment and commercial arms of these large institutions doesn't mean they won't still be systemically significant, so restraining moral hazard isn't really achieved. If the goal is to "break up the banks" further beyond that then it's also never well specified how small exactly, and on what metric of size, that one would like to see the banking industry capped at. Nor is there acknowledgement of the practical impact that would have.

Meanwhile moral hazard wasn't really limited to the large institutions. Many smaller community banks were bailed out under the TARP program, and I believe they were less likely to actually manage their repayments under the program. The issue is the way that banks operate, all banks, large and small is inherently risky. (Article's proposed is also impractical, but interesting as a solution.)

My Banking Professor in college believed a big issue in the US is that instead of having 5-6 (we'd want more probably) large national banks like Canada, we have all these small banks that are incredibly vulnerable to their local real estate market. If it goes bad, they're likely to fail and need to be bought out. But if it's part of a national bank, the other regions of the country should be able to prop it up.

This of course, would only help solve that specific problem, but I thought it a reasonable view given some of the incentive issues we have with the current FDIC system.

 

[Moofers]

"The most good" is entirely subjective. It's all interrelated anyway, but I don't have to tell you that.

To me, breaking up a corrupt system, getting rid of the bought-and-paid for politicians, taking control away from corporations and lobbies and giving it back to the people, this should at least open the door to things like universal healthcare, and paid sick/family leave, and free college education, and everything else that other developed countries have as a given but fucking USA somehow kicks, screams, and fights against, often using the "justification" that someone who didn't earn help, or doesn't deserve it, or need it, might get it, so let's just scrap the whole thing, or waste years arguing about it until the other side gets elected and it's too late.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Let Trump's fucking kids get their tuition too, who gives a shit, it's a handful of people in a nation. Just get it done already.

Let the homeless guy get medicine. Let the unemployed or underemployed have their lives saved without becoming homeless themselves. Prioritize children? Why are we still fucking around? Get that shit for everyone. It's a thing, it works, look around.

But no, we have corporations and interest groups running things. Look no further than the classrooms full of kids that get shot to pieces resulting in much media coverage and talk right up until the networks move on and people get over it and nothing gets done about it because the rule in Congress is obstruct anything that is bad for business, and obstruct anything the other guy wants so that the businesses keep backing our party. Then spin it for the voters, they're idiots anyway. Like, there's actual people that believe Sandy Hook didn't happen.

I guess it really is idealism vs reality, or pragmatism, or something. You're talking about saving some budget to put towards other important programs within this status quo of our government. I'd rather see the whole game change, because we as common folk can't exactly win the way the government operates now.

This post is beautiful. No sarcasm, no veiled insult, i mean it. Couldnt have said it better myself.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

There are two changes i'd like to see in the debates.

1.Get rid of the crowds, the constant cheering is really annoying and serves no purpose, this isnt a sporting event, this is important.

2.If a candidate refuses to answer a question they need to have their time taken away and given to the other candidates.

 

[A Human Becoming]

This is always a cop out answer by people. What is called the "real world" in almost every sense this shit is pulled is to accept mediocrity, and accept socially evocated ideas as norms, leaving them significantly unchallenged. If we can take a time to be sincere here, America already funds and budgets things that are already messy and considering quite worthless to the degree they spend on it, like the war on drugs and the military, which have been things stated already by at least another poster. We won't dare touch them, for their our worldly turds; they're the things that make America what it is.

The problem here, today, is this: America's love for guns and persecution complex for others is simply too fucking strong to actually do anything close to humanistic policies, which is where not only where the developed world wipes the fucking floor with us, but where nearly every developed nation needs to start expanding upon even in this century. We're not even halfway close to the decency of any democratic socialist nation, and we, somehow, are supposed to be number 1. Number 1 at living in fear? Maybe. Number 1 at caring about human beings? No way in hell.

We're going to need more of that, and we're not going to get it.

"The most good" is entirely subjective. It's all interrelated anyway, but I don't have to tell you that.

To me, breaking up a corrupt system, getting rid of the bought-and-paid for politicians, taking control away from corporations and lobbies and giving it back to the people, this should at least open the door to things like universal healthcare, and paid sick/family leave, and free college education, and everything else that other developed countries have as a given but fucking USA somehow kicks, screams, and fights against, often using the "justification" that someone who didn't earn help, or doesn't deserve it, or need it, might get it, so let's just scrap the whole thing, or waste years arguing about it until the other side gets elected and it's too late.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Let Trump's fucking kids get their tuition too, who gives a shit, it's a handful of people in a nation. Just get it done already.

Let the homeless guy get medicine. Let the unemployed or underemployed have their lives saved without becoming homeless themselves. Prioritize children? Why are we still fucking around? Get that shit for everyone. It's a thing, it works, look around.

But no, we have corporations and interest groups running things. Look no further than the classrooms full of kids that get shot to pieces resulting in much media coverage and talk right up until the networks move on and people get over it and nothing gets done about it because the rule in Congress is obstruct anything that is bad for business, and obstruct anything the other guy wants so that the businesses keep backing our party. Then spin it for the voters, they're idiots anyway. Like, there's actual people that believe Sandy Hook didn't happen.

I guess it really is idealism vs reality, or pragmatism, or something. You're talking about saving some budget to put towards other important programs within this status quo of our government. I'd rather see the whole game change, because we as common folk can't exactly win the way the government operates now.

I think Hillary's greatest fault, and strength, is that she's a politician and acts like one.

She knows that to get things done, to navigate politics, and to get elected... you have to be pragmatic, you have to be negotiable, you have to flip flop at times, you have to tell people what they want to hear sometimes, you have to get large donations.

Unfortunately, this makes her come off as too fake, or too practiced, or not willing to go far enough, etc. She comes off as a politician, because she is one.

So it both helps and hurts her.

Man, these posts are so on point. I wish I had spent more time in here last night (I was at a debate party).

 

[Cerium]

Insiders: Bad night for Bernie

Bernie Sanders had the weakest night of the three Democrats onstage at Saturday night’s debate.

That’s according to a survey of the POLITICO Caucus, a bipartisan group of influential strategists, operatives and activists in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, who weighed in immediately following the second Democratic primary debate.

Nearly half of Democrats surveyed said the Vermont senator lost the debate, and only 10 percent of Democrats said he won. Those insiders who said Sanders had the worst night argued that he appeared out of his depth on foreign policy a day after terrorist attacks rocked France. He spent just a few seconds addressing the matter in his opening statement before pivoting to his familiar pitch about the economy, in stark contrast to rival Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state who devoted her entire statement to the Paris attacks.

“He made a mistake right off the bat in switching from Paris to the economy, and had an uneven performance,” a New Hampshire Democrat said.

"He was clearly not comfortable discussing detail on foreign policy matters," agreed another New Hampshire Democrat.

Others said the self-described democratic socialist made no effort to appeal to the broader Democratic Party, and reinforced perceptions Saturday night that he is unelectable.

“Focused entirely on his base which demands the pure," said an unaligned Iowa Democrat. "Worst answer: Asked directly how he would work with a GOP Congress, he argued that the Political Revolution would sweep aside all in its path.”

Also:

Focus Group

On Saturday evening, Park Street Strategies (PSS) conducted a three-hour dial focus group with 33 undecided Democrats in Des Moines, Iowa. During the focus group, the respondents, all likely caucus-goers, live-dialed the entire Democratic debate, responding second-by-second to the candidates’ responses, and found that Hillary Clinton has clearly won this critical democratic debate.

“Clinton clearly won the Iowa debate tonight, and may have essentially ended the race. It was clear that Clinton’s answers on terrorism, and her improved answers on domestic issues, moved undecided Iowans in striking ways. It has almost definitively made Clinton the likely nominee, and is a profound lost opportunity for Sanders and O’Malley,” said Chris Kofinis, of Park Street Strategies.

The following are the top six insights from the focus group:

1. Who Won: Clinton won the debate by a 23 to 10 margin compared to Sanders.

2. Who’s More Electable: By a 31 to 2 margin, these voters agree that Clinton is the most electable candidate.

3. Who is a Stronger Commander-in-Chief: Citing her experience, these voters unanimously think Clinton would be a stronger commander-in-chief than the other candidates.

4. Paris Effect: In light of the recent attacks in Paris, Clinton’s message on terrorism resonated very strongly with the group.

5. Wall Street Weakness: Clinton is vulnerable on donations and Wall Street. Her answer on 9/11 was very ineffective.

6. Who Won Undecided Voters: After the debate, 11 respondents said they now plan to vote for Clinton, while only 3 moved to support Sanders.

CBS Released a Poll as well

Who do you think won the debate?

Clinton 51%
Sanders 28%
O'Malley 7%
Tie 14%

She also had a 40 point+ lead on who best can handle foreign policy, terrorism and ISIS. Slight plurality on gun control as well.

 

[Daniel B·]

Holy cow! It certainly didn't help that we had a super unreliable "live" ??? feed, at our Bernie debate watch party, that had, at least the 17 RSVPs attending, but, if you had just seen the live feed, and not the full broadcast, you would be forgiven for thinking that it was a close contest, when, in reality, Bernie won comfortably. I urge anyone, in any doubt, and who has an open mind, to watch the debate footage in full, such as via the On-Demand service provided by cable etc.

So, I thought Bernie made much better use of "Hillary's damn emails", this time, again, he didn't have to resort to an attack:

I didn't know I had so much power, but after I said that, we're not hearing so much about Hillary Clinton's emails.

What I would like for the media now, is for us to be talking about, why the middle class is disappearing, why we have more people in jail than any other country, why we have massive levels of income and wealth inequality, and we're the only major country without paid family and medical leave.

The live(?) feed had also given me the false impression, that the audience was largely for Hillary, especially the thunderous applause she appeared to have received, for her critique of Bernie's universal health care plan, except, when you watch the full broadcast, yes, she got applause, but hardly overwhelming.

The WTF moment for me, from both viewings of the debate, was the complete lack of response to another excellent Bernie moment:

I want those kids to know that if, they study hard, they do their homework, regardless of the income of their families, they will, in fact, be able to get a college education, because we're going to make public colleges and universities tuition free. This is revolution for education in America; it will give hope to millions of young people.

No Hillary, Bernie's plan would not pay for the education of Donald Trump's children; he said public colleges and universities. Stop intentionally spreading misinformation!

It was also gratifying that on the Paris attacks and foreign policy, both Bernie and Martin O'Malley acknowledged the United States role in destabilizing Iraq and the wider region, as I had previously pointed out. O'Malley's point on Capital Gains, that it should be taxed at the same level as for labor, which Bernie has also proposed, is also something I have argued for. I'm still not sold on increasing the top rates of tax though, but perhaps it would be a net vote winner.

As others have said, and based on O'Malley's great debate performance (tag teaming Hillary, awesome; no wonder Adam wants him to drop out ), I must say a Sanders / O'Malley ticket is most appealing .

 

[Cerium]

if you had just seen the live feed, and not the full broadcast, you would be forgiven for thinking that it was a close contest, when, in reality, Bernie won comfortably.

He won so comfortably that every poll and focus group shows he got crushed.

Bernie in a landslide #unskewedpolls

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'm not sure where Trump gets 20%. He shouldn't be making statements like that.

I don't why the unemployment number reported isn't the U-6 number, as that's the actual number. It's disingenuous to keep spouting out the U-3 number.

Because being unemployed and underemployed are rightfully two different things.

 

[Your Entertainer]

He won so comfortably that every poll and focus group shows he got crushed.

Bernie in a landslide #unskewedpolls

he gave the best answers on the whole, but i don't think the public saw it that way and i don't think this will change the polls

he has better positions than clinton on pretty much every issue where they differ

ill happily vote for clinton in the general

 

[Foffy]

He won so comfortably that every poll and focus group shows he got crushed.

Bernie in a landslide #unskewedpolls

You know, ignoring polls here, when it comes to the points he is in fact more on point than Hillary.

Her answers to education and corruption in politics should honestly be laughed out of the room, but it seems people not only ignore these great failures on her end, but seem to be...okay...with them?

Polls play a role, and as usual, we will get what we think, and we're a culture that often works against itself. Look at how we kick those at the bottom of the chain, failing to realize we're sinking with them, too.

Hillary will be the more pragmatic candidate in this toxic climate, but let us not ignore the fact she is absolutely part of the problem in this climate, too. Sanders is an old man yelling at clouds, because the change he talks about unfortunately will not happen through reason, but futility, suffering, and collapse.

 

[nillah]

Trump won the debate and wasn't even present

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Trump won the debate and wasn't even present

He only tweeted twice during the debate and both seemed pretty tame compared to what he's said about Ben Carson.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[JustenP88]

Her answers to education and corruption in politics should honestly be laughed out of the room, but it seems people not only ignore these great failures on her end, but seem to be...okay...with them?

She invoked 9/11 in a non-sequitur and drew applause. Then, after being called out for it, she doubled-down and drew applause again. We'd crucify Christie for doing it, even if it was loosely related to the discussion, but we applaud Clinton. She's obviously got an enormous amount of leeway with her words.

 

[CDX]

Polls show most thought Hillary won the debate


PPP

Democratic Voters Overwhelmingly Think Clinton Won Debate; Particularly Strong on National Security Issues


67% of voters think Clinton won the debate,
20% for Bernie Sanders
7% for Martin O’Mal

On a related note 63% of viewers said the debate gave them a more positive opinion of Clinton, compared to 41% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of Sanders, and 37% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of O’Malley.

-Clinton is by a wide margin the candidate debate watchers trust the most on national security issues. 75% say they have the most faith in Clinton on that front, compared to only 17% for Sanders, and 5% for O’Malley. National security issues were a primary focus tonight in the aftermath of yesterday’s tragedy in France, and Democratic voters by far and away trust Clinton the most on that issue.

-What’s particularly striking is how universal the sentiment that Clinton won the debate tonight is among all the different groups within the Democratic Party. 86% of African Americans, 73% of women, 70% of moderates, 69% of seniors, 67% of Hispanics, 65% of liberals, 61% of white voters, 58% of men, and 50% of younger voters all think that Clinton was the winner of tonight’s debate.​

CBS/GFK Poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-who-won-the-second-democratic-debate-november-2015-cbs-news/

Hillary Clinton won the debate. Fifty-one percent say Clinton won, compared to 28 percent who favor Bernie Sanders. Just 7 percent pick Martin O'Malley as the winner. Fourteen percent called it a tie.

Among Democrats, Clinton is seen as winning by more than two to one, while independents are split between Clinton and Sanders.



In light of the terrorist attacks on Friday night in Paris, Saturday night's debate shifted much of its focus to foreign policy, terrorism, and addressing the threat posed by the Islamic militant group ISIS. On these topics, Clinton scores a commanding lead over her rivals. More than six in 10 Democrats and independents who watched the debate think Hillary Clinton would do the best job on each of these measures, compared to about a quarter who pick Sanders, and about one in 10 who pick O'Malley.

But on domestic issues, views are more mixed. While Clinton has a slight lead over Sanders on handling gun policy (43 - 36 percent), Sanders beats Clinton by almost two to one on handling income inequality. When it comes to the economy and jobs, Clinton and Sanders are about even. O'Malley trails both candidates on all of these by a wide margin.

​

 

[gutter_trash]

Hillary Clinton needs to keep up her diplomatic sportsman like demoner until the end of the primaries,

we all know she is going to win but she can't take for granted that it is a given because when it comes to time to square off against the Republican nominee next fall, she will need all the prep and avoid giving the impression that it is in the bag.

Hillary's experience on foreign policy places her at the top of the standings, lots of people made fun of her with her Giulianiisms but that stuff resonates with the Center-Right and soft Republicans who could vote for her on her foreign policy strengths

 

[JustenP88]

Polls show most thought Hillary won the debate


PPP

Democratic Voters Overwhelmingly Think Clinton Won Debate; Particularly Strong on National Security Issues


67% of voters think Clinton won the debate,
20% for Bernie Sanders
7% for Martin O’Mal​

"This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record."

http://correctrecord.org/about/

"Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks."

For what it's worth...

Hillary Clinton needs to keep up her diplomatic sportsman like demoner until the end of the primaries,

we all know she is going to win but she can't take for granted that it is a given because when it comes to time to square off against the Republican nominee next fall, she will need all the prep and avoid giving the impression that it is in the bag.

Hillary's experience on foreign policy places her at the top of the standings, lots of people made fun of her with her Giulianiisms but that stuff resonates with the Center-Right and soft Republicans who could vote for her on her foreign policy strengths

Does experience necessarily equate to "strength"? I'm not familiar with any of her successes in foreign policy. I am much more familiar with her missteps.​

 

[Cheebo]

"This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record."

http://correctrecord.org/about/

"Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks."

For what it's worth...

The CBS one was not however and is very much in line with the PPP one. And they paid for the PPP poll to see how the debate went for the public. Not to be told what they wanted to hear.

The vast majority of the party greatly prefers her to Sanders, none of this is new and why no one should be expecting anything other than Hillary easily winning the nomination.

I mean this is the Democratic Party. Young 20-something liberals is not the base of the party. Older women and minorities are the key demographics of the party.

 

[Cerium]

"This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record."

http://correctrecord.org/about/

"Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks."

For what it's worth...

It was conducted with scientific methodology and the results are in line with the CBS poll.

...Or the polls are all wrong and biased and we need someone to unskew them! Bernie should hire Dean Chambers to give us the real numbers!

#unskewedpolls

 

[JustenP88]

It was conducted with scientific methodology and the results are in line with the CBS poll.

...Or the polls are all wrong and biased and we need someone to unskew them! Bernie should hire Dean Chambers to give us the real numbers!

#unskewedpolls

K, guys. Turnabout is fair play. Don't need to waste too much energy defending Hillary. She's got PACs for that specific purpose.

 

[Foffy]

She invoked 9/11 in a non-sequitur and drew applause. Then, after being called out for it, she doubled-down and drew applause again. We'd crucify Christie for doing it, even if it was loosely related to the discussion, but we applaud Clinton. She's obviously got an enormous amount of leeway with her words.

I think it shows people who drink Kool-Aid will have obvious confirmation biases. That self-inquiry is usually ignored in politics, so the Hillary fans who blindly support her for whatever reason - it may because she's a woman, because she even cited that during the 9/11 comment, and that got crazy applause as she dodged the main attack; there's gotta be something that people are latching to that makes them blind with such things - are not noticing the big red flags.

This happened with the MSNBC debate where even posters here talked about how she knocked it out of the park, and yet did not answer a single question directly.

You can still like her, but call out her bullshit, please. It seems the only ones doing so, coincidentally, can adhere to the positions of other candidates more on average. You shouldn't take off your skeptic and critical classes for your candidate on the plate you put them on.

 

[Piecake]

K, guys. Turnabout is fair play. Don't need to waste too much energy defending Hillary. She's got PACs for that specific purpose.

Our perhaps some people just get offended when other democrats start invoking arguments that hearken back to 'skewed polls' because they thought that their party was better than that?

 

[Hazmat]

Fiat currency based economies don't have to worry about limited funds. If affordability was really a problem in government spending, ask why we've never not been able to afford a war.

So, your argument is that because we can print our own money that we have unlimited money, and thus can afford everything we want? Do you think the government spends all this time developing a budget and a tax code because they like the paperwork?

 

[Meowster]

I still don't understand why a large sect of Bernie's hardcore base keep claiming that they would refuse to vote for Hillary or even go towards voting Donald Trump instead. I know Hillary's supporters would definitely vote for Sanders if he got the nomination. Anything before letting a clown like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz get the White House and fuck up with the Supreme Court and important bills.

 

[JustenP88]

Our perhaps some people just get offended when other democrats start invoking arguments that hearken back to 'skewed polls' because they thought that their party was better than that?

This happens with every single poll referenced. In all directions for all candidates. Any candidate would get shade for touting a poll conducted on behalf of a Super PAC created solely to defend them from attacks. Hillary isn't immune.

I still don't understand why a large sect of Bernie's hardcore base keep claiming that they would refuse to vote for Hillary or even go towards voting Donald Trump instead. I know Hillary's supporters would definitely vote for Sanders if he got the nomination. Anything before letting a clown like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz get the White House and fuck up with the Supreme Court and important bills.

Jesus Christ, the echo chamber is strooooong. You guys keep saying that to each other and maybe it'll come true some day!

 

[Tarkus]

Because being unemployed and underemployed are rightfully two different things.

Yeah, but discouraged workers and marginally attached workers are unemployed too and not counted in U-3. I just think that if the government is going to declare its numbers, why not give us the full picture. It's pretty stupid to me that a large swath of unemployed people are left out of the official rate. Just let us take it on the chin and give us the real unemployment rate.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I still don't understand why a large sect of Bernie's hardcore base keep claiming that they would refuse to vote for Hillary or even go towards voting Donald Trump instead. I know Hillary's supporters would definitely vote for Sanders if he got the nomination. Anything before letting a clown like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz get the White House and fuck up with the Supreme Court and important bills.

The internet isn't representative of actual people, very democratic voters are going to legit not vote for Hillary in the general given Hillary's support level in polls looking at the general (as useful as that is right now) are still at pretty big margins.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I still don't understand why a large sect of Bernie's hardcore base keep claiming that they would refuse to vote for Hillary or even go towards voting Donald Trump instead. I know Hillary's supporters would definitely vote for Sanders if he got the nomination. Anything before letting a clown like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz get the White House and fuck up with the Supreme Court and important bills.

she has an 80%+ democratic support. The internet is not the whole party. 95%+ will fall in line behind Hillary in the end. This thing will be over in February and it can't come soon enough.

 

[Zornack]

This happens with every single poll referenced. In all directions for all candidates. Any candidate would get shade for touting a poll conducted on behalf of a Super PAC created solely to defend them from attacks. Hillary isn't immune.!

You're delegitimizin the poll based on who paid for it, not who conducted it, and you're still ignoring the other polls which also show that Hillary won.

 

[Makai]

Yeah, but discouraged workers and marginally attached workers are unemployed too and not counted in U-3. I just think that if the government is going to declare its numbers, why not give us the full picture. It's pretty stupid to me that a large swath of unemployed people are left out of the official rate. Just let us take it on the chin and give us the real unemployment rate.

They all trend together. Just stick with U3 so we don't cause more confusion.

 

[Cerium]

You're delegitimizin the poll based on who paid for it, not who conducted it, and you're still ignoring the other polls which also show that Hillary won.

Our perhaps some people just get offended when other democrats start invoking arguments that hearken back to 'skewed polls' because they thought that their party was better than that?

Guys, guys, I think the Bernie fans understand that Hillary won. They're just trying to come to grips with it because it conflicts with how they saw the debate.

It's not that big a deal; Bernie isn't a real threat. Now that the numerical facts are established, let us be gracious in victory.

 

[JustenP88]

You're delegitimizin the poll based on who paid for it, not who conducted it, and you're still ignoring the other polls which also show that Hillary won.

Not ignoring. The polls are in her favor. I just think there's enough data out there that you don't have to point to a poll paid for by a specific candidate's Super PAC.

Guys, guys, I think the Bernie fans understand that Hillary won. They're just trying to come to grips with it because it conflicts with how they saw the debate.

It's not that big a deal; Bernie isn't a real threat. Now that the numerical facts are established, let us be gracious in victory.

I'm well aware of public opinion. Clinton is sweeping the polls for the Democrats, Trump is sweeping the polls for Republicans. Americans have a fantastic track record of picking the right candidate.