This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1barney67
I don't know of a time when the electorate was so disgusted by the likely candidates for president -- and when the candidates were so worthy of disgust. Many Republicans loathe Donald Trump and many Democrats loathe Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
And yet, married to their respective parties, people will vote for them, convinced that they are choosing the lesser of two evils. I wonder much lesser we can get.
This leads me to wonder if there is a way out, perhaps some deus ex machina as the election approaches. Perhaps someone will come forward and say, "We can't let this happen. Do over."
What a dilemma. For my part, I very likely won't vote. I continue to watch the whole thing like a bad movie over which I have no control.
Is there a way out?
And yet, married to their respective parties, people will vote for them, convinced that they are choosing the lesser of two evils. I wonder much lesser we can get.
This leads me to wonder if there is a way out, perhaps some deus ex machina as the election approaches. Perhaps someone will come forward and say, "We can't let this happen. Do over."
What a dilemma. For my part, I very likely won't vote. I continue to watch the whole thing like a bad movie over which I have no control.
Is there a way out?
3richardbsmith
I have grown to distrust fully and indiscriminately anything and anyone political. We can discuss that piss poor attitude of mine. I think it is worthy of criticism.
My question is whether George Carlin is right. Is it the public's own fault, that there is, if there is, dysfunction and deserved distrust in the political system.
Do we produce intelligent capable citizens?
If so, do they just not run for office?
Or, do they obtain office and the system just swallows them whole or turns them to the dark side?
Or am I just wrong, and we have a system full of intelligent capable citizens working hard for the betterment of our nation?
Perhaps some here can convince me that Carlin is wrong and there is reason for hope.
Because I think we are screwed. And the choice we have in our democracy is discouraging to me.
I cannot vote for Secretary Clinton. And it is impossible for me to imagine that the Republicans can only offer Trump or Cruz. Really?
Maybe I can follow Richard Pryor and vote None of the Above.
Or perhaps someone here can offer hope and a better perspective of the process.
My question is whether George Carlin is right. Is it the public's own fault, that there is, if there is, dysfunction and deserved distrust in the political system.
Do we produce intelligent capable citizens?
If so, do they just not run for office?
Or, do they obtain office and the system just swallows them whole or turns them to the dark side?
Or am I just wrong, and we have a system full of intelligent capable citizens working hard for the betterment of our nation?
Perhaps some here can convince me that Carlin is wrong and there is reason for hope.
Because I think we are screwed. And the choice we have in our democracy is discouraging to me.
I cannot vote for Secretary Clinton. And it is impossible for me to imagine that the Republicans can only offer Trump or Cruz. Really?
Maybe I can follow Richard Pryor and vote None of the Above.
Or perhaps someone here can offer hope and a better perspective of the process.
4theoria
>1 barney67: I don't see any loathing of Mr Sanders. Ms Clinton has detractors, but she is still very popular in Democratic circles.
The real angst is on the Republican side. The GOP made a Faustian bargain with the Tea Party pitchforks in 2010 and it has come back to haunt it. An unhinged politics of emotion now drives Republican politics. Populist emocons openly declare their victimhood, their oppression by just about everything. They are victims of secularism, of "illegal immigrants," of a "War on Christmas," of feminism, of affirmative action, of "gay marriage," of "liberal elites," of the "mainstream media," of "Big Government," etc. In such a psychological state, they have no trust in any institution. Ironically, these conservatives also have no trust in tradition, including the rule of law. Hence, they gravitate to personality, such as Mr Trump's (or Ammon Bundy's), especially one that articulates their trauma. It matters not that Mr Trump's hare-brained schemes and muddled thought appall the average rational person. The dysfunction of Congressional Republicans only adds bathos to the mix.
The real angst is on the Republican side. The GOP made a Faustian bargain with the Tea Party pitchforks in 2010 and it has come back to haunt it. An unhinged politics of emotion now drives Republican politics. Populist emocons openly declare their victimhood, their oppression by just about everything. They are victims of secularism, of "illegal immigrants," of a "War on Christmas," of feminism, of affirmative action, of "gay marriage," of "liberal elites," of the "mainstream media," of "Big Government," etc. In such a psychological state, they have no trust in any institution. Ironically, these conservatives also have no trust in tradition, including the rule of law. Hence, they gravitate to personality, such as Mr Trump's (or Ammon Bundy's), especially one that articulates their trauma. It matters not that Mr Trump's hare-brained schemes and muddled thought appall the average rational person. The dysfunction of Congressional Republicans only adds bathos to the mix.
5barney67
I like George Carlin's early comedy: the hippie-dippy weather man, the seven words you can't say on TV, a place for my stuff. But after all the drugs, alcohol, heart attacks, and political rants, he wasn't funny anymore.
If by good candidate you mean perfect, there is no such person and there never has been. You might be interested in the chapter of The American Commonwealth, by James Bryce, called "Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President." Free download here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/809
I suppose there's enough blame to go around. I agree that we do not educate people properly. I don't see that changing. Thomas Paine thought every person had enough natural common sense to keep the republic healthy. I never cared much for Paine.
But you can blame the public only so far. They vote for the candidates who are on the ballot. How does one get on the ballot? How does one get elected?
Here's where I fall into cliché: money. But don't knock clichés. They are simply truths often repeated, worn down from overuse like paper currency but still maintaining their value.
It seems today that the person with the most money wins. This isn't new. Look at the founders of our country. Aristocrats mostly. Money and power have always gone together.
Still, I wonder if something different is going on today. Whatever the reasons, money has become the way to get elected. Somehow that has to change. Otherwise, we will continue to get the wealthiest candidates but not necessarily the best. As in the OJ trial: If you have enough money for the "best" team of lawyers, then you can get away with murder. Do you really want a country of OJs?
Years ears ago Sen. John McCain tried to reform campaign contributions but was roundly criticized across the polictical spectrum. I don't know if his efforts helped, but at least he recognized the problem and tried to do something about it. This is the man the rest of you thought unqualified to be president, a man who suffered so much for his country as a POW that he ought to have your respect, even when you disagree with him.
Suppose we had the following rules/laws:
1) Campaigns last only three months.
2) Air time (TV, radio, maybe print) for political debates and campaign commercials will be donated by the networks and associated producers.
Feel free to add.
Edited: to fix typos.
If by good candidate you mean perfect, there is no such person and there never has been. You might be interested in the chapter of The American Commonwealth, by James Bryce, called "Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President." Free download here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/809
I suppose there's enough blame to go around. I agree that we do not educate people properly. I don't see that changing. Thomas Paine thought every person had enough natural common sense to keep the republic healthy. I never cared much for Paine.
But you can blame the public only so far. They vote for the candidates who are on the ballot. How does one get on the ballot? How does one get elected?
Here's where I fall into cliché: money. But don't knock clichés. They are simply truths often repeated, worn down from overuse like paper currency but still maintaining their value.
It seems today that the person with the most money wins. This isn't new. Look at the founders of our country. Aristocrats mostly. Money and power have always gone together.
Still, I wonder if something different is going on today. Whatever the reasons, money has become the way to get elected. Somehow that has to change. Otherwise, we will continue to get the wealthiest candidates but not necessarily the best. As in the OJ trial: If you have enough money for the "best" team of lawyers, then you can get away with murder. Do you really want a country of OJs?
Years ears ago Sen. John McCain tried to reform campaign contributions but was roundly criticized across the polictical spectrum. I don't know if his efforts helped, but at least he recognized the problem and tried to do something about it. This is the man the rest of you thought unqualified to be president, a man who suffered so much for his country as a POW that he ought to have your respect, even when you disagree with him.
Suppose we had the following rules/laws:
1) Campaigns last only three months.
2) Air time (TV, radio, maybe print) for political debates and campaign commercials will be donated by the networks and associated producers.
Feel free to add.
Edited: to fix typos.
6richardbsmith
I don't see a way to restrict the money.
First I think it is basically protected free speech.
Second the only alternative seems to me to be federally funded elections. And now we are only talking about the Presidential elections. Unless we are going to federally fund Congressional elections.
Even with federal funds, we cannot restrict money flow to interest groups.
Money and politics will share a bed until the end.
Mandatory voting might help to dilute the power of money.
The primaries might be more important than the general election. There are more candidates to select from in the primaries.
First I think it is basically protected free speech.
Second the only alternative seems to me to be federally funded elections. And now we are only talking about the Presidential elections. Unless we are going to federally fund Congressional elections.
Even with federal funds, we cannot restrict money flow to interest groups.
Money and politics will share a bed until the end.
Mandatory voting might help to dilute the power of money.
The primaries might be more important than the general election. There are more candidates to select from in the primaries.
8southernbooklady
>5 barney67: 1) Campaigns last only three months.
Heh. That would make election season something like a Public Television pledge drive -- interminable periods of hard sell pleading notable mostly for how dedicated viewers are to changing the channel until it stops.
I would love to see the money capped, but like richard I don't see how to accomplish it. It does become a free speech issue when groups come together to take out their own ads in support of their favorite candidates. Maybe if corporations weren't "people" you could do something, but alas, they are.
Heh. That would make election season something like a Public Television pledge drive -- interminable periods of hard sell pleading notable mostly for how dedicated viewers are to changing the channel until it stops.
I would love to see the money capped, but like richard I don't see how to accomplish it. It does become a free speech issue when groups come together to take out their own ads in support of their favorite candidates. Maybe if corporations weren't "people" you could do something, but alas, they are.
9richardbsmith
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-fed...
Others here can provide more info on the Free Speech aspects of campaign finance.
Others here can provide more info on the Free Speech aspects of campaign finance.
10JGL53
Bernie 2016.
You don't like him?
You will learn to like him.
Just like you did Obama.
In the meantime, just chill.
You don't like him?
You will learn to like him.
Just like you did Obama.
In the meantime, just chill.
11lriley
#10--even I like Bernie and I hardly like any politician.
There are really not that many who loathe him on the Democratic side even if he's not officially a member of their party. I really don't know what Barney is talking about. Sure there are a few of Hilary's closest political allies who are pissed as hell at him for having the gall to run against her but just look at the huge crowds he's drawn since his campaign began---they dwarf everyone else's including the Donald.
Saying that I'm not all that confident that he's going to get the democratic nomination. He seems to be surging again lately but I'm trying to balance pessimism and optimism.
There are really not that many who loathe him on the Democratic side even if he's not officially a member of their party. I really don't know what Barney is talking about. Sure there are a few of Hilary's closest political allies who are pissed as hell at him for having the gall to run against her but just look at the huge crowds he's drawn since his campaign began---they dwarf everyone else's including the Donald.
Saying that I'm not all that confident that he's going to get the democratic nomination. He seems to be surging again lately but I'm trying to balance pessimism and optimism.
12barney67
If you're saying you like Sanders, you're missing the point. Many Democrats do not. And you'll never get any Republicans or independents to vote for him.
This is a thread about the current conundrum. If think there is no conundrum, if you think there is nothing wrong with how we elect people today, then you're not addressing the subject of the thread.
This is a thread about the current conundrum. If think there is no conundrum, if you think there is nothing wrong with how we elect people today, then you're not addressing the subject of the thread.
13lriley
#12--It's plain as day who the governors, senators and congressmen/women/people of the Democratic party would prefer to win the democratic nomination. All you have to do is google democratic endorsements for POTUS and you'll find those elected officials in their hundreds for Hilary Clinton. She's very much their candidate of choice. Doesn't mean all those people hate Bernie Sanders. You can make out like they all do but it's only some of them. Quite a number of them seem to regard him highly. As well it's as plain as day who draws the biggest crowds of all the candidates of either party and it ain't Hilary Clinton. It ain't even Donald Trump. I would suggest there's just a bit of disconnect between the upper management of the democratic party and the rank and file of the party and those going outward to the left from them. Hilary has a lot of moderates. Sanders has most everything else including the young vote. Will Hilary win?--if you're a dispassionate betting person right now she's the best bet--as long as some scandal doesn't derail her candidacy in the meantime. So as well I think there's a fair chance that Sanders might prevail.
Now the republican candidates they don't just despise the poor, blacks, hispanics, gays and whoever else that doesn't go to a white church on sunday--before Trump all that was just kind of assumed if you were the assuming type. Now that realization is pretty much out in the open. So I thank him for that. But here is another realization---the republican candidates for POTUS really hate each other too--(well maybe not Kasich or George Pataki--but they're not going to win). We can thank Trump for that as well. All I can say is if you're on the right.........you're getting what you asked for. Enjoy.
Here comes Michael Bloomberg and his $35 billion the 14th wealthiest (according to Forbes) person in the world. Why is he coming out of the woodwork? I think he's worried. Definitely doesn't want Sanders taxing the fuck out of him. He's got plans for all his money and probably thinks he needs more. Because you know $35 billion is well short of a $100 billion and a long ways from a trillion. It makes me think he doesn't have faith that Hilary will get it and that he thinks his fellow billionaire is a loose cannon.
So anyway Barney I just don't see a republican setting up house in the White House in January 2017. A lot can happen but Donald Trump? 'The Canadian' Ted Cruz?---sorry I wouldn't bring it up but I listened to 8 years worth of birth certificate shit from the right it seems only fair. I just don't think either of these knuckleheads are going to make it.
You know what if nominated he's going to get tagged again and again as a socialist but Mr. Sanders platform speaks to solutions to issues that the majority of Americans actually would really like.
Now the republican candidates they don't just despise the poor, blacks, hispanics, gays and whoever else that doesn't go to a white church on sunday--before Trump all that was just kind of assumed if you were the assuming type. Now that realization is pretty much out in the open. So I thank him for that. But here is another realization---the republican candidates for POTUS really hate each other too--(well maybe not Kasich or George Pataki--but they're not going to win). We can thank Trump for that as well. All I can say is if you're on the right.........you're getting what you asked for. Enjoy.
Here comes Michael Bloomberg and his $35 billion the 14th wealthiest (according to Forbes) person in the world. Why is he coming out of the woodwork? I think he's worried. Definitely doesn't want Sanders taxing the fuck out of him. He's got plans for all his money and probably thinks he needs more. Because you know $35 billion is well short of a $100 billion and a long ways from a trillion. It makes me think he doesn't have faith that Hilary will get it and that he thinks his fellow billionaire is a loose cannon.
So anyway Barney I just don't see a republican setting up house in the White House in January 2017. A lot can happen but Donald Trump? 'The Canadian' Ted Cruz?---sorry I wouldn't bring it up but I listened to 8 years worth of birth certificate shit from the right it seems only fair. I just don't think either of these knuckleheads are going to make it.
You know what if nominated he's going to get tagged again and again as a socialist but Mr. Sanders platform speaks to solutions to issues that the majority of Americans actually would really like.
14JGL53
> 12
So, barney - in the OP you state your utter dissatisfaction with and complete rejection of American politics up until now - then you posit the scenario wherein some Jesus-figure MUST come forward to save us or we will all be sucked down into the vortex of doom where you live -and finally you aver you WILL NOT VOTE in the upcoming election because none of the candidates on offer seem to exhibit the god-like power needed to bring us all together or make everyone happy, including (most importantly) you.
So now, in your last posting, you compound the above delineated anti-reality utopia idealism with the implicit implication that other posters here are just not measuring up to your personal criteria for "addressing the subject of" this thread, causing you even additional personal unhappiness.
Jiminy Cricket on a Cross - I don't know the precise technical terms to accurately describe your attitude - all I know is I don't care for it.
The real deal is - your OP was so nonsensical and fanciful you didn't give us much to work with - Iriley and I are simply trying to bring into discussion something - anything- that relates to a consideration of the political choices at hand that reality offers us - choices that are all less than perfect, sure, but are the only reality we have to work with.
I for one invite you to join us. Do not resist the real. Reality will wrestle you to the ground in the end, anyway, and make you its bitch, so catch the train now before it leaves the station. Or something.
So, barney - in the OP you state your utter dissatisfaction with and complete rejection of American politics up until now - then you posit the scenario wherein some Jesus-figure MUST come forward to save us or we will all be sucked down into the vortex of doom where you live -and finally you aver you WILL NOT VOTE in the upcoming election because none of the candidates on offer seem to exhibit the god-like power needed to bring us all together or make everyone happy, including (most importantly) you.
So now, in your last posting, you compound the above delineated anti-reality utopia idealism with the implicit implication that other posters here are just not measuring up to your personal criteria for "addressing the subject of" this thread, causing you even additional personal unhappiness.
Jiminy Cricket on a Cross - I don't know the precise technical terms to accurately describe your attitude - all I know is I don't care for it.
The real deal is - your OP was so nonsensical and fanciful you didn't give us much to work with - Iriley and I are simply trying to bring into discussion something - anything- that relates to a consideration of the political choices at hand that reality offers us - choices that are all less than perfect, sure, but are the only reality we have to work with.
I for one invite you to join us. Do not resist the real. Reality will wrestle you to the ground in the end, anyway, and make you its bitch, so catch the train now before it leaves the station. Or something.
15JGL53
> 13
I pretty much concur with your analysis and thus have nothing to add, other than I hope I at least get a chance to cast my vote for Bernie in my state's primary, just for the cathartic effect of it, regardless of who wins in the end.
I pretty much concur with your analysis and thus have nothing to add, other than I hope I at least get a chance to cast my vote for Bernie in my state's primary, just for the cathartic effect of it, regardless of who wins in the end.
16artturnerjr
>12 barney67:
If you're saying you like Sanders, you're missing the point. Many Democrats do not. And you'll never get any Republicans or independents to vote for him.
The majority of my friends are Democrats. I'm not aware of a single one of them that dislikes Sanders. They may prefer Hillary to him, but that isn't the same as disliking him. And Sanders has significant support among both Republicans* and independents**.
* http://www.wcax.com/story/30064232/poll-bernie-sanders-popular-in-vt-even-among-...
** http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-2016-republic...
If you're saying you like Sanders, you're missing the point. Many Democrats do not. And you'll never get any Republicans or independents to vote for him.
The majority of my friends are Democrats. I'm not aware of a single one of them that dislikes Sanders. They may prefer Hillary to him, but that isn't the same as disliking him. And Sanders has significant support among both Republicans* and independents**.
* http://www.wcax.com/story/30064232/poll-bernie-sanders-popular-in-vt-even-among-...
** http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-2016-republic...
17lriley
FWIW Sanders candidacy shows me that a lot more people truly getting things as they are and I take that as a very positive sign for the future of the country.
Meanwhile we have one billionaire who thinks he can buy the power and another even bigger billionaire thinking about it. Trump and Bloomberg are both elites. Their reasons for wanting the presidency first and foremost is to have the power to protect wealth and particularly their own wealth. From the level of a normal or average citizen whether they recognize it or not the wealth of the nation--the way it's distributed has become a major problem/issue. It's why so many things don't get done. Why are infrastructure is allowed to fail or rust--why are health care never gets fixed--why kids going to college end up owing predatory lenders huge amounts of money for their education more often than not in fields where jobs don't exist or what does exist can't hope to pay off the loans--why we have so many low paying instead of decent paying jobs.
The remedies FDR put into place after the great depression were society wide and created a kind of socialized capitalistic model of an economy. Since the Reagan presidency the republican party has worked night and day to deconstruct the socialized part of that and sadly there have been times the democratic party has been there to help that process along. The unrestricted capitalist model that the republicans would like will create a few billionaires--a small percentage of millionaires but that comes at the expense of the hundreds of millions of population of the country. It might be great for the odd individual but it's poison for our society on the whole.
Anyway Sanders is no elite. His net worth is something like $500K. Not in it for the money or the power. You might not like where his intentions are going but they're at least good in the respect that they're about fairness/fair play and not about his own personal aggrandizement.
Meanwhile we have one billionaire who thinks he can buy the power and another even bigger billionaire thinking about it. Trump and Bloomberg are both elites. Their reasons for wanting the presidency first and foremost is to have the power to protect wealth and particularly their own wealth. From the level of a normal or average citizen whether they recognize it or not the wealth of the nation--the way it's distributed has become a major problem/issue. It's why so many things don't get done. Why are infrastructure is allowed to fail or rust--why are health care never gets fixed--why kids going to college end up owing predatory lenders huge amounts of money for their education more often than not in fields where jobs don't exist or what does exist can't hope to pay off the loans--why we have so many low paying instead of decent paying jobs.
The remedies FDR put into place after the great depression were society wide and created a kind of socialized capitalistic model of an economy. Since the Reagan presidency the republican party has worked night and day to deconstruct the socialized part of that and sadly there have been times the democratic party has been there to help that process along. The unrestricted capitalist model that the republicans would like will create a few billionaires--a small percentage of millionaires but that comes at the expense of the hundreds of millions of population of the country. It might be great for the odd individual but it's poison for our society on the whole.
Anyway Sanders is no elite. His net worth is something like $500K. Not in it for the money or the power. You might not like where his intentions are going but they're at least good in the respect that they're about fairness/fair play and not about his own personal aggrandizement.
18JGL53
> 17
"...The remedies FDR put into place after the great depression were society wide and created a kind of socialized capitalistic model of an economy...."
That is the thing. I think Bernie and team need to start thinking of innovative ways to cut the effectiveness of the "socialist" label the republicans will be pounding on as basically their main issue - i.e., that Bernie is some sort of radical extremist or hippy/commie who just wants to tank all American capitalism and institute "government ownership of all means of production." In this later sense Bernie is no more a socialist than 95 per cent of the American people. In that sense I certainly am no damned socialist.
I'm thinking - the term "democratic socialist" is not getting the point across that Bernie is really a good guy. I think Bernie should start using the following statement in his speeches: "I believe democratic socialism and capitalism can coexist - just like they are doing now. In fact, I can accurately label myself a "socialist/capitalist". I am for both as it is proven they are compatible. It's what's called a 'mixed economy' - which is what we have now. We just need to rein in the power of the many corporate entities in their greed and gaming of the system and make things fairer to the average middle-class tax payer."
Something like that. (I would gladly be a speech-writer for Bernie's campaign, but I don't think his people are going to give me the opportunity. lol.)
"...The remedies FDR put into place after the great depression were society wide and created a kind of socialized capitalistic model of an economy...."
That is the thing. I think Bernie and team need to start thinking of innovative ways to cut the effectiveness of the "socialist" label the republicans will be pounding on as basically their main issue - i.e., that Bernie is some sort of radical extremist or hippy/commie who just wants to tank all American capitalism and institute "government ownership of all means of production." In this later sense Bernie is no more a socialist than 95 per cent of the American people. In that sense I certainly am no damned socialist.
I'm thinking - the term "democratic socialist" is not getting the point across that Bernie is really a good guy. I think Bernie should start using the following statement in his speeches: "I believe democratic socialism and capitalism can coexist - just like they are doing now. In fact, I can accurately label myself a "socialist/capitalist". I am for both as it is proven they are compatible. It's what's called a 'mixed economy' - which is what we have now. We just need to rein in the power of the many corporate entities in their greed and gaming of the system and make things fairer to the average middle-class tax payer."
Something like that. (I would gladly be a speech-writer for Bernie's campaign, but I don't think his people are going to give me the opportunity. lol.)
19krolik
I see your point. I think the -ist has got to go. He could say "social Democrat" and that would still be accurate while asserting distance from some of the more hysterical smears. Even if atypical in this country, social Democrats elsewhere are often mainstream types. And people who oppose them do so more for ideological reasons than from a position of fear.
20JGL53
> 19
I agree that Sanders should indeed do that - begin to drop the "ist".
I also still think it would be very helpful if he would take time to give more of a shout-out to the good sides to capitalism and free enterprise and assure people he would not be seeking to nationalize any industries, just make them pay a fairer share of the taxes, and stop moving factories and jobs to other countries, and end loopholes that they use now to park money in the Cayman Islands to avoid all taxes, and instead use the money to shore up our social networks and safety nets, fix our crumbling infrastructure, etc. - i.e., just add a few explanatory sentences to his on-going message.
I agree that Sanders should indeed do that - begin to drop the "ist".
I also still think it would be very helpful if he would take time to give more of a shout-out to the good sides to capitalism and free enterprise and assure people he would not be seeking to nationalize any industries, just make them pay a fairer share of the taxes, and stop moving factories and jobs to other countries, and end loopholes that they use now to park money in the Cayman Islands to avoid all taxes, and instead use the money to shore up our social networks and safety nets, fix our crumbling infrastructure, etc. - i.e., just add a few explanatory sentences to his on-going message.
21lriley
They're going to hammer on Bernie for it anyway. They're going to drag anything out of his past that they can use to their advantage and that's pretty much what every campaign does to its opponent every election. Anyway at 70 some years old I think it's a bit late for Bernie to be modifying that.
The thing is should he actually get the democratic nomination what would 'dirty socialist' mean coming out of the mouths of the likes of Trump or Cruz?--or even Michael Bloomberg? Two elitist moneybags and one Wall St connected Tea party guy who's made his name being the most uncompromising right winger in the country maybe a bit short of the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
The thing is should he actually get the democratic nomination what would 'dirty socialist' mean coming out of the mouths of the likes of Trump or Cruz?--or even Michael Bloomberg? Two elitist moneybags and one Wall St connected Tea party guy who's made his name being the most uncompromising right winger in the country maybe a bit short of the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
22barney67
"Now the republican candidates they don't just despise the poor, blacks, hispanics, gays and whoever else that doesn't go to a white church on sunday"
A person who believes this doesn't deserve a response and doesn't deserve to have his posts read. Ever.
A person who believes this doesn't deserve a response and doesn't deserve to have his posts read. Ever.
23Arctic-Stranger
I started out assuming that it would be another Clinton/Bush race (different Clinton and different Bush). I was ok with Hilary. Then Bernie announced, and I was interested. I went to see him. My son drank the Kool-Ade. My wife drank the Kool-ade. I held out, but the more I watched Hilary and him together, the more I began to like Bernie. They say he can't win, and maybe they are right, but not if Trump is the R nominee. Anyway, the real important election is 2020, when redistricting hits. I would rather lose this round, and hit 2020, the win now, and lose then. And the D's will need to sweep down ticket in '20 to get a fair shake in the state houses.
By the way, the last time a political party had two different people from the same party serve two consecutive terms? Madison and Monroe.
By the way, the last time a political party had two different people from the same party serve two consecutive terms? Madison and Monroe.
25theoria
If nominated, Mr Sanders will have to tack to the center on many issues and to the left on gun safety. It is unclear how he'll win the nomination, however, unless he broadens his demographic base.
Mr Sanders situation reminds me of Ron Paul and Rand Paul, whose campaigns were comprised of passionately vocal, young libertarian supporters. In the end, neither Paul was able to gain traction outside of this niche.
Of course, Mr Sanders faces other specific institutional difficulties. He was never a member of the Democratic Party until he announced his candidacy. This plays a role in his lack of endorsements from Democratic governors (0) and members of Congress (3).
During the second Democratic Party debate, Mr Sanders repeatedly talked about political revolution. That’s fine. But one can be the leader of a revolution without being President; one might be a more effective revolutionary leader if one is not a President. When he was asked “You say you want to put the private insurance companies out of business. Is it realistic to think that you can pull the plug on a $1 trillion industry?”, he demurred “It’s not going to happen tomorrow.” Then he went back to talking about being the leader of a revolution. Join the revolution, etc. After a while, this sort of rhetoric wears thin. He’ll need to master some details of policy that can match his soaring ideological statements, which, in any case, do not speak to the electoral demographics he desperately needs to win a nomination and the Presidency.
Mr Sanders situation reminds me of Ron Paul and Rand Paul, whose campaigns were comprised of passionately vocal, young libertarian supporters. In the end, neither Paul was able to gain traction outside of this niche.
Of course, Mr Sanders faces other specific institutional difficulties. He was never a member of the Democratic Party until he announced his candidacy. This plays a role in his lack of endorsements from Democratic governors (0) and members of Congress (3).
During the second Democratic Party debate, Mr Sanders repeatedly talked about political revolution. That’s fine. But one can be the leader of a revolution without being President; one might be a more effective revolutionary leader if one is not a President. When he was asked “You say you want to put the private insurance companies out of business. Is it realistic to think that you can pull the plug on a $1 trillion industry?”, he demurred “It’s not going to happen tomorrow.” Then he went back to talking about being the leader of a revolution. Join the revolution, etc. After a while, this sort of rhetoric wears thin. He’ll need to master some details of policy that can match his soaring ideological statements, which, in any case, do not speak to the electoral demographics he desperately needs to win a nomination and the Presidency.
26JGL53
Bernie has started his outreach to African Americans - oh, for a few months now. He's been VERY nice to the Black Lives Matter people. I doubt if they'll be snatching his microphone at any future rallies. And let's just see what will happen when the word gets out to most Black people - that the cliché is utterly true - that Sanders 'marched with Dr. King' - or the other cliché - that this is LITERALLY true. lol.
And when the word gets out that while Bernie was marching with MLK his opponent was a republican and a worker in the campaign of Barry Goldwater - remember him, the guy who was against the Civil Rights Rights Act of 1968?
I am not making any of this up. Google it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4-1zHemLrQ
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcDtq993J-E
All Bernie needs to do is break somewhere near even to HRC in the Black vote in South Carolina and she will then be toast. Can he do it? That is the still unanswered question right now. But I would not bet against it.
And when the word gets out that while Bernie was marching with MLK his opponent was a republican and a worker in the campaign of Barry Goldwater - remember him, the guy who was against the Civil Rights Rights Act of 1968?
I am not making any of this up. Google it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4-1zHemLrQ
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcDtq993J-E
All Bernie needs to do is break somewhere near even to HRC in the Black vote in South Carolina and she will then be toast. Can he do it? That is the still unanswered question right now. But I would not bet against it.
27artturnerjr
>25 theoria:
But one can be the leader of a revolution without being President; one might be a more effective revolutionary leader if one is not a President.
That's certainly true; revolution is seldom (if ever) a top-down proposition. Having said that, the success of the Sanders campaign thus far is without precedent in my lifetime, so, y'know, anything's possible (on a more sobering note, the success of the Trump campaign thus far is also without precedent in my lifetime - more's the pity).
But one can be the leader of a revolution without being President; one might be a more effective revolutionary leader if one is not a President.
That's certainly true; revolution is seldom (if ever) a top-down proposition. Having said that, the success of the Sanders campaign thus far is without precedent in my lifetime, so, y'know, anything's possible (on a more sobering note, the success of the Trump campaign thus far is also without precedent in my lifetime - more's the pity).
28JGL53
Not that another example is needed but, Jesu Christo, here's another youtube offering featuring the "Blacks for Bernie" theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxfzjb8bjkQ
I like the inspiring title "Black Voters DROP Hillary Clinton to Support Bernie Sanders & MLK's Legacy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxfzjb8bjkQ
I like the inspiring title "Black Voters DROP Hillary Clinton to Support Bernie Sanders & MLK's Legacy".
29Limelite
I don't loathe Clinton or Sanders. I am a proud supporter of Clinton for president for all the obvious reasons that her endorsers have given, former SoSs and even Republicans have cited, and for all the declarations of her Superdelegates (around 500, IIRC, even before the first caucus/primary).
She comes to the race with: Experience, judgment, intelligence, confidence, readiness, demeanor and temperament (11 hrs of Benghazi ridiculousness!), international relationships and knowledge, a lifetime of serving her country, political competence, staying power, and capacity to hit the ground running.
I admire Sanders as a gadfly and a prod to move the Democratic Party to the left. He is not presidential material; his record shows no leadership ability, he has only vague notions about his own policies and has shown no political ability to turn those ideas into legislation, and he has shown too great a dependence on advisers due to his lack of preparedness. His demeanor and temperament are not suitable for POTUS -- imagine him undergoing 11 hrs of hostile inquisition from political enemies!
In the Republican field there is one and only one candidate who has not proven himself to be any of the following, or combination thereof: bigot, fascist, racist, misogynist, white supremacist, religious jihadist, misanthrope, sexist, ignoramus, bully, liar, contemptuous, and unqualified for public office in both words and deeds. It's a waste of emotional capital to despise garbage. Who is this person? Kasich, the "Happy Warrior" who is completely out of his league vs. the Democratic candidates.
She comes to the race with: Experience, judgment, intelligence, confidence, readiness, demeanor and temperament (11 hrs of Benghazi ridiculousness!), international relationships and knowledge, a lifetime of serving her country, political competence, staying power, and capacity to hit the ground running.
I admire Sanders as a gadfly and a prod to move the Democratic Party to the left. He is not presidential material; his record shows no leadership ability, he has only vague notions about his own policies and has shown no political ability to turn those ideas into legislation, and he has shown too great a dependence on advisers due to his lack of preparedness. His demeanor and temperament are not suitable for POTUS -- imagine him undergoing 11 hrs of hostile inquisition from political enemies!
In the Republican field there is one and only one candidate who has not proven himself to be any of the following, or combination thereof: bigot, fascist, racist, misogynist, white supremacist, religious jihadist, misanthrope, sexist, ignoramus, bully, liar, contemptuous, and unqualified for public office in both words and deeds. It's a waste of emotional capital to despise garbage. Who is this person? Kasich, the "Happy Warrior" who is completely out of his league vs. the Democratic candidates.
31theoria
>27 artturnerjr: I don't know what your lifetime encompasses but Eugene McCarthy's 1968 campaign is comparable to Sanders. Howard Dean in 2004 also comes to mind.
If it's a matter of Socialist candidates, one can go back to Eugene Debs:
US Presidential Election Results, votes and % of total vote
1900
Eugene Debs Job Harriman Socialist 86,973 0.62%
1904
Eugene Debs Benjamin Hanford Socialist 402,810 2.98%
1908
Eugene Debs Benjamin Hanford Socialist 420,856 2.83%
1912
Eugene Debs Emil Seidel Socialist 900,742 5.99%
1920
Eugene Debs Seymour Stedman Socialist 914,191 3.41%
>29 Limelite: I agree on Sanders' temperament.
If it's a matter of Socialist candidates, one can go back to Eugene Debs:
US Presidential Election Results, votes and % of total vote
1900
Eugene Debs Job Harriman Socialist 86,973 0.62%
1904
Eugene Debs Benjamin Hanford Socialist 402,810 2.98%
1908
Eugene Debs Benjamin Hanford Socialist 420,856 2.83%
1912
Eugene Debs Emil Seidel Socialist 900,742 5.99%
1920
Eugene Debs Seymour Stedman Socialist 914,191 3.41%
>29 Limelite: I agree on Sanders' temperament.
32artturnerjr
>31 theoria:
I was born in 1967. There are similarities between McCarthy, Dean, and Sanders, but neither McCarthy or Dean were self-declared socialists like Sanders is - I am reasonably sure you are correct in saying you have to go back to Debs for that, at least if we're discussing prominent socialist candidates. I am also reasonably sure that if he wins the nomination (pretty big "if" at this point, granted), he will get more than 6% of the popular vote. Hell, if he's up against Trump or Cruz, he might even win the goddamn election.
I was born in 1967. There are similarities between McCarthy, Dean, and Sanders, but neither McCarthy or Dean were self-declared socialists like Sanders is - I am reasonably sure you are correct in saying you have to go back to Debs for that, at least if we're discussing prominent socialist candidates. I am also reasonably sure that if he wins the nomination (pretty big "if" at this point, granted), he will get more than 6% of the popular vote. Hell, if he's up against Trump or Cruz, he might even win the goddamn election.
33Limelite
> 31
The reason Democrats instituted the Superdelegate system was because of the McCarthy debacle. While a decent and fine man who was philosophically correct about civil rights and the Viet Nam war, he was unelectable for many -- not all -- of the reasons Sanders is.
To prevent an unqualified and ineffective populist from winning the nomination based on nothing more than his/her emotional rhetorical appeal, independently voting Superdelegates who were influential members of the Party, governors, former presidents, and Congresspersons were given votes.
Ahead of even the first caucus/primary, Clinton has something like 500 Superdelegates firmly in her camp (about 1/5 total needed to get the nomination). Sanders about 5. Mathematically speaking, her lead is nearly insurmountable.
Bill Clinton is a huge asset to her securing the nomination. He's been working effectively to round up Supers for her. The rest of the election will depend on the candidates' respective organizations on the ground and GOTV efforts.
The reason Democrats instituted the Superdelegate system was because of the McCarthy debacle. While a decent and fine man who was philosophically correct about civil rights and the Viet Nam war, he was unelectable for many -- not all -- of the reasons Sanders is.
To prevent an unqualified and ineffective populist from winning the nomination based on nothing more than his/her emotional rhetorical appeal, independently voting Superdelegates who were influential members of the Party, governors, former presidents, and Congresspersons were given votes.
Ahead of even the first caucus/primary, Clinton has something like 500 Superdelegates firmly in her camp (about 1/5 total needed to get the nomination). Sanders about 5. Mathematically speaking, her lead is nearly insurmountable.
Bill Clinton is a huge asset to her securing the nomination. He's been working effectively to round up Supers for her. The rest of the election will depend on the candidates' respective organizations on the ground and GOTV efforts.
34lriley
#31-33--This ain't the 1960's anymore. If anything Obama's election in 2008 should be proof enough that a whole lot of what used to be isn't anymore. Slinging around the 'socialist' slur at an opponent just doesn't have the same effect. I don't think Sanders-McCarthy is a very apt comparison at all--more a convenient one for those trying to explain away that there is a lot less real enthusiasm for the probable nominee of the democratic party.
Really I don't understand altogether how an individual voter (which both of you are) decides who is unqualified or not or why this or that person gets anointed a 'leader'. Because Hilary was a Senator?--Secretary of State?--a presidential spouse? Does that make her a leader?
Pretty much what I see from a Clinton presidency is the continuation of things as they are--following the same economic and foreign policies which created all the angry tea party voters on the one side and the Occupy movement on the other. The fat cats will continue to get fatter because those policies favor them more than anyone. A vote for Clinton is pretty much a vote for the status quo. So if you think things are fine now---well then you should vote for her.
Really I don't understand altogether how an individual voter (which both of you are) decides who is unqualified or not or why this or that person gets anointed a 'leader'. Because Hilary was a Senator?--Secretary of State?--a presidential spouse? Does that make her a leader?
Pretty much what I see from a Clinton presidency is the continuation of things as they are--following the same economic and foreign policies which created all the angry tea party voters on the one side and the Occupy movement on the other. The fat cats will continue to get fatter because those policies favor them more than anyone. A vote for Clinton is pretty much a vote for the status quo. So if you think things are fine now---well then you should vote for her.
35theoria
>34 lriley: "Really I don't understand altogether how an individual voter (which both of you are) decides who is unqualified or not ..."
I don't believe I made any such decision in my comments above. I offered an analysis of Sanders' campaign (>25 theoria:). You appear to be projecting.
In point of fact, however, I will decide which candidate is qualified or not on April 19th (NY Primary). Individual voters do cast a vote for the nominee. To whom would you give this decision?
I don't believe I made any such decision in my comments above. I offered an analysis of Sanders' campaign (>25 theoria:). You appear to be projecting.
In point of fact, however, I will decide which candidate is qualified or not on April 19th (NY Primary). Individual voters do cast a vote for the nominee. To whom would you give this decision?
36JGL53
Re this whole discussion - you know what they say about opinions - everybody has one but I really only care about mine. lol.
I make no bones about my preference for Sanders but I make no predictions as to who the eventual nomination winner will be. Maybe I will make a hard core prediction after the South Carolina primary but then it might be so clear that I won't be doing anything special.
> 30
Your welcome.
Here's another relevant video - at the beginning it shows Sanders opposing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of members of the American military, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis, both in 1991 and in 2002 while in contrast we are shown Hillary stating her conviction that going to war is a necessary and right thing to do. Sanders had the courage both times to stand alone - or a member of a tiny minority -regardless of the political consequences. It is clear who was showing the better judgment here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKMG5zpU_s0
I make no bones about my preference for Sanders but I make no predictions as to who the eventual nomination winner will be. Maybe I will make a hard core prediction after the South Carolina primary but then it might be so clear that I won't be doing anything special.
> 30
Your welcome.
Here's another relevant video - at the beginning it shows Sanders opposing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of members of the American military, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis, both in 1991 and in 2002 while in contrast we are shown Hillary stating her conviction that going to war is a necessary and right thing to do. Sanders had the courage both times to stand alone - or a member of a tiny minority -regardless of the political consequences. It is clear who was showing the better judgment here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKMG5zpU_s0
37timspalding
Sanders is a decent man. He's also the only way we might get a President Trump.
38JGL53
> 37
Wow, tim, that is completely wack (except for the Sanders is a decent man part.)
I have put you on my list of pundits NOT to listen to. You are now the official Carl Rove of this thread. lol.
E.g. - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump... - Bernie wins by 13, Hillary by only 7. The number 13 is bigger than the number 7, is it not, tim?
Also, I don't think either Hillary or Bernie will have to worry about Mr. Trump's popularity much longer if the following ad is run by his republican rivals a couple of tens of thousand times in the next few months around the country. Have you heard? - Trump is a stinking liberal who wants to tax the rich, favors single payer, hates guns, is so pro-choice he would not ban partial birth abortion and thinks Hillary is a fantastic human being with whom he is proud to be friends, and, in his opinion, Obama is strong and smart and knows what he is doing. Also Trump admits that his New York values are quite different from Iowa values. (I especially liked that one - it should really help his campaign in Iowa. lol. )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE
But Trump is nevertheless still on track to the Presidency simply because he was smart enough not to call himself a democratic socialist? Is that the message you are still receiving from your crystal ball, Tim? lol.
Wow, tim, that is completely wack (except for the Sanders is a decent man part.)
I have put you on my list of pundits NOT to listen to. You are now the official Carl Rove of this thread. lol.
E.g. - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump... - Bernie wins by 13, Hillary by only 7. The number 13 is bigger than the number 7, is it not, tim?
Also, I don't think either Hillary or Bernie will have to worry about Mr. Trump's popularity much longer if the following ad is run by his republican rivals a couple of tens of thousand times in the next few months around the country. Have you heard? - Trump is a stinking liberal who wants to tax the rich, favors single payer, hates guns, is so pro-choice he would not ban partial birth abortion and thinks Hillary is a fantastic human being with whom he is proud to be friends, and, in his opinion, Obama is strong and smart and knows what he is doing. Also Trump admits that his New York values are quite different from Iowa values. (I especially liked that one - it should really help his campaign in Iowa. lol. )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE
But Trump is nevertheless still on track to the Presidency simply because he was smart enough not to call himself a democratic socialist? Is that the message you are still receiving from your crystal ball, Tim? lol.
39timspalding
>38 JGL53:
I don't believe the poll. There are fundamentals here.
Here's the scenarios:
1. Sanders and Trump win their nominations. Americans would have a tough, weird choice. But Sanders is simply too far left for the American electorate to embrace. Trump runs a good campaign, playing down his crazy side. Sanders stumbles. Trump wins.
2. Sanders and Trump win their nominations. Bloomberg sees an opening in the middle. The situation is analogous to what happened in Maine—a moderate (Eliot Cutler) came in between an inexperienced, rather left-end Democrat and a nasty, right-wing Republican (Paul LePage). This has happened twice now, and given us a two-term Republican who makes casual racist statements.
By contrast, Clinton vs. Trump would be a cake-walk for Clinton. And any third-party attempt by Trump splits the right, not the left, resulting in a Democratic win.
I don't believe the poll. There are fundamentals here.
Here's the scenarios:
1. Sanders and Trump win their nominations. Americans would have a tough, weird choice. But Sanders is simply too far left for the American electorate to embrace. Trump runs a good campaign, playing down his crazy side. Sanders stumbles. Trump wins.
2. Sanders and Trump win their nominations. Bloomberg sees an opening in the middle. The situation is analogous to what happened in Maine—a moderate (Eliot Cutler) came in between an inexperienced, rather left-end Democrat and a nasty, right-wing Republican (Paul LePage). This has happened twice now, and given us a two-term Republican who makes casual racist statements.
By contrast, Clinton vs. Trump would be a cake-walk for Clinton. And any third-party attempt by Trump splits the right, not the left, resulting in a Democratic win.
40_Zoe_
>39 timspalding: I almost wish I had seen a post like this years ago, when I still believed in RSI. I knew you just disregarded any polls that didn't match your existing opinion, but I don't think I've seen you state it so explicitly before.
41timspalding
>40 _Zoe_:
Ha! Political polls start are relatively accurate when taken right before an election. They are inaccurate the farther from the election. And they are even more inaccurate when dealing with weird what-ifs.
The latter can't be tested. We will never know the veracity of all the Edwards-vs-Keyes, Tancredo-vs-Kucinich poll fantasies. (Maybe the Zogby poll was right and Huckabee would have beaten Clinton.) And I hope and suspect we'll never know about Edwards-vs-Trump either.
But we can know that, on January 24 of 2004 Howard Dean was leading the Democratic field, and, in 2012, Newt Gingrich was. Despite these polls, people who knew what they were talking about in American politics questioned whether Dean could win the nomination, and thought Gingrich would lose. I cast my lot in with the majority of analysts here—Sanders is too far to the left to win the presidency. (However, both he and Trump could turn the impossible possible if they are the two nominees.)
Ha! Political polls start are relatively accurate when taken right before an election. They are inaccurate the farther from the election. And they are even more inaccurate when dealing with weird what-ifs.
The latter can't be tested. We will never know the veracity of all the Edwards-vs-Keyes, Tancredo-vs-Kucinich poll fantasies. (Maybe the Zogby poll was right and Huckabee would have beaten Clinton.) And I hope and suspect we'll never know about Edwards-vs-Trump either.
But we can know that, on January 24 of 2004 Howard Dean was leading the Democratic field, and, in 2012, Newt Gingrich was. Despite these polls, people who knew what they were talking about in American politics questioned whether Dean could win the nomination, and thought Gingrich would lose. I cast my lot in with the majority of analysts here—Sanders is too far to the left to win the presidency. (However, both he and Trump could turn the impossible possible if they are the two nominees.)
42AsYouKnow_Bob
>7 barney67: I don't see how money has anything to do with speech.
For the past six years (if not longer...), Money IS Speech:
Citizens United v. FEC
>12 barney67: If you're saying you like Sanders, you're missing the point. Many Democrats do not. And you'll never get any Republicans or independents to vote for him.
(GOP) Senator Richard Burr: "I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over Ted Cruz"
For the past six years (if not longer...), Money IS Speech:
Citizens United v. FEC
>12 barney67: If you're saying you like Sanders, you're missing the point. Many Democrats do not. And you'll never get any Republicans or independents to vote for him.
(GOP) Senator Richard Burr: "I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over Ted Cruz"
43jjwilson61
I'm not convinced that Clinton is all that electable. If Reagan was the teflon president than Hillary is the opposite, that is everything the Republicans throw at her sticks. And Sanders whose main thrust is against the .01% running the country would be the perfect foil to Trump who is the embodiment of the .01%.
44southernbooklady
>37 timspalding: Sanders is a decent man. He's also the only way we might get a President Trump.
Trump is such a not decent man that he might be the only way we get a President Sanders.
Trump is such a not decent man that he might be the only way we get a President Sanders.
45sturlington
I don't trust the polls. I don't think they're representative of what most people think because of how they're conducted. I also think the media pick and choose which of the polls to broadcast to get the best story. So there's a double whammy there. The trouble is, people believe the polls and then they tend to think they should do what everybody else is doing. Frank Bruni had a good piece on polls in the Times yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinion/campaign-stops/our-insane-addiction-to...
I think Hillary is tough. The Democrats don't have enough of that quality, and it's sorely needed. I have qualms about her too, but she's the best option, as far as I can see. I do not think Bernie Sanders would be an effective president at all. If he were electable, which I doubt, I think it would be four years of nothing getting done and then a Republican landslide in 2020. The president does not stand alone. He has to work with congress to get things done. He has to negotiate with foreign leaders. I think Sanders is a great guy, and his voice is needed, but he is not the right choice for president.
On the other side, I think Rubio is the least bad option. Like any other Republican, I'm sure a Rubio presidency would be harmful to public education, the environment, women's and minority rights, and the social safety net. I would not vote for him if there were any other option. But I don't think he would destroy our country.
If Trump is elected, that's it. We had a good run, but any relevance we've had as a country is lost.
Cruz terrifies me. It says something that no one he's ever worked with, even in his own party, likes him. He reminds me of Greg Stillson from The Dead Zone.
Edited to fix error.
I think Hillary is tough. The Democrats don't have enough of that quality, and it's sorely needed. I have qualms about her too, but she's the best option, as far as I can see. I do not think Bernie Sanders would be an effective president at all. If he were electable, which I doubt, I think it would be four years of nothing getting done and then a Republican landslide in 2020. The president does not stand alone. He has to work with congress to get things done. He has to negotiate with foreign leaders. I think Sanders is a great guy, and his voice is needed, but he is not the right choice for president.
On the other side, I think Rubio is the least bad option. Like any other Republican, I'm sure a Rubio presidency would be harmful to public education, the environment, women's and minority rights, and the social safety net. I would not vote for him if there were any other option. But I don't think he would destroy our country.
If Trump is elected, that's it. We had a good run, but any relevance we've had as a country is lost.
Cruz terrifies me. It says something that no one he's ever worked with, even in his own party, likes him. He reminds me of Greg Stillson from The Dead Zone.
Edited to fix error.
46artturnerjr
>45 sturlington:
Cruz terrifies me. It says something that no one he's ever worked with, even in his own party, likes him. He reminds me of Greg Stillwell from The Dead Zone.
Ha! Stephen King said the same thing about Sarah Palin:
http://www.salon.com/2008/10/23/stephen_king/
A worthwhile article on Cruz from Rolling Stone's website that I came across yesterday:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ted-cruz-isnt-crazy-hes-much-worse-201...
Cruz is almost the equal of Donald Trump in his pathological narcissism, which is pretty fucking staggering.
Cruz terrifies me. It says something that no one he's ever worked with, even in his own party, likes him. He reminds me of Greg Stillwell from The Dead Zone.
Ha! Stephen King said the same thing about Sarah Palin:
http://www.salon.com/2008/10/23/stephen_king/
A worthwhile article on Cruz from Rolling Stone's website that I came across yesterday:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ted-cruz-isnt-crazy-hes-much-worse-201...
Cruz is almost the equal of Donald Trump in his pathological narcissism, which is pretty fucking staggering.
47sturlington
>46 artturnerjr: Thanks for posting that interview with King and I see that I got the character's name wrong. I've fixed it.
48barney67
I'm not sure what to expect from people who can't write without swearing or who think Stephen King is not only a good writer but a first-rate political thinker.
But then, that's not what this thread is about, is it?
And what is it about? Other than the fact that no one here knows how to think.
But then, that's not what this thread is about, is it?
And what is it about? Other than the fact that no one here knows how to think.
49cpg
>45 sturlington: "It says something that no one he's ever worked with, even in his own party, likes him."
"I like Ted Cruz" --Senator Jeff Sessions
"I like Ted Cruz" --Senator Jeff Sessions
50lriley
#45--2020? A republican landslide? We're kind of seeing right now IMO a republican party coming apart at the seams. It may not turn out to be exactly like Humpty Dumpty's egg but Trump's and Cruz's candidacies could take some major pieces of it to some other whole new different place and finish the GOP as a viable political entity for a long time if not forever. They're certainly changing the expectations of the party's rank and file towards the leadership of the party. When a large % of your base comes out against immigration--comes out against the Koran--when things like this become major issues for it--if you're a republican politician what do you do? Answer: You either go with it or you die.
For now: the Bush family is d-o-n-e. McCain and his acolytes like Lindsay Graham--k-a-p-u-t-t. Paul and the libertarian wing?--y-e-s-t-e-r-d-a-y's n-e-w-s. Rubio is hanging onto life by his f-i-n-g-e-r-n-a-i-l-s. Let's call it l-i-f-e s-u-p-p-o-r-t. The Trump campaign has literally decapitated/eviscerated/burned into ashes every major republican figure with presidential ambitions in this election cycle......and there were so many of them and it's such a massacre that I can't see any of them ever having a shot at the republican nomination ever again. I think the Republican party is in a very scary place right now. 2020?
For now: the Bush family is d-o-n-e. McCain and his acolytes like Lindsay Graham--k-a-p-u-t-t. Paul and the libertarian wing?--y-e-s-t-e-r-d-a-y's n-e-w-s. Rubio is hanging onto life by his f-i-n-g-e-r-n-a-i-l-s. Let's call it l-i-f-e s-u-p-p-o-r-t. The Trump campaign has literally decapitated/eviscerated/burned into ashes every major republican figure with presidential ambitions in this election cycle......and there were so many of them and it's such a massacre that I can't see any of them ever having a shot at the republican nomination ever again. I think the Republican party is in a very scary place right now. 2020?
51sturlington
>50 lriley: If you are correct, I will be ecstatic. I'm feeling pessimistic, though.
52cpg
>50 lriley: "The Trump campaign has literally decapitated/eviscerated/burned into ashes every major republican figure with presidential ambitions in this election cycle"
Man, there ought to be a law against that.
Man, there ought to be a law against that.
53lriley
#52 Trump just got done saying he could shoot someone dead in the middle of Times Square and it wouldn't cost him any votes. Hyperbole?--almost for sure--still an almost unbelievable thing for a potential presidential nominee to say that you'd think would make a lot of even his voters take a step back....but that doesn't look like it's happening.
54lriley
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liam-miller/elizabeth-warren-sinks-clintons-hopes_...
Elizabeth Warren---'Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with billionaires who want to run this country like a private club'.
IMO if Warren had decided to run for POTUS she would be the democratic frontrunner. Sanders would probably not even be running. No one would be saying all this crap about what is possible and what is not. Yet both Warren and Sanders have a similar message on the whole.
Elizabeth Warren---'Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with billionaires who want to run this country like a private club'.
IMO if Warren had decided to run for POTUS she would be the democratic frontrunner. Sanders would probably not even be running. No one would be saying all this crap about what is possible and what is not. Yet both Warren and Sanders have a similar message on the whole.
55timspalding
Trump is such a not decent man that he might be the only way we get a President Sanders.
Ha! Indeed, if I were a Sanders supporter, I'd be wishing for Trump. The worse is the best, as they say.
Ha! Indeed, if I were a Sanders supporter, I'd be wishing for Trump. The worse is the best, as they say.
56JGL53
> 54
If Warren had run this time (and Sanders had not) then Warren would be trouncing HRC, in Iowa, in New Hampshire and in the entire country. But that is just a science fiction scenario now.
Bernie is no longer a fringe candidate or a dark horse with only long shot at winning. This is Obama/HRC 2008 redux. After smacking down the Clinton machine and making HRC his bitch, Obama was considered pretty much a joke by the republicans up until, say, the mid-summer of 2008. Their candidate was a war hero who was not some right-wing religious kook but a solid conservative choice. He was also very obviously white. The republicans were overjoyed that it was Obama rather than HRC they were facing.
The onslaught was like something from a Stephen King novel. Obama was accused of everything evil and wrong and un-American, up to and including being the Antichrist that would bring about Armageddon. If it wasn't Bill Ayers and the Rev. Wright then it was ACORN and his false birth certificate. Obama was known to have a Lilly-white mother and a black-as-pure-Africa father - the ultimate horror of tens of millions of white Americans. Obama made fun of those white people who "cling to their guns and their religion". He was denounced as a Muslim, an atheist, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a nazi, a sellout to our enemies, a plant by our enemies in our very mist. He was the greatest danger to American survival since King George and Adolph Hitler combined.
No, really - entire books could be written detailing the evil and anti-American horrors which with Obama threatened patriotic Americans.
No one here remembers any of this? Did I just effing dream it? Neverthe-goddamn-less didn't Obama win anyway - with MAJORITIES - TWICE? Did I DREAM ALL THAT?
(At this point let's all pretend I just lost my fucking mind. - I continue:)
So - after all the citizens of America have experienced and seen in the last 15 years we are now to believe that Americans in the majority have not learned a god damn thing? - that they IN THE MAJORITY are just effing fools that be spooked like a herd of dumbass sheep into voting against the "evil socialist"? Really? Then fuck this shit. And COME LORD JESUS! Halle-fucking-lujah! I am ready to die like a dog in a pool of blood in the Final Conflict, on the side of Evil and be sent to Hell, along with the rest of you anti-republican, anti-christian sinners.
Fuck it. I WILL NOT worship the Republican Jesus. I WILL NOT have the shit-faced republican party put its mark on my forehead or forearm. And I'm just crazy enough to think the majority of Americans will agree with me - just like they did in 2008, just like they did in 2012.
2,000 years ago a pissed-off Jew whipped the money-changers out of the temple. The time has now come for history to repeat itself.
Bernie 2016.
I have spoken.
(Oh, yeah, I almost forgot --- FUCK!)
If Warren had run this time (and Sanders had not) then Warren would be trouncing HRC, in Iowa, in New Hampshire and in the entire country. But that is just a science fiction scenario now.
Bernie is no longer a fringe candidate or a dark horse with only long shot at winning. This is Obama/HRC 2008 redux. After smacking down the Clinton machine and making HRC his bitch, Obama was considered pretty much a joke by the republicans up until, say, the mid-summer of 2008. Their candidate was a war hero who was not some right-wing religious kook but a solid conservative choice. He was also very obviously white. The republicans were overjoyed that it was Obama rather than HRC they were facing.
The onslaught was like something from a Stephen King novel. Obama was accused of everything evil and wrong and un-American, up to and including being the Antichrist that would bring about Armageddon. If it wasn't Bill Ayers and the Rev. Wright then it was ACORN and his false birth certificate. Obama was known to have a Lilly-white mother and a black-as-pure-Africa father - the ultimate horror of tens of millions of white Americans. Obama made fun of those white people who "cling to their guns and their religion". He was denounced as a Muslim, an atheist, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a nazi, a sellout to our enemies, a plant by our enemies in our very mist. He was the greatest danger to American survival since King George and Adolph Hitler combined.
No, really - entire books could be written detailing the evil and anti-American horrors which with Obama threatened patriotic Americans.
No one here remembers any of this? Did I just effing dream it? Neverthe-goddamn-less didn't Obama win anyway - with MAJORITIES - TWICE? Did I DREAM ALL THAT?
(At this point let's all pretend I just lost my fucking mind. - I continue:)
So - after all the citizens of America have experienced and seen in the last 15 years we are now to believe that Americans in the majority have not learned a god damn thing? - that they IN THE MAJORITY are just effing fools that be spooked like a herd of dumbass sheep into voting against the "evil socialist"? Really? Then fuck this shit. And COME LORD JESUS! Halle-fucking-lujah! I am ready to die like a dog in a pool of blood in the Final Conflict, on the side of Evil and be sent to Hell, along with the rest of you anti-republican, anti-christian sinners.
Fuck it. I WILL NOT worship the Republican Jesus. I WILL NOT have the shit-faced republican party put its mark on my forehead or forearm. And I'm just crazy enough to think the majority of Americans will agree with me - just like they did in 2008, just like they did in 2012.
2,000 years ago a pissed-off Jew whipped the money-changers out of the temple. The time has now come for history to repeat itself.
Bernie 2016.
I have spoken.
(Oh, yeah, I almost forgot --- FUCK!)
57artturnerjr
>48 barney67:
I'm not sure what to expect from people who can't write without swearing
Oh my goodness, yes! How vulgar and inarticulate! Why, just a few days ago, a member of this very group referred to a former Governor of Alaska as a "hot piece of ass"! Who would do such a thing? Oh yeah:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/217226#5439486
I'm not sure what to expect from people who can't write without swearing
Oh my goodness, yes! How vulgar and inarticulate! Why, just a few days ago, a member of this very group referred to a former Governor of Alaska as a "hot piece of ass"! Who would do such a thing? Oh yeah:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/217226#5439486
58lriley
#56--oh I remember all that but it's good you bring it up--maybe some others might remember too.
People are always saying mean things about politicians they don't like. They'll parrot forever what some 24-7 TV news (slug) personality says about their target of enmity. Then there's the campaign and PAC ads. The ones Sanders have put out so far are actually pretty nice....I mean uplifting even...especially if you like Simon and Garfunkel (I'm kind of meh on them but....) and he's got no PAC's so he can't just shrug his shoulders and say 'oh, I had nothing to do with that, that's so and so...nice guy but I can't control him'. So I don't expect so nice and uplifting from HRC. Now if HRC gets the nomination the things Trump and Cruz are going to put into their campaign ads about her are going to be so bad that it will make peoples ears, noses, eyes and assholes bleed. Like someone sprayed the length and breadth of the United States with phosgene gas left over from WWI. Their PAC's will have a field day too. You know they're going to go to town on this e-mail thing for one. That's at least as good if not better than Swift Boat material. And if she actually gets indicted..........
The main problem for Trump and Cruz though is they are Trump and Cruz. An arrogant moneybags and an uncompromising semi-Canadian (not hockey) right winger. They don't disdain Wall St. but Hispanics, LGBT people, black people, Muslims that's another story. You start adding up all the %'s of those groups and you've got quite a handicap. Add in the left and the moderates/independents even some conservatives not willing to go that far right like maybe Tim and pretty soon you're chances are kind of fucked.
People are always saying mean things about politicians they don't like. They'll parrot forever what some 24-7 TV news (slug) personality says about their target of enmity. Then there's the campaign and PAC ads. The ones Sanders have put out so far are actually pretty nice....I mean uplifting even...especially if you like Simon and Garfunkel (I'm kind of meh on them but....) and he's got no PAC's so he can't just shrug his shoulders and say 'oh, I had nothing to do with that, that's so and so...nice guy but I can't control him'. So I don't expect so nice and uplifting from HRC. Now if HRC gets the nomination the things Trump and Cruz are going to put into their campaign ads about her are going to be so bad that it will make peoples ears, noses, eyes and assholes bleed. Like someone sprayed the length and breadth of the United States with phosgene gas left over from WWI. Their PAC's will have a field day too. You know they're going to go to town on this e-mail thing for one. That's at least as good if not better than Swift Boat material. And if she actually gets indicted..........
The main problem for Trump and Cruz though is they are Trump and Cruz. An arrogant moneybags and an uncompromising semi-Canadian (not hockey) right winger. They don't disdain Wall St. but Hispanics, LGBT people, black people, Muslims that's another story. You start adding up all the %'s of those groups and you've got quite a handicap. Add in the left and the moderates/independents even some conservatives not willing to go that far right like maybe Tim and pretty soon you're chances are kind of fucked.
59timspalding
Bernie is no longer a fringe candidate or a dark horse with only long shot at winning. This is Obama/HRC 2008 redux. … Obama was accused of everything evil and wrong and un-American, up to and including being the Antichrist that would bring about Armageddon.
The problem isn't the right wing. It's the center and even the left. Obama was never a true leftist, and his pragmatic streak made him appealing to the center. Sanders is far enough left that he is not even actually a Democrat. It's not only Hillary and O'Malley—no Democrat has run as far to the left as him in recent decades, with the possible exception of Kucinich. (And no, Kucinich was not electable either.)
When you go issue-by-issue the problems only grow worse. He is, for starters, in favor of a single-payer health care system. That might be great; presumably you think it's great. But it's well to the left of what most Americans support—a solution that appeals to the Democratic base but scares middle-of-the-roaders. At present, support for even the far more incrementalist Obamacare program is unsteady ( http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/247579-poll-obamacare-support-ticks-up ). The House recently voted to repeal it. I find it hard to imagine that Democrats will embrace the notion that the Obamacare they so long defended should be razed, and that, after so many years of battles, the American center will simply change it's mind about the issue.
Now, if you're going to make the argument that Sanders will change the fundamentals—that he's a strong enough force to move the nation decisively to the left, fine. I can think of one candidate—Reagan—who successfully did that. And if you think Americans will pick Sanders over someone equally outside the mainstream, like Cruz or Trump, okay. But you have to start by recognizing the simple reality of the situation—Sanders is on the far left side of American politics and people on either far side find it hard to win elections.
The problem isn't the right wing. It's the center and even the left. Obama was never a true leftist, and his pragmatic streak made him appealing to the center. Sanders is far enough left that he is not even actually a Democrat. It's not only Hillary and O'Malley—no Democrat has run as far to the left as him in recent decades, with the possible exception of Kucinich. (And no, Kucinich was not electable either.)
When you go issue-by-issue the problems only grow worse. He is, for starters, in favor of a single-payer health care system. That might be great; presumably you think it's great. But it's well to the left of what most Americans support—a solution that appeals to the Democratic base but scares middle-of-the-roaders. At present, support for even the far more incrementalist Obamacare program is unsteady ( http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/247579-poll-obamacare-support-ticks-up ). The House recently voted to repeal it. I find it hard to imagine that Democrats will embrace the notion that the Obamacare they so long defended should be razed, and that, after so many years of battles, the American center will simply change it's mind about the issue.
Now, if you're going to make the argument that Sanders will change the fundamentals—that he's a strong enough force to move the nation decisively to the left, fine. I can think of one candidate—Reagan—who successfully did that. And if you think Americans will pick Sanders over someone equally outside the mainstream, like Cruz or Trump, okay. But you have to start by recognizing the simple reality of the situation—Sanders is on the far left side of American politics and people on either far side find it hard to win elections.
61LolaWalser
lol
Yeah, Tim, could it be that "the middle road" isn't where you think it is any more?
Yeah, Tim, could it be that "the middle road" isn't where you think it is any more?
62_Zoe_
Actually there's an even more recent poll, from last month: 58% of Americans favor the idea of Medicare-for-all.
63timspalding
Majority still supports single-payer option, poll finds
You might try looking at Politifact, which rates a similar claim: False
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-...
As noted there, if you word structure the question in certain ways, you can "get" a yes—by calling it "Medicare for all" and presenting no other options or facts. Those results don't match what happens if you word things in other ways, or, for example, if you discuss a system that increases taxes, as any such system would have to do (see http://www.insidesources.com/the-impossible-pipe-dream-single-payer-health-refor....
You might try looking at Politifact, which rates a similar claim: False
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-...
As noted there, if you word structure the question in certain ways, you can "get" a yes—by calling it "Medicare for all" and presenting no other options or facts. Those results don't match what happens if you word things in other ways, or, for example, if you discuss a system that increases taxes, as any such system would have to do (see http://www.insidesources.com/the-impossible-pipe-dream-single-payer-health-refor....
64_Zoe_
a) How does an article from early 2014 refute a poll from last month?
b) Bernie Sanders does use the phrase "Medicare for all".
b) Bernie Sanders does use the phrase "Medicare for all".
65lriley
#59--I wouldn't exactly agree with your characterization of pre-POTUS Obama. IMO he ran pretty much along the lines of where Sanders is running now--as a left wing populist. He began moving towards the middle after his nomination and that move towards the center sped up with the investment banking crisis.
He was talking not only about health care for all but alternative energy solutions, job creation that actually paid people, investing massively in rebuilding infrastructure. It almost went without saying that Guantanamo and torture were going to end and that we were going to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan within the year. As well we were going to have a transparent government and agencies like the CIA and NSA were going to be taking a step back.
It wasn't just his old relationship with Bill Ayers that had people thinking he was really on the left.
He was talking not only about health care for all but alternative energy solutions, job creation that actually paid people, investing massively in rebuilding infrastructure. It almost went without saying that Guantanamo and torture were going to end and that we were going to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan within the year. As well we were going to have a transparent government and agencies like the CIA and NSA were going to be taking a step back.
It wasn't just his old relationship with Bill Ayers that had people thinking he was really on the left.
66theoria
North Carolina is representative of one demographic hurdle Sanders must jump.
"On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton remains dominant with 59% t0 26% for Bernie Sanders, and 5% for Martin O'Malley. The North Carolina numbers speak to the demographic advantages that may cause things to work out fine for Clinton even if she does struggle in Iowa and New Hampshire. Among African Americans, which are about a third of the primary electorate in North Carolina, Clinton leads Sanders 77/12 with O'Malley getting 2%. Clinton's favorability with black voters is 81/11, compared to 43/20 for Sanders. That overwhelming advantage with black voters should make the South a very strong region for Clinton as the race moves to its states. Clinton is also benefiting from having much more committed support- 78% of her supporters say they are definitely going to vote for her, compared to 50% of Sanders' who say the same." http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/01/trump-keeps-gaining-in-nc-clinto...
"On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton remains dominant with 59% t0 26% for Bernie Sanders, and 5% for Martin O'Malley. The North Carolina numbers speak to the demographic advantages that may cause things to work out fine for Clinton even if she does struggle in Iowa and New Hampshire. Among African Americans, which are about a third of the primary electorate in North Carolina, Clinton leads Sanders 77/12 with O'Malley getting 2%. Clinton's favorability with black voters is 81/11, compared to 43/20 for Sanders. That overwhelming advantage with black voters should make the South a very strong region for Clinton as the race moves to its states. Clinton is also benefiting from having much more committed support- 78% of her supporters say they are definitely going to vote for her, compared to 50% of Sanders' who say the same." http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/01/trump-keeps-gaining-in-nc-clinto...
67jjwilson61
>39 timspalding: But Sanders is simply too far left for the American electorate to embrace.
43% of Democratic caucus goers in Iowa self-identify as socialists. Iowa?!?
43% of Democratic caucus goers in Iowa self-identify as socialists. Iowa?!?
68artturnerjr
>67 jjwilson61:
I confess I thought you were making this up. My apologies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/17/this-number-proves-ber...
I confess I thought you were making this up. My apologies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/17/this-number-proves-ber...
69timspalding
This number proves Bernie Sanders can win Iowa
Uh. Yes, he can win that segment of voters who are most enthusiastic and committed… and most extreme.
That how caucuses work. It's why Huckabee and Santorum won Iowa in past elections. Does anyone think Santorum would be a good fit for a general election?
Uh. Yes, he can win that segment of voters who are most enthusiastic and committed… and most extreme.
That how caucuses work. It's why Huckabee and Santorum won Iowa in past elections. Does anyone think Santorum would be a good fit for a general election?
70jjwilson61
>68 artturnerjr: Sorry, I meant to post this, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-43-percent-problem-218405
72lriley
The media is uptight--a lot of people with money are uptight--when Sanders says he'll replace the affordable care act with single payer. That taxes will go up--(and some people stop right there) but they won't have to be paying insurance premiums and that the great majority of people will actually save money--some will save a lot of money. Ideas such as that threaten people with a lot of wealth and power. Insurance conglomerates have been running their scams for years. In the United States health care costs citizens much more than it does in other countries. There are so many ripoffs built into this system and it especially preys on the elderly yet so many people believe in this system and hang on to it like it's the last bastion against the dark threat of socialism/communism that is going to sell their souls to Satan.
73JGL53
> 72
Yes, you are right. For a person to become a Sanders' voter he or she would have to be able to think - and not just react emotionally to sound bites and specific words.
So, yeah, the U.S. may not now if ever be ready to vote in the majority for Sanders or someone like Sanders. I certainly understand the situation but I will continue to hope for the best until the point comes in which that becomes impossible. And if HRC wins Iowa by one vote then that hope may die in about three days.
Yes, you are right. For a person to become a Sanders' voter he or she would have to be able to think - and not just react emotionally to sound bites and specific words.
So, yeah, the U.S. may not now if ever be ready to vote in the majority for Sanders or someone like Sanders. I certainly understand the situation but I will continue to hope for the best until the point comes in which that becomes impossible. And if HRC wins Iowa by one vote then that hope may die in about three days.
