Decision 2016

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Sonic Youth » Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:11 am

Big Magilla wrote:Actually I have more admiration for passionate young people who think for themselves than people my age who get their talking points from cable news and talk radio regardless of what side of the political spectrum they're on. If Sanders supporters don't want to be called "Bernie bots" they shouldn't act like robots, ask their candidate of choice one simple question, "how, how are you going to do it?"


In other words, they are like any other typical American who knows what they would like their country to achieve but are not experts in macroeconomics. No, Magilla, you save your disdain for the youth, even though what you just described is a very typical description of any American voter. Most ardent supporters of the Affordable Care Act couldn't answer the question "But how will they implement it? How will it get paid for? Won't all these jobs be lost?" I don't suppose you called them bots, did you? And yet, it got put into place, and none of the doom-saying has materialized yet.

BTW, this is a good time to mention that I'm speaking as one who's 75% certain I'm voting for Clinton in the primary. But I'm not stupid. If she could not win the 18-64 year old vote, or win the under $200,000 income vote, it's not because those people are "bots". It's because they feel they are not heard nor respected.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Heksagon » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:28 am

You mean filibuster, not veto.

I must admit that I'm not entirely familiar with how Obamacare ultimately got passed, but I have the impression that the bill was "watered down" more for the sake of getting support from Centrist Democrats (which was absolutely needed) rather than for the hope that Centrist Republicans would support it. I'm not convinced Obama had the Democratic votes to get something more robust through (at least presuming he needed 60 votes in the Senate).

It is probably true that on Obamacare there was never much of a chance of getting a significant amount of bipartisan support, but it doesn't change what I argued, as it is just one specific - and exceptionally divisive - issue.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12430
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:24 am

taki15 wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:Plus, an approval rating isn't just about policies. It's also about his public image and personality and assuredness and communication skills and depth of feeling. I'd imagine most of the world acknowledges he has these qualities, regardless of how they may think of him politically.


No, that's likability. Approval is about believing if he does a good job or not.
And that's exactly why it confounds me when it comes to Sanders' voters. You can't at the same time think that Obama does a good job and support a guy who more or less says that his presidency was a failure and a betrayal of progressivism.


This brings up a good point. For all of Obama's talk of progressivism, he has been largely a pro-corporate president. Bernie has said he thinks Obama's progressive, but doesn't think Hillary is. Hillary isn't all that different from Obama. Both have changed their rhetoric on a number of issues. For example, both once opposed gay marriage. Bernie's supporters use that as a baton to beat Hillary with. That's the problem. Political opinions change over time with the mood of the nation.

It's great that Bernie has enjoyed being able to be a socialist in the U.S. Senate. He has the benefit of being from a state where such rhetoric works and ignites the passions of the people. Most heavily liberal states (like California, New Hampshire, Connecticut, much of the Northeast), being a liberal in the cloth of Bernie gets you elected. Being a liberal like Bernie in the rest of the U.S., especially in the last two dozen years, doesn't tend to get you very far. If Democrats want to get a elected, no matter what their personal beliefs on issues are, they have to embrace some more conservative positions in order to get elected.

Could a socialist ever have gotten elected Governor of Arkansas? No. A populist, sure, but that's not the same thing. I use as evidence Bernie's position against Gun Control. He holds that position because Vermont residents are pro-guns. On the campaign trail, he periodically speaks out against gun violence, but has been rather circumspect on how to get things done. He knows that if he loses the nomination and simultaneously alienates some of the people from Vermont, he could risk his re-election, so he couches his words.

That brings up another issue. How will Bernie achieve his goals? Not very easily. While Elizabeth Warren suggested he could use his control over the executive to prosecute everyone involved in the housing market collapse, Bernie hasn't suggested the same thing. He has limited options with executive orders and doing anything too bold will create problems in the house and senate where any budgetary issues he wants to pass will be stymied. That means they could gut the budgets associated with such prosecutions. There are all sorts of factors that will stand in the way of him getting anything done, which is probably why he only speaks in grand ideas and not in specifics. He knows that his candidacy is a pipedream and that, the tea leaves favor Clinton, so why get into details and not speak in lofty ideals? It helps bring Clinton left, it energizes young voters, and hopefully a majority of them, when he finally tosses his support behind Clinton and encourages them to vote, will actually do so.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12430
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:13 am

Heksagon wrote:
OscarGuy wrote:When Obama won by winning the young vote in 2008, he ran on a platform of change, which never materialized because


I don't agree with this. Obama did pretty much what he was expected to do (except maybe in civil right related issues like closing Guantánamo Bay). It isn't his fault that a lot of people had ridiculously naïve expectations about he would do. And now a lot of the same people have similar naïve expectations about Sanders.

OscarGuy wrote:he tried working with Republicans like real adults should and was shut down


I don't agree with this either, as I've said earlier. Obama does speak about working with Republicans, but he hasn't done so in actual policy. His habit seems to be to call for cooperation, but as soon as John Boehner takes the bait and starts to negotiate, Obama pulls away and ignores whatever input the Republicans had to offer. Then Republicans get to hammer Boehner for taking the bait in the first place and Democrats hammer Republicans for supposedly failing to cooperate.

Obama has done so at least in two significant cases: The first was the 2009 stimulus, when Obama met with Republicans and heard what they wanted from the stimulus (which was mainly support for small entrepreneurs, I believe). Democrats then completely ignored Republican wishes, so that even the most sympathetic Republicans voted against it, but the way the Democrats portrayed it was that Republicans supposedly turned down Democrat offers to work together. For Democrats, bipartisanship seems to mean that Republicans are allowed to vote for policies of the Democratic Administration, but not influence their content.

The other was the authorization to negotiate TPP. Democrats were largely opposed to it, but the authorization passed with Republicans supporting Obama. Obama then proceeded to negotiate a treaty that carefully protects Democratic interests like environment and labor unions, while being weak on Republican interests like intellectual property. It's no wonder that Boehner was so heavily criticized in his own party for trying to work with Obama.


When he had the veto-proof majority in the first two years of his presidency, he extended an olive branch to Republicans, specifically on Obamacare. He had the votes to get a more robust bill through, possibly even close to Medicare for All, which is what smart-thinking Americans really are looking for, but wanted to get Republicans on board, so he watered down the legislation attempting to get moderate Republicans to vote for it. It didn't work. That's the crux of the problem. If he stopped working with them after that point, it was because they showed that no matter what good faith negotiations he had with them and no matter how much he capitulated to them, they weren't going to vote for his efforts.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
taki15
Temp
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: Decision 2016

Postby taki15 » Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:43 am

Sonic Youth wrote:Plus, an approval rating isn't just about policies. It's also about his public image and personality and assuredness and communication skills and depth of feeling. I'd imagine most of the world acknowledges he has these qualities, regardless of how they may think of him politically.


No, that's likability. Approval is about believing if he does a good job or not.
And that's exactly why it confounds me when it comes to Sanders' voters. You can't at the same time think that Obama does a good job and support a guy who more or less says that his presidency was a failure and a betrayal of progressivism.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15387
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:12 am

Sonic Youth wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:
A Sanders presidency would fall on deaf ears to a Republican congress. The most that Sanders would likely accomplish is to keep the Supreme Court from becoming totally reactionary. That said, Hillary's loss in New Hampshire is partly her fault. Bringing in Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem to play the woman's card at the last minute was a big mistake. All it did was insult women. So was going to Flint, Michigan on Sunday which was an obvious ploy to appeal to similar, largely poor, black voters in South Carolina. It gave undecided New Hampshire voters the idea she had washed her hands of their State.

I just hope that the Bernie bots wake up and realize Hillary not only has their interests at heart but knows how to get things done, and not that she wins the nomination with total establishment support. If that happens, the Bernie bots are likely to do what young people do in most elections - stay home while the Trump supporters turn out in droves.


I think it was pretty evident that New Hampshire was a lost cause for a long time now. So, why not move on to South Carolina?

Would you like to know how to bring the youth over to Hilary? Stop calling them Bernie bots. That would be a start, anyway. Then, you could ditch the rest of the condescension and belligerence you have for the younger voters, encourage the same to other people in your age demo, and then the young people might come out and vote and form an alliance with you. But you're so wrapped up in your sclerotic bitterness, you don't even give the young voters credit when they come out in record numbers to vote - which they did in '04, even though Kerry lost - bur find other ways to say they're sub-humans. Year after year, you say the same obnoxious, dismissive stuff without ever realizing that maybe YOU are the reason why they don't go out and vote.

Actually I have more admiration for passionate young people who think for themselves than people my age who get their talking points from cable news and talk radio regardless of what side of the political spectrum they're on. If Sanders supporters don't want to be called "Bernie bots" they shouldn't act like robots, ask their candidate of choice one simple question, "how, how are you going to do it?" As my grandmother used to say, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".

I do hope I'm wrong about the turnout in this election if it doesn't go the way the Sanders supporters are hoping, but I'm not holding my breath.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby criddic3 » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:03 am

Big Magilla wrote:I understand the Trump and Sanders momentum. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I don't get the Cruz support at all. I can see level-headed Republicans, if there are enough of them left, throwing their support behind Kasich, but maybe not in enough numbers to wrest the nomination away from Trump.


Trump is getting a third of the Republican vote, while the rest of the field is still split. Cruz also has a ceiling in his support, because some in the party dislike his tactics (particularly in his rhetoric towards the "establishment"). Of the three "establishment" choices, Kasich could emerge as the one to back if Rubio fails to reignite the momentum he lost after the New Hampshire debate. There's an outside chance Bush could take the mantle, but it's a tough sell for many. His chances are better now than they have been at any point in the last year, however.

Now that we're down to six candidates, we will start to see a three-way battle emerge between Trump, Cruz and one of the three mainstream choices. Carson is basically done, unless he can shock with a comeback in South Carolina. We should know who the winner of the third leg of that contest is by mid-March when Florida and Ohio vote (if not before then).
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Heksagon » Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:52 am

OscarGuy wrote:When Obama won by winning the young vote in 2008, he ran on a platform of change, which never materialized because


I don't agree with this. Obama did pretty much what he was expected to do (except maybe in civil right related issues like closing Guantánamo Bay). It isn't his fault that a lot of people had ridiculously naïve expectations about he would do. And now a lot of the same people have similar naïve expectations about Sanders.

OscarGuy wrote:he tried working with Republicans like real adults should and was shut down


I don't agree with this either, as I've said earlier. Obama does speak about working with Republicans, but he hasn't done so in actual policy. His habit seems to be to call for cooperation, but as soon as John Boehner takes the bait and starts to negotiate, Obama pulls away and ignores whatever input the Republicans had to offer. Then Republicans get to hammer Boehner for taking the bait in the first place and Democrats hammer Republicans for supposedly failing to cooperate.

Obama has done so at least in two significant cases: The first was the 2009 stimulus, when Obama met with Republicans and heard what they wanted from the stimulus (which was mainly support for small entrepreneurs, I believe). Democrats then completely ignored Republican wishes, so that even the most sympathetic Republicans voted against it, but the way the Democrats portrayed it was that Republicans supposedly turned down Democrat offers to work together. For Democrats, bipartisanship seems to mean that Republicans are allowed to vote for policies of the Democratic Administration, but not influence their content.

The other was the authorization to negotiate TPP. Democrats were largely opposed to it, but the authorization passed with Republicans supporting Obama. Obama then proceeded to negotiate a treaty that carefully protects Democratic interests like environment and labor unions, while being weak on Republican interests like intellectual property. It's no wonder that Boehner was so heavily criticized in his own party for trying to work with Obama.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Sonic Youth » Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:30 am

Big Magilla wrote:
A Sanders presidency would fall on deaf ears to a Republican congress. The most that Sanders would likely accomplish is to keep the Supreme Court from becoming totally reactionary. That said, Hillary's loss in New Hampshire is partly her fault. Bringing in Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem to play the woman's card at the last minute was a big mistake. All it did was insult women. So was going to Flint, Michigan on Sunday which was an obvious ploy to appeal to similar, largely poor, black voters in South Carolina. It gave undecided New Hampshire voters the idea she had washed her hands of their State.

I just hope that the Bernie bots wake up and realize Hillary not only has their interests at heart but knows how to get things done, and not that she wins the nomination with total establishment support. If that happens, the Bernie bots are likely to do what young people do in most elections - stay home while the Trump supporters turn out in droves.


I think it was pretty evident that New Hampshire was a lost cause for a long time now. So, why not move on to South Carolina?

Would you like to know how to bring the youth over to Hilary? Stop calling them Bernie bots. That would be a start, anyway. Then, you could ditch the rest of the condescension and belligerence you have for the younger voters, encourage the same to other people in your age demo, and then the young people might come out and vote and form an alliance with you. But you're so wrapped up in your sclerotic bitterness, you don't even give the young voters credit when they come out in record numbers to vote - which they did in '04, even though Kerry lost - bur find other ways to say they're sub-humans. Year after year, you say the same obnoxious, dismissive stuff without ever realizing that maybe YOU are the reason why they don't go out and vote.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15387
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:09 am

I understand the Trump and Sanders momentum. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I don't get the Cruz support at all. I can see level-headed Republicans, if there are enough of them left, throwing their support behind Kasich, but maybe not in enough numbers to wrest the nomination away from Trump.

The Sanders appeal is based mostly on impressionable youth who like what he says because although he may have been saying the same thing since the 80s, few have been paying attention. He sounds like a real-life Superman who'll provide Universal Health Care and free college tuition. If he can do that, maybe he'll forgive outstanding student loans as well. It's as big a pipedream as Trump building a wall across the southern border and getting Mexico to pay for it, but it sounds good to the people who want to believe it.

A Sanders presidency would fall on deaf ears to a Republican congress. The most that Sanders would likely accomplish is to keep the Supreme Court from becoming totally reactionary. That said, Hillary's loss in New Hampshire is partly her fault. Bringing in Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem to play the woman's card at the last minute was a big mistake. All it did was insult women. So was going to Flint, Michigan on Sunday which was an obvious ploy to appeal to similar, largely poor, black voters in South Carolina. It gave undecided New Hampshire voters the idea she had washed her hands of their State.

I just hope that the Bernie bots wake up and realize Hillary not only has their interests at heart but knows how to get things done, and not that she wins the nomination with total establishment support. If that happens, the Bernie bots are likely to do what young people do in most elections - stay home while the Trump supporters turn out in droves.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:27 pm

taki15 wrote:I'm somewhat bemused by the fact that Sanders seems to be so popular considering the fact that he runs almost explicitly against the Obama legacy.
How can Obama have 90% approval rating among Democrats and liberals and then the same people go out and vote for a guy who craps on Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and campaigns along with Cornell West? It seems schizophrenic to me. Have they been infected with the same crazy virus that led Republicans into Trump's arms?


Because they're still Democrats. Obama may not be as far to the left as they'd like, but he's left-wing enough. And while they may disagree with Obama, he's not at all seen as the enemy. So they vote for him, because whatever differences they have the Democrats are still a cohesive group.

Plus, an approval rating isn't just about policies. It's also about his public image and personality and assuredness and communication skills and depth of feeling. I'd imagine most of the world acknowledges he has these qualities, regardless of how they may think of him politically.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6255
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:16 pm

Mister Tee wrote:But keep in mind that a number of similar candidates -- Kasich, Christie, Bush -- have been working NH steadily, and, in current polling, no one of them stands out as more likely to vacuum up all the establishment votes available. It's just as possible Kasich has a breakthrough...in which case Rubio's gamble will have given him only one night's bragging rights.


Thought I’d highlight that from last week, to prove I sometimes see the future with clarity.

“The voters of New Hampshire are saying loud and clear that they’re angry, and want nothing to do with the establishments of both parties.“ I heard someone say that last night, and it rang a quick bell: it was almost word for word what I heard Mike Barnicle say the night of the NH primary in 2000. That was the night John McCain trounced GWBush for the GOP, and initial exit polls indicated Bill Bradley was going to slip past Al Gore on the Dem side. To Barnicle, it meant that the country just wanted to “take a shower” and wash off its disgust with the Clinton administration and all of Washington.

The first thing to say about that is, Gore actually ended up winning the primary, by a sliver. The second is that both he and Bush recovered extremely quickly from this supposedly devastating uprising, nailing down their nominations with ease by mid-March. New Hampshire is of course cemented into the political calendar as our first primary – they’d move it up two years if they had to, to hold onto the slot. But the state is more quirky than illustrative: it seems to me the residents were born pissed off, and they’re always “sending a message” by making some offbeat pick, not many of which have gone onto the presidency. (In fact, I believe George HW Bush ‘88 is the last non-incumbent to win NH and go on to take the Fall election.)

New Hampshire was just about designer-created for a Sanders candidacy. It’s, like Iowa before it, 95% white, with more Democrats who describe themselves as “very liberal” than all but a handful of states. Its large independent bloc has long tended to reward cool/youth-appealing campaigns, even those with little broad support (McCarthy and McGovern came from nowhere back in the day, and it was, by far, Bradley’s strongest showing in 2000). The state’s also been kind to neighboring New Englanders – Dukakis in ’88, Tsongas in ’92, Kerry in ’04. According to David Wasserman at Cook Political Report, Sanders won towns along the VT/NH border by 70-80% margins; that’s what you call home-field advantage. I’m not going to dismiss the size of Sanders’ margin – it was well at the outside of his campaign’s hopes. But I’m still going to wait for results from a state less tilted his way before deciding Hillary’s in any trouble. Put it this way: if West Virginia and South Carolina had been the first two primaries, I don’t think we’re having the breathless “how can Hillary save herself?” conversations that MSNBC, god help us, is running non-stop. Hillary has to wait 10 days for another contest, and even there – in Nevada – it’s only neutral-ground, not hugely Hillary-tilting. If she can stagger through that without serious damage (except among the chattering classes), she’ll have SC on the 27th and a ton of states that lean her way on March 1st. I still think she has a chance to win relative comfort.

Final note on the Dems: exit polls said 78% of NH Dem voters would be happy with a Sanders candidacy, and 64% would be happy with Hillary (even while not choosing her this night). So the murmurs you’re hearing about Bernie supporters thinking Hillary’s no different from the GOP, or Hillary folk thinking Sanders is Lenin, are just belches from loud outliers.

As to the Republicans…

They are not long, the days of wine and roses. For a full week, Republican poohbahs were able to comfort themselves that Trump wouldn’t turn his poll numbers into voters, and that One Moderate (name of Rubio) Would Rule Them All and save the party from a crazy nominee.

This was of course before Rubio’s Mr. Roboto act last Saturday – the most astonishing own-goal I’ve ever seen a candidate engineer. I’ve witnessed gaffes before, but usually they’re things that aren’t that big a deal in and of themselves that get turned (by the press) into killing moments by hype and repetition (Muskie’s tears, Dean’s scream). This, though, was something you couldn’t believe while it was happening: he not only illustrated Christie’s talking point by repeating the same phrase: when Christie called him on it, he did it AGAIN. It was so bad even his most loyal supporters – the campaign press corps – found it impossible not to crucify him for it. Even with that, had he performed credibly last night – if he’d got Kasich’s numbers – there’d have been a sweep under the rug, “the voters don’t care about it like the press does” attempt. But his fifth (!) place finish said the voters did care. GOP analyst Steve Schmidt thinks he’s beyond recovery.

But it’s hard to say what was the worst news for the GOP last night: that Trump lived up to his polling (surpassed it, even) and won easily; that Cruz, who barely contested the state, finished third, making him not just the Iowa evangelical guy, but potentially a strong national GOP contender; or the fact that the so-called moderate lane got, if anything, more confusing. I guess I’d have to vote for the last. If the GOP hope was to pick one and discard the rest from that Establishment group, they only got the opposite: they cut one (Christie – who leaves a hero for having slain Rubio), but left three guys – Kasich, Bush, Rubio – still fighting for what is already a minority in the party (they were about 40-45% in NH, but are closer to 30-35% nationwide). Kasich was, from the point of view of the opposition (i.e., me) the ideal person to do best, because he has very little in the way of financial resources, and a profile that fits few if any states nearly as well it does NH…but, because he’s the “winner” of that slot in NH, he’ll definitely stay in/compete and siphon off votes from the other two – Bush and Rubio – who have their own very well publicized problems. It’s not impossible one of those last two could revive what seem sinking hopes with a strong run in the Southern primaries…but that’ll be a lot harder to do when they have to cut and slash one another (plus Kasich) just to, probably, secure third place.

The other interesting element to watch is whether Cruz makes a real charge at Trump. Trump has pretty strong poll leads throughout the South, but he may be hobbled by the closed nature of many of those primaries. Trump, like Sanders, beefed up his NH lead with a ton of non-party independents; that won’t be an option for him in most places, which require party registration as prerequisite for voting. I don’t underestimate the possibility of Cruz winning his share of those primaries, and the race devolving into Cruz v. Trump most of the way to the convention. And, if either Bush or Rubio – or Kasich, to be fair – gets a firm hold as Establishment Option, we could see votes split three ways for months. Which could actually take us to that mythical unicorn, The Brokered Convention.

All this in just two contests. We’ve got a pretty interesting year going.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12430
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:20 pm

Some have floated the idea that pollsters might be mislead by Republicans who say they would vote for Hillary just to get him as the nominee whom they think they would have an easier time beating.

Sanders really hasn't gone through the media wringer yet. Whereas everything about Hillary has pretty much been aired and nothing is really sticking to her.

When Obama won by winning the young vote in 2008, he ran on a platform of change, which never materialized because he tried working with Republicans like real adults should and was shut down, then shellacked in the midterms and lost his majorities, which meant that he could no longer get anything pushed through. If he'd just gone alone in those earlier days, we might have more of what his supporters wanted at the time.

Let's also remember that Bernie is inspiring young voters, not Obama voters. Most of Obama's voters are now in their late 20's and early 30's, meaning they are no longer the youth vote. History seems to be becoming more liberal as it ages, thus why Sanders appeals to young voters now that wouldn't have supported Obama then.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Greg » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:07 pm

Poll: Against Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump Would Get 'Schlonged':

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... gn=partner
Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.

James K. Galbraith

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Okri » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:32 pm

flipp525 wrote:Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee will lead to a Republican victory in the race for the White House. All of my Republican family members are currently donating to his campaign and posting pro-Bernie shit on their Facebook (and even have Bernie signs on their front lawns). So, I hope all you Bernie Bots are ready to say "President Trump."


I've swallowed the media angle that Trump and Sanders are cut from the same cloth. How wrong am I?


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests