-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
Aaronology
Member
Pointless line of attack?
I don't support Hillary Clinton because of what I believe she can pass through Congress. I support the Democrat ticket and she happens to be the strongest candidate. I believe she is electable and subsequently the path to the Supreme Court seats in play. Whatever feelings I have for Bernie Sanders and his politics are moot given Congress and the political reality we inhabit. In addition to this, he is far riskier a nominee than Clinton for reasons that everyone should be aware of by now. This is no doubt one of the reasons so many people have elected not to vote for him.
Do you understand now, KingV?
Where do get the idea that Hillary is more electable!?? Bernie wins on all head to heads, Hillary loses to Trump! Only Republican BS news says this kind of stuff. There is no disadvantage to Bernie, except to the establishment that would in reality only get a small amount less. When the economy actually picks up with Bernie's infrastructure plans they will make almost as much as they do now, but they don't want to share the profits and live quarter to quarter. They would save a lot on their lobbying bill with Bernie turning it down and asking for a small portion to go to education so that people can be skilled laborers again.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I used to wish we had it in Canada, but we got 70% turnout the last election, which is decent, so it's all good now.
I think this election in the US will be a high turnout too. Harper played identity politics and the turnout surged. Stop Trump will become trendy, you will be considered a pariah if you don't vote against Trump. Sanders fan will forget about what they said on online forums. I can see it happening.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yep, if Sanders actually had a Foreign Policy, and diversified his message a bit more I would be more apt to support him in the Primary among other reasons. Although that elect-ability angle would still worry me. I would still vote for him, and hope to god he would get someone who knows Foreign Policy instead of just "Oh let's get the Muslim nations to work together!" bullshit. I also sit closer to Hillary on Trade than sanders Isolationist trade policy which would be a significant problem for the country if changed. Lastly, and it's my biggest problem with his campaign. He has done absolutely nothing for down-ticket races with fundraising or emphasis on their utter importance of those elections for him to get anything done. With those changes I would be excited to vote for Sanders in the GE and Primary. As it stands i'm somewhere between Ok and Happy with Hillary. If it was Sanders in the GE I would just be OK, and worried.
lol I don't have the luxury to experiment with what rock bottom looks like as a minority. Hillary for all her faults is at least predictable.
lastflowers
Banned
God damn benji, sometimes you fucking kill me.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Nevermind the fact the Republicans have been dead silent on attacking Sanders with the exception of Trump and the rally stuff. That tells you a whole lot right there.
Aaronology
Member
Research? I'm just asking you to explain yourself, adept. You don't appear to be that familiar with the US government despite how longwinded you are in instructing Americans on how it operates.
Clearly.
Explain this, please. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Gibberish. Sanders has given little support to downticket races; How does a political revolution start without them, adept? And the House will be gerrymandered for years, to boot. So how does a Sanders Presidency pass the progressive policies you claim we should choose him for, over a stronger candidate, given that he will be married to a hostile Congress?
Are you referring to General Election polling here, Adept?
FunkyMunkey
Banned
It'll be the same poll sanders has been posting to social media over and over again that is constantly being regurgitated by his supporters. And conveniently ignoring how he hasn't even been remotely attacked by the right (and even by hillary for the most part) during his campaign, while she has her entire career.
The same poll sanders keeps referencing on news interviews while saying in the same breath that he still has a chance at the nomination, thus firing up his base so they ignore the numbers and math even more so.
Yes. That said, I'm not sure what you're basing the "strongest" candidate on. I think both candidates have electoral downsides. Hilary's are well understood, but I think people underestimate them.
Beanies are less well-understood. I'm guessing you think the democratic socialist label is a big red flag, but I think there are lines of attack on Hillary that Trump is uniquely suited to make that are as bad or worse. The polls today would tend to suggest Bernie is a better candidate, though there is validity in saying that polls are early, Hillary is a known quantity nationally and Bernie is not. Hillary is not exciting to a lot of people, and it's not clear she can drive turnout at the same level as Obama. People weren't having this conversation in 2008 about Hillary or Bust, and it should be concerning about the election this year.
Luckily, Hillary looks like she will pull Trump as an opponent, which might be enough to get people off their butts and pulling the lever for her.
The most interesting thing this election for progressives is the degree that it's obvious that the Democratic Party is going to be much more progressive in the coming decades. I'm also curious how much of Bernies platform Hillary adopts for the general just to try to keep turnout up. I think this election could be scarily close, and Hillary might not look good going into 2016, but it's probably enough to get a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court, which is important.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
You were clearly not around that election. In some ways it was worse. Look up PUMA and Hillaryis44.
You obviously aren't getting it... no worries . . . my sister is trying hard to get pregnant but can't.... All you have to do is vote Bernie and your race and abortion wishes will come true faster than Hillary.
Source? Please!?! It's like you people aren't even following the same election . . . or maybe it's just that most of us know where to find facts and not fiction??
https://youtu.be/OTUCWE83k_Q
Kyle has the stats all over his countless videos but I'm not going to search hundreds of videos just so that you don't have to learn how to find your facts legit. Subscribe to Kyle, he is the 15th most watched news channel on you tube for a reason. If you don't like him.....
This should get you started:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders
Bernie is the only candidate strong enough to take down Trump. Hillary is weak as most people want Trump mostly because he isn't establishment, Hillary is.
One likely outcome of this election is that Sanders becomes a kingmaker in doe ticket democratic primaries in 2018, I would suspect he will be one of the most sought after endorsements given his ability to fund raise and turnout new primary voters.
I suspect that he didn't have any real organization down ballot this year since 1) he started so late and 2) I don't think he ever really expected to do this well. If he loses the primary, I hope he uses his momentum to organize his supporters down ballot.
Additionally, I hope that his supporters that are saying Bernie or Bust, instead take that disappointment to their county Democratic Party meetings and start to participate. These groups tend to be small, mostly older, and have a lot of needs. It would be relatively easy for Bernies supporters to effectively take over the Democratic Party infrastructure at a local level and effectively rewrite the Democratic Party platform at their local conventions.
Oh yeah.... I forgot all about that. It looks like the PUMAs are still mad too.
Indeed. The biggest test of Sanders's legacy will be whether he can translate his support, especially among younger voters, into a sustained political movement.
SolicitorPirate
Member
"Establishment" has become a vaguely defined boogeyman for whatever ills people want an easy target to blame for. What a fucking meaningless word
The OP assumes that Hillary is even progressive and is saying that it is the electorate's responsibility to vote even if they don't like either choice and I'll touch on that later. There are plenty of instances throughout Clinton's career that shows her "leftism" ends at American borders (I actually can say the same about Sanders and the rest of the Democrats but that's beside the point).
We are also throwing out all evidence that the campaign trail promises are often far different than what we actually get. Look back to 2008 Obama when campaigning and ask how much of those promises, the big ones that made people want to vote for him, have actually passed. Gitmo is still open and the US does not have single payer health care, instead we have a proto-corporatist system. Yeah, he hasn't had much support in Congress the last few years but he had two full years to make some really big changes. What happened instead? Banks were bailed out on the taxpayer's dime.
Now, back to the idea of voting for the "lesser of two evils". I know that a lot of people on this site like to say "vote with your dollar", a concept I find flawed but one that makes sense. If there is a Call of Duty game and a Battlefield game, both of which may perform poorly or have business practices that people don't like such as pay-to-win but one has these problems to a lesser extent than the other, do I have to buy the slightly less broken one? Why can't I choose to buy neither and wait to give my money to someone who I feel has earned it?
We're going to have another president whether we vote or not and I know that some people are worried that the left abstaining will put Trump in office but we have to stop acting like somebody with a D by their name is automatically better just because the party's expected to be the progressive one.
Is Hillary better than Trump? If we are looking at their campaign messages, again something I advise against, then yes, she is. But while people draw parallels between Trump and Hitler, not all of which are undeserved, Clinton has had her hand in genocide and coup's against democratically elected governments. Will Trump do the same in office? Probably, I'd say pretty much every US president is guilty of crimes against humanity. However, look at Trump's platform. It's a lot of talk and a lot of pointing fingers at what he perceives the problem to be but he offers no solutions. "We're going to make America great again!", "I don't have time for haters and losers!" and other racist/sexist insults to shut down naysayers are just code for "I have no idea what I'm doing, please be loud and don't make me answer anything."
Trump is only proving just how stupid the average person is. None of his supporters question anything he says or does, none of his detractors try to treat him with respect (not that he deserves it) to try to get an actual conversation and get him to look like he has no idea what he's doing. If he's elected, he'll listen to everything his advisers say as long as it makes him look good.
We are also throwing out all evidence that the campaign trail promises are often far different than what we actually get. Look back to 2008 Obama when campaigning and ask how much of those promises, the big ones that made people want to vote for him, have actually passed. Gitmo is still open and the US does not have single payer health care, instead we have a proto-corporatist system. Yeah, he hasn't had much support in Congress the last few years but he had two full years to make some really big changes. What happened instead? Banks were bailed out on the taxpayer's dime.
Now, back to the idea of voting for the "lesser of two evils". I know that a lot of people on this site like to say "vote with your dollar", a concept I find flawed but one that makes sense. If there is a Call of Duty game and a Battlefield game, both of which may perform poorly or have business practices that people don't like such as pay-to-win but one has these problems to a lesser extent than the other, do I have to buy the slightly less broken one? Why can't I choose to buy neither and wait to give my money to someone who I feel has earned it?
We're going to have another president whether we vote or not and I know that some people are worried that the left abstaining will put Trump in office but we have to stop acting like somebody with a D by their name is automatically better just because the party's expected to be the progressive one.
Is Hillary better than Trump? If we are looking at their campaign messages, again something I advise against, then yes, she is. But while people draw parallels between Trump and Hitler, not all of which are undeserved, Clinton has had her hand in genocide and coup's against democratically elected governments. Will Trump do the same in office? Probably, I'd say pretty much every US president is guilty of crimes against humanity. However, look at Trump's platform. It's a lot of talk and a lot of pointing fingers at what he perceives the problem to be but he offers no solutions. "We're going to make America great again!", "I don't have time for haters and losers!" and other racist/sexist insults to shut down naysayers are just code for "I have no idea what I'm doing, please be loud and don't make me answer anything."
Trump is only proving just how stupid the average person is. None of his supporters question anything he says or does, none of his detractors try to treat him with respect (not that he deserves it) to try to get an actual conversation and get him to look like he has no idea what he's doing. If he's elected, he'll listen to everything his advisers say as long as it makes him look good.
the_lizard
Member
Thank you. I want to elaborate but you've really nailed it, so there's not much more to say. Hillary supporters are sore losers (when Bernie seemed to be gaining more traction) and now sore winners. But they're missing the point entirely.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
???
And then there's the iffiness of general election polling at this stage of the game. Most Democratic voters are fine with Hillary, and she's winning the nomination handily; the people sustaining Trump's rise are something like 19% of the electorate. Your basis for saying Hillary would lose merely for being an establishment politician is flimsy at best.
By the way, why is it you're advocating people go through a pro-Bernie YouTube channel to educate themselves? You honestly don't have a more neutral source of information? I'm sure Kyle is an intelligent and well-informed person, but seriously, this is your "source of facts and not fiction"?
Maybe it seems like we aren't following the same election because we aren't in the same bubble you are.
SolicitorPirate
Member
What are you talking about? I quote Kyle from YouTube in all my papers
Just to be clear here: Guantanamo still being open has virtually nothing to do with the Obama administration not actually trying to do so -- that's pretty much Congress' doing -- and the bank bailout (TARP) occurred at the tail end of the Bush administration, not during Obama's.
I can't believe I'm even posting in this turd of a thread.
My point on that was that promises are just that: promises. Candidates take no responsibility for making these promises they can't possibly keep whether they ever actually planned to or not.
That's not actually true. There's like 3 or 4 studies that show candidates try their damnedest to get that shit done once elected. Why? So they can keep their jobs.
benjipwns
Banned
Don't worry, he can have my vote.
In fact, anyone can if they happen to make a completely unconnected and in no way related transfer of funds into my Steam wallet.
What point though. The fact that trump would set us back more than Clinton ever could?
Many people throughout history have thought that no candidate truly represents them. This is nothing new. You still vote for the things that keep your hopes and dreams alive. Unless building some wall is what gets your juices flowing
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Lol Kyle is right about everything . . . whether he is on you tube or not is irrelevant . . . his news program is the most truthful and unbiased I have fiund.> doesn't answer any questions
> links a pro Sanders YouTube channel to "educate" (someone totally unrelated to any question), and tries to use youtube popularity as a substitute for basis
> still has no idea what abortion is like in the US
None of this is helping you, at all. I like Sanders and still prefer him to Clinton, but loooooool nothing you say gives us a single reason to vote for Trump (or abstain) over Clinton if she's the Democratic nominee.
Thankfully you have no vote in the US.
Edit: thanks for the HuffPo link. It's very interesting.
Now, I'll give you where I am thinking will be most accurate:
(From here you can see that people believe Clinton will win the nomination, and with that information are also thinking the Democratic Party will win [I don't know if this is driven by what they see of the Republican frontrunner or what they think of the Democratic frontrunner, though I suspect it is the former.])
It's very possible they'll be wrong. Before Super Tuesday last election cycle, Clinton was favored over (then not yet President) Obama, and the market changed after Super Tuesday came it. It's possible that the markets will change again, depending on how California votes.
IEM has an accuracy rate of about 74%, says peer-reviewed paper. Though, I will add that it was nearly 8 years ago and there hasn't been an updated accuracy report, though generally speaking prediction markets are usually much more accurate than other methods of polling due to the economic factory of money. Polling is usually very off when it comes in forms of surveys, calls, and self-volunteered data. People are more likely to say what their ideals are when polling, but when money is involved there tends to be a much more hard, cold calculation done.
The reason why I cite IEM so often is because it's one of the few prediction markets in the US that actually allow for real money to be traded, instead of play money.
The only other real-money prediction market is here, and you can find a link to what they think: https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/67/National.
More specifically, regarding Clinton versus Trump: https://www.predictit.org/Market/1234/Who-will-win-the-2016-US-presidential-election
I am ignorant of any academia regarding their accuracy, but given what I know already of real-money markets and people's behavior, I have a lot of faith in them.
Your stats cherry pick the southern states as evidence for Hillary support nationally, that isn't the case in California New York and Pennsylvania... nice try . . . if you actually don't realize what you just did that's sad, even sadder if you tried to pulled if it off knowing you were lying.
I'm aware of the abuses and practices therein, but "closing Guantanamo" meant exactly that. That part of it is largely not the administration's fault, but Congress'.
I understand your point, but it's a different one than the one originally raised. Closing the base is, and always has been, largely a symbolic measure.
googleplex
Member
I got up early to try and get my Vote in today before work here in Phoenix AZ. Unfortunately there are only about 3 polling places in my area and the line I'm in is fucking huge. Hopefully I can still make it to work on time.
Voting day really should be a national holiday.
Voting day really should be a national holiday.
So it's Obama's fault for not deftly navigating the multiple layers of Republican obstruction, rather than the Republicans doing the obstruction. What a load of horseshit.
nitekrawlwer
Member
Your point(and specific example) are invalid unless you just like having the attitude that anything less than 100% of a stated goal is nothing. Even 1% can impact lives.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
And this is exactly why Sanders or Clinton getting the whitehouse is all good by me.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ourt-appointments-to-the-heritage-foundation/
As long it's not anybody from the right.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ourt-appointments-to-the-heritage-foundation/
As long it's not anybody from the right.
These two things are not equivalent. Bernie would get the black vote if he got out of the primaries.
- Status