Support NeoGAF

[DR2K]

Lol I'm talking about stuff like http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...rs-lags-in-delegates-but-leads-in-likeability



You can't deny he's likeable -- that's just the facts. Right now he's the only candidate with net likeability. You could argue that'd change as more people get to know him, but so far he's gotten MORE likeable as he's gotten more exposure, so...

Right he's likeable because he has been no threat to republicans and will never be. Hillary Clinton isn't attacking him and republicans aren't pretending he's a viable candidate.

 

[JP_]

Better than the plain aggressive tone from Sanders supporters everywhere else on the internet.

Both are bad. I like sanders but /r/politics is garbage now. Gaf is basically just as bad but flipped. Can't escape this stupid fanboyism

 

[Aaronology]

The passive aggressive tone from Hillary supporters in this thread is cringy.

first time in a poligaf thread eh

You must not be familiar with GAF political threads or something.

Edit: Having given up defending Sanders, many of you have sadly resorted to lowkey whining about PoliGAF. Time to look in the mirror before complaining about passive aggressiveness!

 

[OuterLimits]

CNN says even with generous Trump victories 1237 outright is tough.

Even Mitt Romney said yesterday that if Trump gets close(within 50, maybe 75) he will likely win on first ballot. Romney said that Trump could probably convince(bribe) 50 of the 200 or so unpledged delegates and get the number needed.

 

[Henchmen21]

Obviously he isn't.

Why else would he bring up Sanders having more energetic supporters?

More energetic at what? Losing? Complaining on Reddit?

All the things but actually voting?

The fact that his delegates actually bothered to show up in Nevada & Colorado.

 

[Frustrated_me]

You guys are correct, I don't frequent the thread too often, but man, the cringe is high.

 

[Psychoward]

I'm voting for Hillary come November and I don't have much issue with her outside of her foreign military policy but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out where this sites' dedicated political people lean.


I should have added that both sides have passive agressive shit flinging though, but yeah.


Edit: ah there goes your edit, assuming I'm voting for Bernie. Nice. There was a "well Bernie's fans are bad on other sites so whatever" earlier on the page as well. Both of those are fallacies.

Edit 2: for the record I think Bernie would be a bad vp pick, gotta go with someone young.

 

[Cipherr]

Nah, no Bernie for VP. That's not going to do anything for her ticket. If his biggest asset is his 'excitement' that has bore the fruit of her curb stomping him in votes by like 2 million, I'm going to go out on a limb and say she can do without it. Grab someone young if possible; and definitely someone that can possibly run as a Democrat in 8 years.

You guys are correct, I don't frequent the thread too often, but man, the cringe is high.

Trust, it was just as annoying in the other direction when Bernie was on his winning streak. Clinton was the devil, a corrupt demon republican in disguise.

Turnabout is fair play, you just happen to be arriving as the rubber hits the road.

 

[johnsmith]

I imagine this is how Hillary fans and the overreacting salty Bernie fans feel right now: https://youtu.be/ygD4ljlGKhk

lol, had to make this

 

[Zornack]

The fact that his delegates actually bothered to show up in Nevada & Colorado.

So you don't have an actual response, do you?

 

[Trouble]

Nah, no Bernie for VP. That's not going to do anything for her ticket. If his biggest asset is his 'excitement' that has bore the fruit of her curb stomping him in votes by like 2 million, I'm going to go out on a limb and say she can do without it. Grab someone young if possible; and definitely someone that can possibly run as a Democrat in 8 years.

Bernie, like Elizabeth Warren, can do more good in the Senate than as VP.

E: Until Hillary nominates Warren to the SCOTUS, that is.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

lol, had to make this

Ha. Thanks for gifing it, I was just about to do it myself.

 

[JP_]

Bernie being too old would be a good point if he didn't do so damn well with young voters. You guys are on auto pilot political consulting from the past. 2016 is a new game.

 

[Zornack]

Bernie being too old would be a good point if he didn't do so damn well with young voters. You guys are on auto pilot political consulting from 2008. 2016 is a new game.

Far left candidate doing well in primaries is an old game.

 

[Aaronology]

I'm voting for Hillary come November and I don't have much issue with her outside of her foreign military policy but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out where this sites' dedicated political people lean.


I should have added that both sides have passive agressive shit flinging though, but yeah.


Edit: ah there goes your edit, assuming I'm voting for Bernie. Nice. There was a "well Bernie's fans are bad on other sites so whatever" earlier on the page as well. Both of those are fallacies.

Edit 2: for the record I think Bernie would be a bad vp pick, gotta go with someone young.

To be fair and frank, I am mostly unfamiliar with you as a poster and that was largely directed at US. My apologies, though the comment still applies even if not specifically to you.

 

[Emarv]

I'm a bigger fan of Hillary picking Tom Perez for VP than someone young and handsome like Julian Castro who just doesn't have enough experience yet.

 

[Henchmen21]

So you don't have an actual response, do you?

How is that not a response? It's factually true. Her delegates didn't show up to vote in both those states.

 

[Kin5290]

Who? Patrick Murphy?

Hillary Clinton's best bet is to secure white male independents, particularly those in the South and Florida. If Trump is her opponent, the campaigns will likely focus on this demographic in ways that put Marvel Studios to shame.

If Trump or even Cruz is the nominee, minority support is essentially a given. Sanders brings a lot to the table, except geography and political centrism.

Why would Clinton target white independents?

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, don't attack where your enemy is strong, attack where he's weak. Julian Castro has been floated as one of the more likely VO picks to target Hispanics.

 

[Psychoward]

I'm a bigger fan of Hillary picking Tom Perez for VP than someone young and handsome like Julian Castro who just doesn't have enough experience yet.

Yeah but you're not most voters, I wonder how many people considered Romney because Paul was a hunk. Has to be at least a few eh

 

[XGRaViSmOrSX]

At least I can keep myself well fed on cringe for the next 4 years from this thread alone, and the GE hasn't even started....oooofaa.

 

[ShironRedshift]

The fact that his delegates actually bothered to show up in Nevada & Colorado.

Hey, no running away now--that's no fun. Do you have a response to this or was your last post a hit-and-run?

Remind me again who was spouting the "superpredator" bullshit? And who was the one who had guards escort a BLM protester away trying to confront that her? Or supported 100% in full the 94 crime bill*? But no, apparently Bernie is the closet racist.


*Bernie signed it only because of of the VAWA that attached to it and said as much back then.

False:
https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.gszfdyh06

Attacking Hillary Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed when she was First Lady is intellectually dishonest. This is so on several grounds. First, his attacks omit that he himself voted for that bill; Clinton supporters have had to bring that up. Second, Sanders keeps attacking Hillary for having on one occasion used the term “superpredator”, when she has already apologized for it, said she would not use it today, and has put it in context (which I think makes clear it was not intended as code for race or to apply broadly), and yet he never admits that he used the term “sociopath” in when supporting that same bill, nor has he ever apologized for doing so. Instead, he rips out all context and background for that bill, pins the entirety of its consequences on Hillary (who did not vote for it), and omits his own role in voting for it and the reasons why so many people supported it at the time, including him and the Congressional Black Caucus, despite its warts. So he blames Hillary for the draconian sentencing rules that the GOP insisted on in order to pass the bill, contributing to a false narrative he has constructed that Hillary is not actually a liberal.

And when confronted about his dishonest and hypocritical approach to discussing the crime bill and his own support for it, he lied. He claimed that he supported it in part because it included an assault weapons ban. This is false. He voted in favor of an earlier version of the bill, which did not include that assault weapons ban. Other Democrats — not Sanders (who never pushes for gun safety legislation) — then insisted on that assault weapons ban and he voted for the new version of bill after that language was added. It’s dishonest for him to take other people to task for the consequences of a bill he himself voted for, which was the product of having to compromise with the GOP to get anything done, while blaming Hillary for the GOP’s actions, lying about his reasons for voting for it, and refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for his own role. It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now, instead of disingenuously attacking, blaming, and lying by omission about Hillary, and further erasing the historical reality in which that bill was passed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-superpredator_us_56bd00b9e4b08ffac124806b

There is another element of the story that hasn’t been mentioned much. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is building a serious challenge to Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, appears to have invoked the superpredator myth as well. And he did so in a speech addressing the crime bill before it passed.

Sanders, who was in the House of Representatives at the time, was skeptical about the legislation when it was being debated. Though he would vote for its passage, he did have strong progressive-minded criticisms, lamenting the country’s mass incarceration problem and income inequality. “We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails,” he said.

Sanders also added this caveat:

It is my firm belief that clearly, there are people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them.

Sanders doesn’t explicitly invoke the so-called superpredator idea in this statement. But it seems likely this was his reference. In the context of the crime bill, it’s hard to imagine that his remarks were about serial killers. This doesn’t necessarily make him non-progressive. It just underscores that Sanders, too, got swept up in the crack-era fearmongering of the time. He did, after all, support the bill, despite his reservations.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Too old to run in 2024. It's not about appeal to any particular group. Also the GE isn't the primary.

The VP will be Webb.

And unless you're discussing the actual topic and not boohoo the other side are mean and suck metacommentary, then I'm not sure why you're posting.

 

[Primethius]

This is typical sour grapes from the supporter of the candidate who was expected to win without even trying from the very first day of the primary season.

I've never seen such vindictive and appalling behavior from supporters of the front-running candidate who was supposed to steamroll all opposition on the way to coronation as Empress of the United States. And yet an insurgent underdog candidate whose name was largely unknown in 2015 ultimately forced a contest that went to late April.

Keep on winning ugly, Hillary supporters! You sure showed that underdog a thing or two! Celebrate your ultra-wealthy, ultra-establishment candidate's hard-earned victory against an obscure Senator from Vermont!

Am I supposed to take this post seriously? This is a joke right?

I was going to type up a pretty decent sized response as to why I support Hillary over Sanders given that I'm a minority, but it's obviously not going to be worth it.

Go back to Reddit with your nonsense.

 

[Frozenprince]

I look forward to next week when he loses by 25 points in New York.

Damn. Only 20.

 

[Emarv]

Yeah but you're not most voters, I wonder how many people considered Romney because Paul was a hunk. Has to be at least a few eh

yeah, but Ryan had a way longer career than Castro has. I'm sure Hillary loves the dude, but I think it'd be smarter to go with someone who has a stronger resume and is actually bilingual

Spoiler

i say that as a Mexican American with really poor Spanish skills, also

 

[Henchmen21]

Hey, no running away now--that's no fun. Do you have a response to this or was your last post a hit-and-run?

No I"m tired and sleepy and will be going to bed soon so I'm not going to searching the internet to refute your claims

 

[Frozenprince]

This is typical sour grapes from the supporter of the candidate who was expected to win without even trying from the very first day of the primary season.

I've never seen such vindictive and appalling behavior from supporters of the front-running candidate who was supposed to steamroll all opposition on the way to coronation as Empress of the United States. And yet an insurgent underdog candidate whose name was largely unknown in 2015 ultimately forced a contest that went to late April.

Keep on winning ugly, Hillary supporters! You sure showed that underdog a thing or two! Celebrate your ultra-wealthy, ultra-establishment candidate's hard-earned victory against an obscure Senator from Vermont!

 

[Trouble]

Hillary isn't going to struggling with the Hispanic vote against Trump, y'all.

 

[border]

I've never seen such vindictive and appalling behavior from supporters of the front-running candidate who was supposed to steamroll all opposition on the way to coronation as Empress of the United States. And yet an insurgent underdog candidate whose name was largely unknown in 2015 ultimately forced a contest that went to late April.

The contest didn't go until late April. It was arguably over on March 1, with the coffin nailed shut on March 15.

Everytime Bernie got crushed though, there was just an insistence that the goalposts should be moved and that he'll be vindicated in the next round of voting. But at the same time, never was any kind of reasonable path to victory detailed. There was of course a completely unreasonable path to victory that revolved around Sanders winning New York, but now that even that door has closed.

I don't see how it's "vindictive and appalling" to doubt someone's claim that their candidate has "more excitement", when said candidate has lost in almost every single big contest.

 

[Emarv]

Hillary isn't going to struggling with the Hispanic vote against Trump, y'all.

You're right. I guess that's why Castro works. She needs young people. Or why Brown works; she needs white voters.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

The contest didn't go until late April. It was arguably over on March 1, with the coffin nailed shut on March 15.

Everytime Bernie got crushed though, there was just an insistence that the goalposts should be moved and that he'll be vindicated in the next round of voting. But at the same time, never was any kind of reasonable path to victory detailed. There was of course a completely unreasonable path to victory that revolved around Sanders winning New York, but now that even that door has closed.

But wait until California!

 

[Zornack]

How is that not a response? It's factually true. Her delegates didn't show up to vote in both those states.

Because it's a bogus metric to measure "excitement" with.

 

[Mr. RPG]

Damn. Only 20.

Wasn't even 20 points, though.

 

[danm999]

Looking back at the 538 forecasts they really nailed the polling aggregates for the Dem side. Sanders campaign probably pretty worried about Penn and Maryland at this rate.

 

[Frozenprince]

Wasn't even 20 points, though.

I round up dammit.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Too old to run in 2024. It's not about appeal to any particular group. Also the GE isn't the primary.

The VP will be Webb.

And unless you're discussing the actual topic and not boohoo the other side are mean and suck metacommentary, then I'm not sure why you're posting.

I think Sherrod Brown makes more sense than Webb.

 

[Hige]

This is typical sour grapes from the supporter of the candidate who was expected to win without even trying from the very first day of the primary season.

I've never seen such vindictive and appalling behavior from supporters of the front-running candidate who was supposed to steamroll all opposition on the way to coronation as Empress of the United States. And yet an insurgent underdog candidate whose name was largely unknown in 2015 ultimately forced a contest that went to late April.

Keep on winning ugly, Hillary supporters! You sure showed that underdog a thing or two! Celebrate your ultra-wealthy, ultra-establishment candidate's hard-earned victory against an obscure Senator from Vermont!

I've seen some of her supporters on GAF use the majority opinion of Citizens United to defend her campaign's Wall St. donations. "Can't prove quid pro quo! No impropriety here!" Also voter suppression is terrible

Spoiler

unless it helps my candidate

. LMAO it is truly insane to see what GOP language/tactics some of her supporters will co-opt without the slightest hint of irony. All this bluster over some loser candidate who never had a chance and should have dropped out last summer, apparently!

 

[johnsmith]

I think Sherrod Brown makes more sense than Webb.

Webb was a joke. There is 0 chance she picks a loser like Webb

 

[Piecake]

I honestly find it odd that some people expect that all Clinton supporters be gracious and above-the-fray when they win when some Sanders supporters are calling her some vile, hyperbolic, and/or simply dishonest shit, and by extension are implying that the people who are voting for her or who support her are fools and idiots.

I mean, sure, it certainly would be nice if people acted like that, but what gave you the idea that actual people would? And why are you implying that Clinton supporters are unique in this when Bernie supporters would most certainly act the same.

If Sanders won or would have won the nomination I guaranty you the narrative would be that he toppled the corrupt and cronyism in the democratic party and the political system. That certainly is not gracious or above-the-fray. And unlike with Clinton, I could see that narrative coming from Bernie himself.

I think the people who complain about this sort of shit do not have a well developed sense seeing things from different people's perspectives.

 

[Havoc2049]

He is going to walk into the convention with 1237 delegates. I have no doubt about it. Gonna get some unbounds and Kasich's delegates for the VP slot.

I think you might be right. I think the shift started about a week or two before NY, even as Cruz was getting some hollow victories in mid-west caucus states, but Trump's numbers stayed solid in the NE. My local Republican Congressman here in California (yes, there are a few...lol) just recently joined the Trump campaign and is helping him set up his DC office. Trump is also rising in the poles here in California. California Republicans are desperate and Trump is bringing in independent and some blue collar democrat voters to the Republican party. They are hoping he can bring some fresh blood into anemic California Republican Party. I could see California Republicans rallying around Trump and could see him getting 55%+ of the primary vote here in Cali.

Here is a stat to think about.
Romney won the 2012 NY Republican Primary with 118,000 votes (62%).
Trump won the 2016 NY Republican Primary with approximately 525,000 votes (60%).

 

[jiggle]

I want Liz for VP
But I don't wanna lose her in the senate

 

[ShironRedshift]

No I"m tired and sleepy and will be going to bed soon so I'm not going to searching the internet to refute your claims

That will be hard to do since the Huffington post link includes a link to a video of his remarks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTn3jUoMdVI

Happens at the 2:30 mark.

As for his vote on the version of 1994 bill w/o the assault weapon ban amendment:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll144.xml

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-chuck-todd-debate-crime-bill-vote-a/

In October 1993, Brooks tried again and introduced the original Violent Crime and Control Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This version didn’t include an assault weapons ban nor protections for women.

It passed in the House by a voice vote on Nov. 3, 1993, so it’s unclear whether Sanders voted in favor. We found no evidence Sanders opposed the bill, and in three roll call votes, Sanders, along with most Democrats, said "aye" to amendments that didn’t include a ban.

When the bill reached the Senate, it added provisions to ban assault weapons and protect women from crimes such as sexual assault and domestic violence. This version passed in the Senate and returned to the House.

At that point, two things happened.

First, Sanders criticized the crime bill for its lack of attention to root causes. "We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance," he said on the House floor on April 13.

Second, Brooks amended the bill again, this time stripping the legislation of the assault weapons ban but keeping the violence against women provisions.

Sanders voted for the bill without the gun ban.

But in any case, sorry for being a bit rude in my previous post since I was being a bit dickish there and I apologize for that, and also good night and have a good rest! ^__^

 

[Kite]

I was curious and checked out the Hillary subreddit.. the difference in tone and content is night and day when compared to the sanders one. It's.. so much more organized, stable (sane) and professional. There is even a "gentle reminder" to be nice to the bernie supporters lolol

 

[Spinifex]

Here is a stat to think about.
Romney won the 2012 NY Republican Primary with 118,000 votes (62%).
Trump won the 2016 NY Republican Primary with approximately 525,000 votes (60%).

well that's... disconcerting.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Am I supposed to take this post seriously? This is a joke right?

I was going to type up a pretty decent sized response as to why I support Hillary over Sanders given that I'm a minority, but it's obviously not going to be worth it.

Go back to Reddit with your nonsense.

That's what you people are good at, dismissing people out of hand.

And I've gotten a decent number of actual responses from people already as to why they support Hillary over Bernie so I don't need yours. I've actually thought about some of the more thoughtful posts and still came back to the same position. I was on the losing side this election cycle but I was never convinced that it was the wrong side.

In the end it doesn't matter, so enjoy your victory over the underdog!

I've seen some of her supporters on GAF use the majority opinion of Citizens United to defend her campaign's Wall St. donations. "Can't prove quid pro quo! No impropriety here!" Also voter suppression is terrible

Spoiler

unless it helps my candidate

. LMAO it is truly insane to see what GOP language/tactics some of her supporters will co-opt without the slightest hint of irony. All this bluster over some loser candidate who never had a chance and should have dropped out last summer, apparently!

Pretty much.

 

[Phased]

I think you might be right. I think the shift started about a week or two before NY, even as Cruz was getting some hollow victories in mid-west caucus states, but Trump's numbers stayed solid in the NE. My local Republican Congressman here in California (yes, there are a few...lol) just recently joined the Trump campaign and is helping him set up his DC office. Trump is also rising in the poles here in California. California Republicans are desperate and Trump is bringing in independent and some blue collar democrat voters to the Republican party. They are hoping he can bring some fresh blood into anemic California Republican Party. I could see California Republicans rallying around Trump and could see him getting 55%+ of the primary vote here in Cali.

Here is a stat to think about.
Romney won the 2012 NY Republican Primary with 118,000 votes (62%).
Trump won the 2016 NY Republican Primary with approximately 525,000 votes (60%).

It's definitely going to be interesting to see how the RNC reacts if he hits that number. Do they support him or leave him to flounder. He's still only won 30-40% of the total vote so far (not counting NY) so he's far from a popular candidate (and nationally he's a joke)

I suspect they may try and protect their House seats and leave him to his own devices/distance themselves from him. Coupled with beginning to set the wheels in motion for major changes 4 years from now so a rogue candidate like him can't exist. Maybe even copy Dems Superdelegate structure.

 

[border]

I honestly find it odd that some people expect that all Clinton supporters be gracious and above-the-fray when they win when some Sanders supporters are calling her some vile, hyperbolic, and/or simply dishonest shit, and by extension are implying that the people who are voting for her or who support her are fools and idiots.

It's the same "punching-up/punching-down" nonsense you see in other areas of social discourse.

We're the underdog, so it's okay for us throw dirt in your eyes and kick you in the kneecap. But if you should win, we demand that you and all your supporters conduct yourselves in the most sportsmanlike way!

 

[BanGy.nz]

well that's... disconcerting.

The race was over by the time they voted in '12 so you really shouldn't read too much into it.

 

[Zornack]

That's what you people are good at, dismissing people out of hand.

And I've gotten a decent number of actual responses from people already as to why they support Hillary over Bernie so I don't need yours. I've actually thought about some of the more thoughtful posts and still came back to the same position. I was on the losing side this election cycle but I was never convinced that it was the wrong side.

In the end it doesn't matter, so enjoy your victory over the underdog!

Your post was incredibly whiny and that of a sore loser. There really wasn't anything there to not dismiss. Plus it was full of clichéd "she's so corrupt!" bullshit.

 

[Primethius]

That's what you people are good at, dismissing people out of hand.

And I've gotten a decent number of actual responses from people already as to why they support Hillary over Bernie so I don't need yours. I've actually thought about some of the more thoughtful posts and still came back to the same position. I was on the losing side this election cycle but I was never convinced that it was the wrong side.

In the end it doesn't matter, so enjoy your victory over the underdog!



Pretty much.

You did all the dismissing and ended the conversation by it initially. But your accusing me of dismissing you.

Okay then.