Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Trump is bad for the Democrats, and here's why: By ensuring that the Republicans can't win (No latino, female, or black American will vote for the Republicans at this point*), the Democrats need do nothing. They will continue their political atrophy into a moderate-conservative pro-business police party instead of Warrenite activism.

Except that is complete nonsense and the stronger democrats do in elections, the more progressive the country gets.

2008 didn't matter!  All it got us was the healthcare reform but that's no big deal.
2010 doesn't matter, all it got us was the sequester and that's no big deal.

Fun story about the sequester.  I use a pre-sequester computer at work because it literally took five goddamn years to manage to fit computers into the budget again.

Kind of hard for the Democrat party to really evolve with Hillary dominating the thing and being pre-crowned (or maybe pre-pre-crowned) as the nominee.

Hillary is a politician, not a king.  She only stands as far to the left as she thinks it's safe to stand.  Didn't your parents.  (or grandparents, fuck I dont know) ever tell you about how Hillary was the liberal one in the Clinton administration?  Obama genuinely surprised her with a left wing flank position on the Iraq war but Hillary has been a liberal, will continue to be a liberal and is a liberal right now.

I'm 32 FYI (and no I'm not offended, so it's okay).

The point I was making is that they've made her the inevitable nominee for quite a while now. While it's not without good reason, Obama, a virtual unknown at the time, stood toe to toe with her, so she certainly isn't unbeatable.

[mainiac]

Obama veeeeeeeery narrowly beat her by turning the Iraq war into the issue that set them apart.  Iraq was kinda a big deal in 2008.  I dont believe there is a similarly sized issue for Sanders or Warren to exploit despite the cute attempts by the republicans to make it look like there is.  And while Obama wasn't the highest level politician, I for one first heard his name 4 years earlier.  The closest comparison I can see today is Elizabeth Warren but she is no Barrack Obama and wall street reform is no Iraq war sized political issue.

[smjjames]

That, and she's not running.

Hello? She has a campaign going, of course she is running. Unless you meant Warren.

Obama veeeeeeeery narrowly beat her by turning the Iraq war into the issue that set them apart.  Iraq was kinda a big deal in 2008.  I dont believe there is a similarly sized issue for Sanders or Warren to exploit despite the cute attempts by the republicans to make it look like there is.  And while Obama wasn't the highest level politician, I for one first heard his name 4 years earlier.  The closest comparison I can see today is Elizabeth Warren but she is no Barrack Obama and wall street reform is no Iraq war sized political issue.

She has other chinks in her armor, and I didn't watch the 2004 DNC keynote address, so he was unknown to me at least. I know he barely beat her, I remember that long drawn out Democratic primary, the point is that it would be difficult, but not outright impossible.

Also, Warren isn't running anyway.

We'll just have to wait until the Democratic debate to see how the others differentiate themselves from Clinton. Would have been nice to have more debates on the Democratic side, though the Republicans need those more badly than the Democrats do.

Edit: Also, don't underestimate Murphy's law (or maybe the political version of Chekovs gun) there is always the chance for something major to happen between now and the finalization of the Democratic nominee that a challenger can latch onto and use.

Edit2: And of course, there's that Trump monkey wrench ready to dive in and screw things up, he's like the wildcard of wildcards. He's more of a loose cannon to the Republicans atm, but at some point, those shots could hurt the Democrats, you just can't predict (to an extent) what he'll do.

[Sheb]

I wish Trump would declare he is also a candidate for the Dem primary.

[mainiac]

Edit: Also, don't underestimate Murphy's law (or maybe the political version of Chekovs gun) there is always the chance for something major to happen between now and the finalization of the Democratic nominee that a challenger can latch onto and use.

Oh my god.  Are you trying to be frustrating or do you have the attention span of a goldfish?

[RedKing]

Edit: Also, don't underestimate Murphy's law (or maybe the political version of Chekovs gun) there is always the chance for something major to happen between now and the finalization of the Democratic nominee that a challenger can latch onto and use.

Oh my god.  Are you trying to be frustrating or do you have the attention span of a goldfish?

Why are you getting salty (other than that's who you are) for him pointing out the ever-present potential for an October surprise (or whatever the equivalent is for primaries...March Madness? February Fuck-All-Y'all?)

[mainiac]

Why are you getting salty (other than that's who you are) for him pointing out the ever-present potential for an October surprise (or whatever the equivalent is for primaries...March Madness? February Fuck-All-Y'all?)

Because shifting of the topic to an adjacent topic while using a disagreeing tone annoys me immensely.

[smjjames]

Why are you getting salty (other than that's who you are) for him pointing out the ever-present potential for an October surprise (or whatever the equivalent is for primaries...March Madness? February Fuck-All-Y'all?)

Because shifting of the topic to an adjacent topic while using a disagreeing tone annoys me immensely.

I do have a tendency to ramble on, so, yeah.....

[RedKing]

Why are you getting salty (other than that's who you are) for him pointing out the ever-present potential for an October surprise (or whatever the equivalent is for primaries...March Madness? February Fuck-All-Y'all?)

Because shifting of the topic to an adjacent topic while using a disagreeing tone annoys me immensely.

Which has fuck-all to do with a short attention span. And it was still on topic -- the notion that Queen Hillary has not yet been anointed with the sacred oils.
And yeah, I know -- "She's not a queen, she's really liberal guys, honest!" yadda yadda yadda.

She's the Democratic Jeb Bush -- the establishment, "centrist" candidate that the activist base doesn't want but knows it's likely going to have to accept anyways because politics and money. You'll excuse me if I don't burst with enthusiasm.

[Helgoland]

She's the Democratic Jeb Bush -- the establishment, "centrist" candidate that the activist base doesn't want but knows it's likely going to have to accept anyways because politics and money.

Also votes. Most people aren't activists, and as of yet that doesn't prohibit them from participating in elections.

[RedKing]

She's the Democratic Jeb Bush -- the establishment, "centrist" candidate that the activist base doesn't want but knows it's likely going to have to accept anyways because politics and money.

Also votes. Most people aren't activists, and as of yet that doesn't prohibit them from participating in elections.

And the non-activist votes are gotten through metric shittons of advertising. See: money.

The low-information voter primary works like this (IF they go to the polls):

"Hmm...Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Bernie...that's a dorky fucking name. Dunno who this guy is. Clinton...I saw a bunch of TV ads and signs and stickers for her, so she must be good, because a lot of people like her. I'll pick her."

The low-information voter general election works like this:

"R or D...which one am I again?"

[Willfor]

To be fair, the reason America's election is in the state it's in is ... America's fault? Like, your political climate only allows for the very match-ups you're facing now. Hilary is the best you can get right now, and the GOP have created a situation wherein Trump is the best suited to take advantage of the base they've created.

Speaking as someone whose politics are determined by whoever is in the White House, I would much rather have Hilary there by an unimaginable margin than anyone the GOP might possibly select.

[scriver]

Is Bernie's name really Bernie though? Not Bernard or anything? Because that is a dorky fucking name.

[smjjames]

Is Bernie's name really Bernie though? Not Bernard or anything? Because that is a dorky fucking name.

Yep, wiki doesn't say otherwise.

If he becomes president, it wouldn't be the first time we've had a president with an uncommon or maybe dorky sounding name. No idea what first names of past presidents would have sounded dorky for their time though.

Edit: Dwight (as in Dwight D. Eisinhower) sounds a bit dorky now and plausibly could have back then.

[scriver]

"Ulysses".

But yeah, "Bernie" is dorky even over here. It's what people used to use to give people dorky names even when I was a kid/teenager. Except pronounced Böööhrnie.