Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.
That honestly sounded like a bunch of BS... especially as the underlying rhetoric that I've seen most often surrounding Libertarians is fear. They are afraid of federal govt, they are afraid of "losing" rights, etc. etc. Obviously, this isn't a universal truth, just the majority of what I've seen. Additionally, based on what I've seen the "rationality" pretty much ends at "If it isn't in the constitution, we shouldn't have it."
And besides, that does seem to be a self-selected survey, which those who've taken a stats class will know that those are generally among the least reliable methods of collecting data.
Part of the problem might be that there is actually a pretty wide swath of people who could be considered Libertarians, and Libertarianism comes in a few different flavors. Left-libertarians, right-libertarians, and all the subcategories within those, and then just regular libertarians, however those are defined, since there are a lot people who overlap with the other varieties.
This is true of Republicans and Democrats as well, of course. I think it might just be due to Libertarians being less mainstream than Republicans and Democrats so that leads to them being painted with an extra broad brush (something that is also done by and to Republicans and Democrats).
Ouze wrote: I don't remember it being quite as bad as this one has already gotten on the Dem side. There were winners and losers and the hard feelings that go with that, but I don't recall there being a whole tone of how it was rigged to pick winners and losers like this one has been spun, or actually is, depending who you're rooting for. I don't remember much of an air of illegitimacy in 2008.
It was way messier that time around. Florida and Michigan put their primaries forward in violation of DNC rules, and so their delegates were banned from voting. Everyone pledged to not campaign in Florida, but Clinton did campaign in Michigan. Clinton won both states, but turn out was way down. In the end both states were given half their normal delegates, which was probably the worst of both worlds and left everyone pissed off.
There was yet more drama with the super-delegates. Early on they strongly favoured Clinton and lots of Obama supporters were pissed. But as Obama won more delegates and it became clear he was going to win overall the super-delegates flipped. This in turn pissed off Clinton supporters.
Clinton actually ended up with more votes than Obama, in part because of the Florida/Michigan weirdness, but also because Obama tended to do better in caucus states. But this also pissed off Clinton supporters, who saw it as a horrible injustice.
But in the end Clinton and Obama came to terms, Obama offered Clinton something she wanted (Sec. of State), and she publically backed him. Supporters fell in to line and Obama got great turnout in November.
This time around it’s different in two ways. There’s no actual controversies – one candidate is clearly winning because she’s got a large lead in votes, but the supporters of the trailing candidate are really angry about something… anything. It probably reflects on the greater economic angst, but also possibly reflects on Sanders own behaviour – he’s more than happy to make claims that he’s somehow been hard done by.
In the end he’ll fall in to line, probably by having his contributions written in to the DNC party platform. From there the Sanders supporter will probably mostly fall in to line. The alternative is Trump, after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I remember when Perot ran before Bill Clinton's 2nd term. Many believe that he's the reason why Bill was able to win handily over Bob Dole.
I wonder if this is going to be "a thing" now because of how saturated Social Media is now...
Perot ran both times Clinton ran. He was much more relevant the first time around, where Perot won almost 20% of the vote, and that might have been what gave Clinton the win.*
In Clinton’s second term Perot only got 8%, less than the margin that Clinton beat Dole by. It almost certainly didn’t cost the Republicans that time around.
* Maybe. 20% was a lot but a huge amount, especially when you consider Clinton only beat Bush by 6%. But some analysis has shown it’s a lot less clear – much of Perot’s vote was in states that weren’t competitive, and exit polling showed that a lot of it was from Republicans giving a protest vote, who otherwise might not have voted at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/17 03:19:14
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Seaward wrote: Claims of emotional neutrality are the political equivalent of internet tough guy-ism in that they're bravado lacking in credibility.
But that claim wasn't made. This isn't an either or situation where the only options are zealot like fealty or absolute neutrality. The only "claim" was that not everyone has to have the same attitude toward politics.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Peregrine wrote: I think this is the most likely explanation. Trump and Cruz were the only candidates who got anyone excited. The other candidates were either boring placeholders whose primary appeal was that they weren't Trump or Cruz, or obvious joke candidates with no hope of winning. So that's a lot of apathetic voters, with their vote split between several equally boring candidates. And I think that group of voters is where a lot of the "I don't like Trump, but at least he's not a democrat" feelings come from.
I think that’s likely, I just don’t want to say it’s certainly, or that there’s nothing else going on. From McCain needing to pick Palin to appeal to the far right, to the rise of the Tea Party and establishment of the freedom caucus, and now Trump and Cruz as the most successful candidates… well there’s a trend forming and it’s picking up steam. Hopefully and most likely things will return to normal shortly, but I’m nowhere near certain of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Claims of emotional neutrality are the political equivalent of internet tough guy-ism in that they're bravado lacking in credibility. Someone so closely aligned with political ideals of the side of the aisle that might as well use, "What about empathy?!" as its rallying cry ought to know that.
Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.
So you say that claims of emotional neutrality are internet bravado, and then you claim that your own pet ideology is really the rational one. I kind of want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were deliberately making a joke but I can’t… maybe I’m too emotionally invested.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/17 03:50:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: [So you say that claims of emotional neutrality are internet bravado, and then you claim that your own pet ideology is really the rational one. I kind of want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were deliberately making a joke but I can’t… maybe I’m too emotionally invested.
In the end he’ll fall in to line, probably by having his contributions written in to the DNC party platform. From there the Sanders supporter will probably mostly fall in to line. The alternative is Trump, after all.
I think you don't really understand Sanders supporters. Expecting people who want a candidate who will actually stand for them instead of banks and corporations to display loyalty to someone who's been shouting that they will never ever get universal healthcare is foolish. Especially with the way the Democratic Party has been actively cutting off its leftist supporters to make absolutely sure that Queen Clinton gets the nomination. The DNC is so lacking in perspective that in a time when the GOP is fielding a fascist candidate they decide to court centre-right voters. The US is growing ever more desperate for any kind of left at all and the Democrats are doing everything they can to not provide it. They could field any candidate they so please in the face of Trump and they choose... a dynastic, neoliberal hawk. This tells you everything about where the party's loyalties lie.
To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/17 08:13:51
Rosebuddy wrote: To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
Emphasis mine - I think that's actually something that happens quite often.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Rosebuddy wrote: To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
Emphasis mine - I think that's actually something that happens quite often.
It's why I turn out to vote as an independent. By definition, Republicans are horrible candidates, so I do what I can to keep them from getting into office
In the end he’ll fall in to line, probably by having his contributions written in to the DNC party platform. From there the Sanders supporter will probably mostly fall in to line. The alternative is Trump, after all.
I think you don't really understand Sanders supporters. Expecting people who want a candidate who will actually stand for them instead of banks and corporations to display loyalty to someone who's been shouting that they will never ever get universal healthcare is foolish. Especially with the way the Democratic Party has been actively cutting off its leftist supporters to make absolutely sure that Queen Clinton gets the nomination. The DNC is so lacking in perspective that in a time when the GOP is fielding a fascist candidate they decide to court centre-right voters. The US is growing ever more desperate for any kind of left at all and the Democrats are doing everything they can to not provide it. They could field any candidate they so please in the face of Trump and they choose... a dynastic, neoliberal hawk. This tells you everything about where the party's loyalties lie.
To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change. The same career politicians will be in power and be beholden to the same special interest groups. Either there are millions of people out there that want change but are still very ignorant of how the US govt works or there are a lot of people that want a new figurehead but the same old system running behind that figurehead.
Update 8:20 p.m.: As expected, Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.) easily won his Senate primary with Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) on Tuesday, with Young up 64-36 with 44 percent of precincts reporting. It's the latest evidence that Trump's effect on the GOP primary hasn't really filtered downballot this primary season, as the establishment keeps winning.
The original post follows:
Spoiler:
If things go according to plan for Republicans in Tuesday's Indiana GOP Senate primary, this could be one of the last stories you read about the race and its impact on control of the Senate in 2016.
Their preferred candidate, Rep. Todd Young, is expected to win the primary over a hard-line conservative with tea party support, Rep. Marlin Stutzman. Young, a former Marine, would then be in a good position to win the open seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Dan Coats (R) and keep the seat Republican.
That scenario seems much more likely Tuesday than it did a few months ago. Back then, we were analyzing whether GOP's preferred Senate candidates were in trouble because they were sharing the ballot with Donald Trump, who is most definitely not the GOP establishment's preferred presidential candidate.
But in the five GOP Senate primaries that have followed, we've seen basically zero evidence that Trump's victories are bad news for Republicans' top congressional primary candidates. Just because millions of voters are won over by Trump's outsider appeal doesn't mean they'll automatically vote for any candidate playing up their outsider credentials or attaching themselves to Trump.
In other words: The Trump Effect seems pretty difficult to replicate if you're not a once-in-a-lifetime, incredibly unique candidate named Donald Trump. And there haven't been outside GOP candidates this primary season who remotely resemble Trump.
Thanks in part to that, Senate Republicans are actually having a better primary year than in some recent cycles. They're 5-for-5 in contested primaries so far even though Trump has won 4 out of those 5 states, often by large margins. In 2010 and 2012, the Republican establishment lost at least four primaries each cycle.
They had prepared to do battle this year, too. In March, longtime senator Richard Shelby (Ala.) became the first congressional incumbent to test out being on a ballot with Trump.
He took nothing for granted. Shelby spent at least $5 million in his primary to avoid having a runoff with a little-known challenger. He won and, more important, avoided a runoff by taking a majority of the vote in a crowded field, even as Trump won his state by more than 20 points. It was a silver lining in what was otherwise a terrible Super Tuesday for the GOP establishment.
But at what cost did Shelby's win come, I wondered at the time. Not every Senate incumbent or establishment-preferred candidate can spend $5 million to keep from getting booted in the Year of Trump.
Turns out they haven't necessarily needed to. In Illinois, 20-year veteran Rep. John Shimkus (R) successfully faced down a tea party primary challenger who had the backing of the conservative Club for Growth. The closest the establishment has come to a scare from an outside challenger was Rep. Bill Shuster's (R-Pa.) April 26 primary, where an underfunded and little-known political novice came within a point of knocking off the powerful House transportation committee chairman. So far though, the only House incumbent to lose a primary this year has been a Democrat (and he's under indictment).
The establishment is very much expected to stay flawless Tuesday; in Indiana, the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist poll shows Young is ahead of Stutzman by 32 points even though Trump is expected to win the state.
There are a few reasons the Trump Effect hasn't panned out in GOP primaries. For one, the tea party and Trump aren't one and the same. The group that tends to support these outside candidates, the Club for Growth, is actively spending against Trump at the presidential level. In other words, not only aren't there a lot of candidates in the Trump mold; there isn't really an outside group geared toward promoting such candidates.
The Trump Effect (or lack therof) aside, Republicans have also gotten lucky this cycle by avoiding a ton of substantive primary challengers. The Club for Growth has only backed two challengers so far, in part because the other candidates just aren't viable, its spokesman, Doug Sachtleben, told Roll Call's Simone Pathe. Their only congressional win came in an open Ohio House seat to replace former House speaker John Boehner . Hugely symbolic, perhaps, but not much to extrapolate there about Trump's effect on down-ballot primaries — especially in a very crowded field.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/17 13:11:45
skyth wrote: It's why I turn out to vote as an independent. By definition, Republicans are horrible candidates, so I do what I can to keep them from getting into office
I had been independent since I registered to vote when I turned 18, but this year I had to register so that I could participate in the caucuses, which I had never done before. Next election I'm going to flip my registration so I can go to the other party's caucus, and then I'll go back to being independent. Turns out caucasus are mostly old people, which is bad, but they're largely my neighbors, which is worse, and many of them what to engage you in idly chatter, which is like, my nightmare scenario.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change.
This is a really good point. I'm not sure I've seen a really, really significant swing in the congressional game other than the typical swing you see at post-presidential-re-election midterms.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/17 13:52:48
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
They're both Reagan wannabes using the same tired strategy, Cruz especially. If the goal of the Tea Party is to build a time machine and take us all back to 1985, then they might be in trouble: Doc Brown is 77 and Marty McFly has Parkinson's .
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I think briefly gazing at a magnificent chest and quietly thinking "nice" might be the most human thing Hillary has done so far this campaign.
I imagine she was making a mental note to put Aguilera's plastic surgeon on staff, though I suspect boobs are easier than personalities.
I must be crazy, because really, I think Mrs. Aguilera is definitely kind of "meh". If I'm going to be ogling anyone, it will be Mrs. Sofia Vergara
No one said she was the most beautiful woman ever, just that she has cleavage worth noting when standing next to her while she is in a low cut top. That is assuming the context is right.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Prestor Jon wrote: I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change.
This is a really good point. I'm not sure I've seen a really, really significant swing in the congressional game other than the typical swing you see at post-presidential-re-election midterms.
Yeah, my fear about this year's election isn't that the wrong figurehead will get elected, it's what happens when millions of people who apparently think changing the figurehead makes a difference realize that it really doesn't. None of the remaining candidates, Regardless of who wins the general, Trump, Clinton none of them are going to accomplish anything groundbreaking or cause any dramatic paradigm shifts if they're stealing dealing with McConnel, Reid, Ryan, and Pelosi et al in Congress. The same entrenched establishment politicians and special interest groups will still be running the show. Unfortunately I think that will lead to either people giving up and abstaining from voting and engaging the political system which only allows the special interests to exert more control or more people will clamor for changes to the system that will make an Imperial Presidency a reality not just a lazy smear tactic for pundits or worst case people will want both. If people really want change but don't understand how to really go about enacting it then we risk people breaking the system even worse and possibly doing irreparable harm.
skyth wrote: It's why I turn out to vote as an independent. By definition, Republicans are horrible candidates, so I do what I can to keep them from getting into office
I had been independent since I registered to vote when I turned 18, but this year I had to register so that I could participate in the caucuses, which I had never done before. Next election I'm going to flip my registration so I can go to the other party's caucus, and then I'll go back to being independent. Turns out caucasus are mostly old people, which is bad, but they're largely my neighbors, which is worse, and many of them what to engage you in idly chatter, which is like, my nightmare scenario.
You can go to any caucus you want! you just don't get to vote. I own a business and went to a local caucus. I saw a lot of people I knew, but a lot of people I didn't know too. I jokingly told my wife that I better go to the other parties caucus too so everyone thinks I am 'one of them" and continues coming to my place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change.
This is a really good point. I'm not sure I've seen a really, really significant swing in the congressional game other than the typical swing you see at post-presidential-re-election midterms.
I second this recommendation. I think it is a prime example of why mid-term turn-outs are so terrible. People forget that the President can't really do anything without congressional support and they get disillusioned or something.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
Why can't it be both?
It also doesn't help when people seem to support an appalling candidate on the very things that make said candidate so terrible.
If anything a Washington Insider is more likely to be able to achieve a bit of change because they know how to work the system, while an outsider with big radical ideas is more likely to find the system closing ranks against them.
Kilkrazy wrote: If anything a Washington Insider is more likely to be able to achieve a bit of change because they know how to work the system, while an outsider with big radical ideas is more likely to find the system closing ranks against them.
Then... what about an Insider with big radical ideas??
I think one of the reasons I want Sanders to win, is because it would show the entire country that someone "that far left" can get elected, and would, I think, start the ball rolling at the lower levels of government to get candidates and congress critters who are more aligned with Sanders' ideas.
Holding out hope for Bernie as VP for TRUMP....its so crazy that it'll work!!!!
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Rosebuddy wrote: I think you don't really understand Sanders supporters. Expecting people who want a candidate who will actually stand for them instead of banks and corporations to display loyalty to someone who's been shouting that they will never ever get universal healthcare is foolish.
I think one of the bigger misunderstandings out there right now is that Sanders achievement in winning 9 million votes means there is a massive left wing movement out there that will only accept far left politics, and will accept no kind of comprimise with the centre left. There are certainly some very noisy people on the internet who believe in pure politics over effective politics, but extending that to all of the people who voted for Sanders is not only completely speculative, its almost certainly nonsense.
Right now Trump and the Republican establishment are playing the political theatre needed to get them all united for the upcoming campaign, and Trump is a genuinely dangerous lunatic. The idea that Democrats will be incapable of bridging the gap between Sanders and Clinton, who believe or not has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate, is quite ridiculous.
The only question on that front is whether Sanders will let be sensible enough to take a practical win, like getting strong influence over the party platform, or will instead choose to go out in a blaze of glory and risk November. I hold hopes that he'll return to the fold, but his idiotic nonsense in response to the events in Nevada show that he might just be stupid and vain enough to choose flaming out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Yeah, my fear about this year's election isn't that the wrong figurehead will get elected, it's what happens when millions of people who apparently think changing the figurehead makes a difference realize that it really doesn't. None of the remaining candidates, Regardless of who wins the general, Trump, Clinton none of them are going to accomplish anything groundbreaking or cause any dramatic paradigm shifts if they're stealing dealing with McConnel, Reid, Ryan, and Pelosi et al in Congress. The same entrenched establishment politicians and special interest groups will still be running the show. Unfortunately I think that will lead to either people giving up and abstaining from voting and engaging the political system which only allows the special interests to exert more control or more people will clamor for changes to the system that will make an Imperial Presidency a reality not just a lazy smear tactic for pundits or worst case people will want both. If people really want change but don't understand how to really go about enacting it then we risk people breaking the system even worse and possibly doing irreparable harm.
I read an interesting piece a while ago that talked about past periods of congressional deadlock. The conclusion they gave was that sooner or later the deadlock was broken by voters breaking heavily for one side, which would then lead to a few election cycles of dominance for that one side before you slowly see a return to something more along the lines of traditional shared power made possible with pork barrelling.
This may be the election where the deadlock breaks, one way or the other. Maybe Trump's new brand of nationalist populism will energise a right wing that had been mired in Reagan nostalgia for 20 years. Or maybe Trump's ability to win a reliable 40% of Republican primary voters will be hopelessly non-competitive in a national election. Or maybe the partisanship will mean both sides getting out to vote for their team, for the president and all down the ticket, and we'll see another 4 years of bickering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think one of the reasons I want Sanders to win, is because it would show the entire country that someone "that far left" can get elected, and would, I think, start the ball rolling at the lower levels of government to get candidates and congress critters who are more aligned with Sanders' ideas.
You mean like how Obama's presidency has led to so many more black representatives in government?
If the far left wants more say in politics, then like every other political faction they'll have to work for it. Organise grass roots movements, select leaders, picking winning issues and work to make sure the population believes in your position and believes that you can deliver on them, and then work to get those people out and voting on election day.
Hoping that Sanders can come along and deliver a sea change in politics in just one election is well, basically just kind of lazy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/18 03:51:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I think one of the bigger misunderstandings out there right now is that Sanders achievement in winning 9 million votes means there is a massive left wing movement out there that will only accept far left politics, and will accept no kind of comprimise with the centre left. There are certainly some very noisy people on the internet who believe in pure politics over effective politics, but extending that to all of the people who voted for Sanders is not only completely speculative, its almost certainly nonsense.
Right now Trump and the Republican establishment are playing the political theatre needed to get them all united for the upcoming campaign, and Trump is a genuinely dangerous lunatic. The idea that Democrats will be incapable of bridging the gap between Sanders and Clinton, who believe or not has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate, is quite ridiculous.
As a Sanders supporter, I actually kind of agree with you here.... Personally, what I had *hoped* would happen with the Democratic campaign, was that Sanders and his honesty would sort of "rub off" on other candidates.... I had hoped that his focusing on the "average joe" in his policies would transfer into the Clinton campaign, and that the Democrats as a whole could agree that as things stand, we cannot continue on this path.
I do constantly finding myself wondering, when looking at platform issues, what has happened to our country. I mean, if you focus on the issues, and statements, Sanders is actually less "radical" than FDR was.... I happen to agree with Jon Stewart on this point: I think that we have become so accustomed to lunacy and the insanity that our politics has become, that when someone comes along like Sanders and runs on issues and platforms, and doesn't deviate from that, it looks like radicalism.
Yeah, I know there's all those pieces of "journalism" that say that his tax plan would be insanely expensive and "never work", etc. etc. but I think everyone here would have to agree that he has stuck to issues, and he hasn't resorted to the Rubio, Cruz, etc. tactics of attacking his opponent's spouse, or some personal thing. His attacks on Clinton were, as much as I saw, based entirely on her flip flopping and changing of position.
I think the 9m sanders supporters would be willing to support a democratic nominee that doesn't have the name Clinton....they would support someone more toward the center...but not her.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think one of the reasons I want Sanders to win, is because it would show the entire country that someone "that far left" can get elected, and would, I think, start the ball rolling at the lower levels of government to get candidates and congress critters who are more aligned with Sanders' ideas.
You mean like how Obama's presidency has led to so many more black representatives in government?
If the far left wants more say in politics, then like every other political faction they'll have to work for it. Organise grass roots movements, select leaders, picking winning issues and work to make sure the population believes in your position and believes that you can deliver on them, and then work to get those people out and voting on election day.
Hoping that Sanders can come along and deliver a sea change in politics in just one election is well, basically just kind of lazy.
I suppose that what I mean is that, by and large we don't really see many candidates that reflect his honesty and values. I know that where I live, we still really don't have people who are "far left"... with the exception of that Seattle lady who is registered as a socialist (honestly, I have no idea if she's still in office).
I mean, yeah, you are right that it may sound kind of lazy... but I think you have hit the nail on the head.... I just don't think that there are any "leaders" that are currently in politics or running. So I guess what I'm hoping for is for some of those people who are out there to have that light bulb, epiphany moment and get out there and run..... But any more, running and winning isn't enough...
How many politicians have we seen, on both sides of the aisle promise big things, things perhaps on the level that Sanders has done, but once they get in office, it all kinda stops... and they don't really deliver. I mean, what was Rubio's big hit against him? He promised some stuff in his Congressional seat, but then is one of the least present people (Or was that Cruz I'm thinking of?) How can one deliver on campaign promises if they are essentially never in the office, ready and willing to work?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/18 04:06:08
~1.5k
