Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
What if the evil people win and it doesn't inspire change?
Like how Bush won after 8 years of Reagan, then we got 8 years of a moderate democrat in the White House and Republicans in Congress, then 8 years of Bush Jr?
Bush Sr lasted 4 years and got replaced by Clinton for 8 years.
Bush Jr was also a screw up and got replaced after 8 years by Obama for 8 years.
The odds look good to me that if a republican wins, especially someone like Trump, they will likely only last 4 years given our political climate, and then we have time to get a better Democratic candidate who can take advantage of an angry population.
We just can't be safe anymore, we need bold actions.
This is exactly what I am worried about when we let rhetoric paint primary opposition as something terrible, by the way.
I hope there are very few people who think the way you do, should Biden or Clinton end up being the winner of the primary process. I really don't want one week, let alone 4+ years to happen under someone that would be able to cause lasting harm to the composition of the supreme court.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The damage a president can do isn't limited to just their time in office. We'll have three supreme court justices in their 80s in January '17. There's a decent enough chance RBG will leave that term, and I can see Scalia deciding to take an opportune time to retire. So the SCOTUS is lost indefinitely. And even with Senate Democrats intervening, we'll see plenty of conservative legislative action (or lack thereof) that can truly fuck over a lot of people.
It's not a game, and letting the greater of two evils win on the hope that it turns around eventually is literally gambling with other people's lives.
+21
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Another Republican nominee on the Supreme Court would do an insane amount of damage to the country. I can't think of anything that wouldn't get absolutely wrecked.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Yeah, there are lots of conservative judges who have been waiting for decades to bring up cases in front of five reliably conservative judges. If you think Citizens United and the butchering of the VRA was bad and the two ACA hearings were nail-biters you've seen nothing yet.
Yeah, there are lots of conservative judges who have been waiting for decades to bring up cases in front of five reliably conservative judges. If you think Citizens United and the butchering of the VRA was bad and the two ACA hearings were nail-biters you've seen nothing yet.
Yeah. Workers rights are in the biggest danger. There are a lot of forces in this country that would like to see a ruling making federally established (and even locally established) minimum wage and hourly maximum rules unconstitutional.
A bad President can make things suck for a decade.
A bad Justice can make things suck for a generation.
And Scalia is what, 79 now?
Now's not the time to get all antsy and apocalyptic. If Hillary beats Bernie in the primary you bet your sweet bippy I'm not letting the R's put another Scalia on SCOTUS just on the off chance the country gets so unbelievably shitty that everybody turns into a super-lib overnight.
Even 4 years of Republican rule would be devastating for the country. Look at how bad them controlling both houses of congress is right now, then imagine that there was no veto pen stopping the crazy from spouting into the world.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
It looks to me that Bernie really needs some more visibility. Dude has somewhere between 25%-40% of demographics in the uncertain area, which seems to indicate to me that respondents don't know who he is or what he is about.
It looks to me that Bernie really needs some more visibility. Dude has somewhere between 25%-40% of demographics in the uncertain area, which seems to indicate to me that respondents don't know who he is or what he is about.
I expect this will change after the debates start.
Even 4 years of Republican rule would be devastating for the country. Look at how bad them controlling both houses of congress is right now, then imagine that there was no veto pen stopping the crazy from spouting into the world.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
Also the environment doesn't have 4 years. We can just about scrape by with our current weak regulations and gamble on technological progress to save us, but if we have 4 years of backsliding (as we would under a Republican) with coal plants popping up and emissions treaties being removed then we are doomed. As in, starving and burning and drowning levels of doomed. Voting for anyone who wont at least hold the line on the environment is voting to die.
I feel like I end up repeating this over and over, but we live in a first past the post system. It is literally optimal for your desires not to vote for who you want, but vote against the person who is most likely to win that you DON'T want. Abstaining from voting for the "lesser of two evils" (even granting that they may be 'evil' which isn't necessarily the case) is literally voting against your own best interest.
If you want to change needing to do this, you need to work to get the system changed first.
I really don't see Clinton as the lesser of two "evils."
She's someone who would probably be somewhere between a mediocre to good president. And I would certainly take worst case scenario mediocre over the current GOP nominees who best case scenario don't destroy too much of what Obama has accomplished.
I really don't see Clinton as the lesser of two "evils."
She's someone who would probably be somewhere between a mediocre to good president. And I would certainly take worst case scenario mediocre over the current GOP nominees who best case scenario don't destroy too much of what Obama has accomplished. the planet
I really don't see Clinton as the lesser of two "evils."
She's someone who would probably be somewhere between a mediocre to good president. And I would certainly take worst case scenario mediocre over the current GOP nominees who best case scenario don't destroy too much of what Obama has accomplished.
Basically she will be somewhere between her husband and the President, in a climate that is friendlier to progressive thought in the Democratic Party than it was in the nineties. Sanders would be marginally better, if he got elected, but ultimately the real power to change things lies in the Congress.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yeah, ultimately I'd like a president who would use their power to energize the base as much as possible for a rousing 1st mid-term turnout. For all of Obama's centrist leanings, the legislation from his first term and a half was mostly sculpted with the reality of having to get by an extremely conservative congress.
Maybe there should be a campaign, if/when Sanders drops out of the nomination, to get him to register as a Dem and helm the DNC. The guy has what the DNC lacks: positive ideas (rather than just "we're not Republicans") and a good ability to do grassroots outreach.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
What if the evil people win and it doesn't inspire change?
Like how Bush won after 8 years of Reagan, then we got 8 years of a moderate democrat in the White House and Republicans in Congress, then 8 years of Bush Jr?
Bush Sr lasted 4 years and got replaced by Clinton for 8 years.
Bush Jr was also a screw up and got replaced after 8 years by Obama for 8 years.
The odds look good to me that if a republican wins, especially someone like Trump, they will likely only last 4 years given our political climate, and then we have time to get a better Democratic candidate who can take advantage of an angry population.
We just can't be safe anymore, we need bold actions.
This is exactly what I am worried about when we let rhetoric paint primary opposition as something terrible, by the way.
I hope there are very few people who think the way you do, should Biden or Clinton end up being the winner of the primary process. I really don't want one week, let alone 4+ years to happen under someone that would be able to cause lasting harm to the composition of the supreme court.
Then why are you choosing Bernie? At least with Biden and Hillary we know they'll squeak a left-leaning justice in there. Bernie hasn't got that political strength to get a liberal justice through if he gets to the White House, and he'll lose support from his base if he compromises like they do with the GOP to get nominees accepted. Which are going to be centrist and conservative by default.
It looks to me that Bernie really needs some more visibility. Dude has somewhere between 25%-40% of demographics in the uncertain area, which seems to indicate to me that respondents don't know who he is or what he is about.
That's part of it, he won't win the primary or general on visibility alone. He needs political might, a strong coalition that matches Hillary's and a platform to appeal to independents/moderates, and he hasn't got that right now. This is why it was important to build those connections years ago before entering this primary so he isn't starting from the ground up, the clock's ticking and Hillary won't stay passive in the primary forever.
I really don't see Clinton as the lesser of two "evils."
She's someone who would probably be somewhere between a mediocre to good president. And I would certainly take worst case scenario mediocre over the current GOP nominees who best case scenario don't destroy too much of what Obama has accomplished.
Basically she will be somewhere between her husband and the President, in a climate that is friendlier to progressive thought in the Democratic Party than it was in the nineties. Sanders would be marginally better, if he got elected, but ultimately the real power to change things lies in the Congress.
Bernie would be better in theory, in practice he hasn't got the momentum to get things done in congress or the Democratic party itself to get his agenda into laws. Schultz is fucking with Obama on important issues, she won't hesitate to do that with Bernie and the political gap between her and Bernie is wider to cross than with Obama.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
@Harry Dresden I am choosing whoever wins the democratic primary process. I will likely vote for Hillary, but I like the cut of Bernie's jib and I will gladly elect him president if he wins the primaries.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
@Harry Dresden I am choosing whoever wins the democratic primary process. I will likely vote for Hillary, but I like the cut of Bernie's jib and I will gladly elect him president if he wins the primaries.
That's not what my post was about. It was - what's the point in electing Bernie is he hasn't got the machinery in place to do what needs to be done? Isn't the reason you want Bernie in the White House to change things not send a message*?
edit: Besides, say he wins the primary. How's he going to win the general, where he'll need to appeal to moderates even more?
* which won't be that intimidating to the conservatives and centrists if he's a lame duck
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
@Harry Dresden I am choosing whoever wins the democratic primary process. I will likely vote for Hillary, but I like the cut of Bernie's jib and I will gladly elect him president if he wins the primaries.
That's not what my post was about. It was - what's the point in electing Bernie is he hasn't got the machinery in place to do what needs to be done? Isn't the reason you want Bernie in the White House to change things not send a message*?
edit: Besides, say he wins the primary. How's he going to win the general, where he'll need to appeal to moderates even more?
* which won't be that intimidating to the conservatives and centrists if he's a lame duck
For me, the purpose in voting for Bernie is because he won't be one of the people on the other side of the aisle who are currently pushing the two fringiest candidates towards the top of the pack. Between Carson and Trump, they have amassed nearly 50% of the points between 17 candidates. Which is horrifying, if either of them gives an endorsement and tells their supporters to vote for the other.
I think Hillary is the best candidate out of the pile we have for all sorts of pragmatic reasons like the ones you are mentioning and unless things change (which I am open to) I will pull the lever for her in the primary. But I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat in the general because I want to live in a country he would try to make.
edit: If he wins the primary, I have no choice but to do whatever I can to assist in him winning the general. I think it will be a much more uphill battle because of various attack points they can use on him (america doesn't get socialism and it will be hard to break the negative connotations by November 2016), but he will be my candidate at that point and I would try to get that crazy diamond in the oval office.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
For me, the purpose in voting for Bernie is because he won't be one of the people on the other side of the aisle who are currently pushing the two fringiest candidates towards the top of the pack. Between Carson and Trump, they have amassed nearly 50% of the points between 17 candidates. Which is horrifying, if either of them gives an endorsement and tells their supporters to vote for the other.
I think Hillary is the best candidate out of the pile we have for all sorts of pragmatic reasons like the ones you are mentioning and unless things change (which I am open to) I will pull the lever for her in the primary. But I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat in the general because I want to live in a country he would try to make.
Therein lies the dilemma with Bernie, unless he has what Hillary and Biden do (and he doesn't) that change won't materialize into reality. I'd love to live in that country too, but he hasn't shown he can actually do it. If he fails to accomplish this, what then? Wouldn't that be a massive win for the conservative and centrist voters? Wouldn't that make the energized liberals more cynical from the political process and withdraw from participating - we'll get more Occupy's than another Bernie Sanders. We need a strong, unifying leader who can make things happen like the centrists do and Bernie isn't that person IMO.
edit: If he wins the primary, I have no choice but to do whatever I can to assist in him winning the general. I think it will be a much more uphill battle because of various attack points they can use on him (america doesn't get socialism and it will be hard to break the negative connotations by November 2016), but he will be my candidate at that point and I would try to get that crazy diamond in the oval office.
And that's fine, I'll be there with you. But what makes me a Bernie cynic isn't necessary the elections (which will be hell), it's what comes next and the repercussions will be dire to the country and the liberal bloc if he fails. And the odds aren't on his side unfortunately, which is depressing. I loathe Hillary, it's Bernie who's breaking my heart in this election. Liberalism will never become a powerful voting bloc unless we get our political operations right, and I don't want to continue the endless cycle of failure any longer than I have to. We deserve better as Democrats and liberals.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited September 2015
So wait, are you not going to vote for Bernie in the general if he gets the nod, but would vote for Clinton?
Cause if the answer is you would vote for him if he was the democrat candidate in the general then I don't think there is any functional difference between us on this aside from a healthier dose of cynicism on your part.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So wait, are you not going to vote for Bernie in the general if he gets the nod, but would vote for Clinton?
I would vote for Bernie in either, but I've started to reluctantly grown more inclined to want Hillary to be the winner here the more I've learnt about Bernie's political operations.
Cause if the answer is you would vote for him if he was the democrat candidate in the general then I don't think there is any functional difference between us on this aside from a healthier dose of cynicism on your part.
Heh. Believe me, I hate being this cynical. I just wish I could vote for a liberal candidate who take names and get things done, rather than being a failure that the system spits out.
Bernie's actually had a pretty good record of getting things passed. Even with Republican help. He'd be a perfectly fine President from that perspective. I'm cool with both candidates and genuinely don't know who I'm voting for if it's still competitive when Michigan has their primary.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Bernie's actually had a pretty good record of getting things passed. Even with Republican help. He'd be a perfectly fine President from that perspective. I'm cool with both candidates and genuinely don't know who I'm voting for if it's still competitive when Michigan has their primary.
As a senator, not the president, and the GOP is growing more extreme by the day. It's one thing to pass bills with the socialist oddball who isn't front and center that much, it's quite another to have him be the president. Then he'll get the Obama/Hillary treatment, and possibly a rebellion from the centrists in his own party. He can't fight a political "war" on two fronts and win. And this will mean he won't be able to govern like a liberal.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Bernie's actually had a pretty good record of getting things passed. Even with Republican help. He'd be a perfectly fine President from that perspective. I'm cool with both candidates and genuinely don't know who I'm voting for if it's still competitive when Michigan has their primary.
As a senator, not the president, and the GOP is growing more extreme by the day. It's one thing to pass bills with the socialist oddball who isn't front and center that much, it's quite another to have him be the president. Then he'll get the Obama/Hillary treatment, and possibly a rebellion from the centrists in his own party. He can't fight a political "war" on two fronts and win. And this will mean he won't be able to govern like a liberal.
This has no basis in reality. The Congressional Democrats who have worked with Sanders for longer than you've been alive to pass bills are not going to "go to war" with him if he is president.
Bernie's actually had a pretty good record of getting things passed. Even with Republican help. He'd be a perfectly fine President from that perspective. I'm cool with both candidates and genuinely don't know who I'm voting for if it's still competitive when Michigan has their primary.
As a senator, not the president, and the GOP is growing more extreme by the day. It's one thing to pass bills with the socialist oddball who isn't front and center that much, it's quite another to have him be the president. Then he'll get the Obama/Hillary treatment, and possibly a rebellion from the centrists in his own party. He can't fight a political "war" on two fronts and win. And this will mean he won't be able to govern like a liberal.
This has no basis in reality. The Congressional Democrats who have worked with Sanders for longer than you've been I've to pass bills are not going to "go to war" with him if he is president.
Congress takes that "separation of powers" thing pretty seriously.
There's a story about LBJ, where he thought he could resume his power broker position in the Senate after being inaugurated as Kennedy's VP. After all, he was the President of the Senate, after all. That notion died a quick death when he met with the Democratic Senate leadership, who informed him of exactly where he was now positioned, and it wasn't in the legislature.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
Go watch One America News Network until you realize how bad an idea this is.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
If you live in a solidly blue state, you probably have the luxury of a protest vote. Go nuts.
But if your state is contested, this course of action is extremely irresponsible.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Bernie's actually had a pretty good record of getting things passed. Even with Republican help. He'd be a perfectly fine President from that perspective. I'm cool with both candidates and genuinely don't know who I'm voting for if it's still competitive when Michigan has their primary.
As a senator, not the president, and the GOP is growing more extreme by the day. It's one thing to pass bills with the socialist oddball who isn't front and center that much, it's quite another to have him be the president. Then he'll get the Obama/Hillary treatment, and possibly a rebellion from the centrists in his own party. He can't fight a political "war" on two fronts and win. And this will mean he won't be able to govern like a liberal.
This has no basis in reality. The Congressional Democrats who have worked with Sanders for longer than you've been I've to pass bills are not going to "go to war" with him if he is president.
Congress takes that "separation of powers" thing pretty seriously.
There's a story about LBJ, where he thought he could resume his power broker position in the Senate after being inaugurated as Kennedy's VP. After all, he was the President of the Senate, after all. That notion died a quick death when he met with the Democratic Senate leadership, who informed him of exactly where he was now positioned, and it wasn't in the legislature.
Yes and?
I fail to see how Hillary is magically better than Bernie at this. I imagine they'd both be able to navigate the waters given their decades of experience as relationships.
Bernie's actually had a pretty good record of getting things passed. Even with Republican help. He'd be a perfectly fine President from that perspective. I'm cool with both candidates and genuinely don't know who I'm voting for if it's still competitive when Michigan has their primary.
As a senator, not the president, and the GOP is growing more extreme by the day. It's one thing to pass bills with the socialist oddball who isn't front and center that much, it's quite another to have him be the president. Then he'll get the Obama/Hillary treatment, and possibly a rebellion from the centrists in his own party. He can't fight a political "war" on two fronts and win. And this will mean he won't be able to govern like a liberal.
This has no basis in reality. The Congressional Democrats who have worked with Sanders for longer than you've been I've to pass bills are not going to "go to war" with him if he is president.
Congress takes that "separation of powers" thing pretty seriously.
There's a story about LBJ, where he thought he could resume his power broker position in the Senate after being inaugurated as Kennedy's VP. After all, he was the President of the Senate, after all. That notion died a quick death when he met with the Democratic Senate leadership, who informed him of exactly where he was now positioned, and it wasn't in the legislature.
Yes and?
I fail to see how Hillary is magically better than Bernie at this. I imagine they'd both be able to navigate the waters given their decades of experience as relationships.
This is just foolish informed wisdom.
I think generally you should not expect a Senator's ability to make deals to translate into a President's ability to make deals. Which obviously counts for both candidates. Especially with the Republicans who will 100% pull an Obama on whatever Democrat wins in 2016 and oppose every single thing said President tries to do. But just generally from any history of presidents I've read, they are not viewed as the same once they jump branches.
I think Clinton is likely to be better at dealing with the GOP. Better then Obama was at the start too. I feel like she's been taking shit from them for decades now and knows the score.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
If you live in a solidly blue state, you probably have the luxury of a protest vote. Go nuts.
But if your state is contested, this course of action is extremely irresponsible.
Even 4 years of Republican rule would be devastating for the country. Look at how bad them controlling both houses of congress is right now, then imagine that there was no veto pen stopping the crazy from spouting into the world.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
Also the environment doesn't have 4 years. We can just about scrape by with our current weak regulations and gamble on technological progress to save us, but if we have 4 years of backsliding (as we would under a Republican) with coal plants popping up and emissions treaties being removed then we are doomed. As in, starving and burning and drowning levels of doomed. Voting for anyone who wont at least hold the line on the environment is voting to die.
No, I'm getting tired of this kind of scary hyperbole stories.
Every election, there's always a crisis of the moment. Every election, people say if the other side wins its doom and gloom. Except it never really happens. Sometimes stuff gets worse, sometimes it gets better, it all comes out in the wash. This election really is no different. The environment will likely keep going however it's going no matter what anyone here does because of entities like China. It concerns me yes, but I'm not going to pretend like coal plants are literally going to start popping up everywhere because Republicans took the White House. Wow
So yes, letting Democrats lose this election if we don't have Bernie as our candidate is a risk I'm willing to take. The one benefit of a republican president, is that it energizes the democratic base. It lights a fire under people's @$$es and gets them to DEMAND something better, and that's how we ended up with a powerful campaign like Obama's in 2008. Bush was so bad that people became motivated for change in ways I have never seen. But it makes me mad I spent so much time promoting Obama and volunteering for his campaign and calling up people and in the end we never got the kind of changes we needed. I will not make that same mistake again.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nod I will do all I can to help him get elected, but only for him. For anyone else, I will not waste my breath. Hillary's powerful brand doesn't need someone like me anyway.
Regardless, I live in Florida, which has been solid blue the past two elections, so it won't matter much.
Few presidents have gone in with a good likelihood of getting to nominate 4 supreme court justices (Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia, and RBG all likely to go in the next 8 years. Thomas possibly, if he runs into health issues earlier than his colleagues). Plus the ACA, which is still in its infancy. 8 years of Democrats: 6-3 liberal court. 8 years of Republicans: 7-2 (!)
I mean, i'm not the kind of person who thinks the sky will fall in just because the FCC does this or the TPP passes (get a lot of those on other websites), but realistically, a full GOP could take this opportunity to do a lot of damage even if they don't get to do everything on their docket.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
If you live in a solidly blue state, you probably have the luxury of a protest vote. Go nuts.
But if your state is contested, this course of action is extremely irresponsible.
Even 4 years of Republican rule would be devastating for the country. Look at how bad them controlling both houses of congress is right now, then imagine that there was no veto pen stopping the crazy from spouting into the world.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
Also the environment doesn't have 4 years. We can just about scrape by with our current weak regulations and gamble on technological progress to save us, but if we have 4 years of backsliding (as we would under a Republican) with coal plants popping up and emissions treaties being removed then we are doomed. As in, starving and burning and drowning levels of doomed. Voting for anyone who wont at least hold the line on the environment is voting to die.
No, I'm getting tired of this kind of scary hyperbole stories.
Every election, there's always a crisis of the moment. Every election, people say if the other side wins its doom and gloom. Except it never really happens. Sometimes stuff gets worse, sometimes it gets better, it all comes out in the wash. This election really is no different. The environment will likely keep going however it's going no matter what anyone here does because of entities like China. It concerns me yes, but I'm not going to pretend like coal plants are literally going to start popping up everywhere because Republicans took the White House. Wow
So yes, letting Democrats lose this election if we don't have Bernie as our candidate is a risk I'm willing to take. The one benefit of a republican president, is that it energizes the democratic base. It lights a fire under people's @$$es and gets them to DEMAND something better, and that's how we ended up with a powerful campaign like Obama's in 2008. Bush was so bad that people became motivated for change in ways I have never seen. But it makes me mad I spent so much time promoting Obama and volunteering for his campaign and calling up people and in the end we never got the kind of changes we needed. I will not make that same mistake again.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nod I will do all I can to help him get elected, but only for him. For anyone else, I will not waste my breath. Hillary's powerful brand doesn't need someone like me anyway.
Regardless, I live in Florida, which has been solid blue the past two elections, so it won't matter much.
I would strongly suggest you look in to what changes you thing "we" needed.
Cause brosef, Obama was great outside of, like, rich white peeps.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) broke her media silence on Wednesday and told reporters that her support for the Iraq invasion was a "mistake, plain and simple."
At a campaign event with small business owners in Cedar Falls, Iowa on Tuesday, the presidential candidate was asked if the world was better without Saddam Hussein in power.
"Look, I know that there are a lot of question about Iraq posed to candidates over the last weeks," she said, referencing the questions about the invasion that have notably dogged former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), a potential Clinton rival in 2016.
"I've been very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple and I have written about it in my book, talked about it in the past," she continued, according to MSNBC video of her response.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Yes.
You'd have to have never been paying attention to think otherwise.
Posts
This is exactly what I am worried about when we let rhetoric paint primary opposition as something terrible, by the way.
I hope there are very few people who think the way you do, should Biden or Clinton end up being the winner of the primary process. I really don't want one week, let alone 4+ years to happen under someone that would be able to cause lasting harm to the composition of the supreme court.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's not a game, and letting the greater of two evils win on the hope that it turns around eventually is literally gambling with other people's lives.
Yeah. Workers rights are in the biggest danger. There are a lot of forces in this country that would like to see a ruling making federally established (and even locally established) minimum wage and hourly maximum rules unconstitutional.
A bad Justice can make things suck for a generation.
And Scalia is what, 79 now?
Now's not the time to get all antsy and apocalyptic. If Hillary beats Bernie in the primary you bet your sweet bippy I'm not letting the R's put another Scalia on SCOTUS just on the off chance the country gets so unbelievably shitty that everybody turns into a super-lib overnight.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I expect this will change after the debates start.
Also the environment doesn't have 4 years. We can just about scrape by with our current weak regulations and gamble on technological progress to save us, but if we have 4 years of backsliding (as we would under a Republican) with coal plants popping up and emissions treaties being removed then we are doomed. As in, starving and burning and drowning levels of doomed. Voting for anyone who wont at least hold the line on the environment is voting to die.
If you want to change needing to do this, you need to work to get the system changed first.
She's someone who would probably be somewhere between a mediocre to good president. And I would certainly take worst case scenario mediocre over the current GOP nominees who best case scenario don't destroy too much of what Obama has accomplished.
Fixed that for you
Basically she will be somewhere between her husband and the President, in a climate that is friendlier to progressive thought in the Democratic Party than it was in the nineties. Sanders would be marginally better, if he got elected, but ultimately the real power to change things lies in the Congress.
Then why are you choosing Bernie? At least with Biden and Hillary we know they'll squeak a left-leaning justice in there. Bernie hasn't got that political strength to get a liberal justice through if he gets to the White House, and he'll lose support from his base if he compromises like they do with the GOP to get nominees accepted. Which are going to be centrist and conservative by default.
That's part of it, he won't win the primary or general on visibility alone. He needs political might, a strong coalition that matches Hillary's and a platform to appeal to independents/moderates, and he hasn't got that right now. This is why it was important to build those connections years ago before entering this primary so he isn't starting from the ground up, the clock's ticking and Hillary won't stay passive in the primary forever.
Bernie would be better in theory, in practice he hasn't got the momentum to get things done in congress or the Democratic party itself to get his agenda into laws. Schultz is fucking with Obama on important issues, she won't hesitate to do that with Bernie and the political gap between her and Bernie is wider to cross than with Obama.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That's not what my post was about. It was - what's the point in electing Bernie is he hasn't got the machinery in place to do what needs to be done? Isn't the reason you want Bernie in the White House to change things not send a message*?
edit: Besides, say he wins the primary. How's he going to win the general, where he'll need to appeal to moderates even more?
* which won't be that intimidating to the conservatives and centrists if he's a lame duck
For me, the purpose in voting for Bernie is because he won't be one of the people on the other side of the aisle who are currently pushing the two fringiest candidates towards the top of the pack. Between Carson and Trump, they have amassed nearly 50% of the points between 17 candidates. Which is horrifying, if either of them gives an endorsement and tells their supporters to vote for the other.
I think Hillary is the best candidate out of the pile we have for all sorts of pragmatic reasons like the ones you are mentioning and unless things change (which I am open to) I will pull the lever for her in the primary. But I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat in the general because I want to live in a country he would try to make.
edit: If he wins the primary, I have no choice but to do whatever I can to assist in him winning the general. I think it will be a much more uphill battle because of various attack points they can use on him (america doesn't get socialism and it will be hard to break the negative connotations by November 2016), but he will be my candidate at that point and I would try to get that crazy diamond in the oval office.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Therein lies the dilemma with Bernie, unless he has what Hillary and Biden do (and he doesn't) that change won't materialize into reality. I'd love to live in that country too, but he hasn't shown he can actually do it. If he fails to accomplish this, what then? Wouldn't that be a massive win for the conservative and centrist voters? Wouldn't that make the energized liberals more cynical from the political process and withdraw from participating - we'll get more Occupy's than another Bernie Sanders. We need a strong, unifying leader who can make things happen like the centrists do and Bernie isn't that person IMO.
And that's fine, I'll be there with you. But what makes me a Bernie cynic isn't necessary the elections (which will be hell), it's what comes next and the repercussions will be dire to the country and the liberal bloc if he fails. And the odds aren't on his side unfortunately, which is depressing. I loathe Hillary, it's Bernie who's breaking my heart in this election. Liberalism will never become a powerful voting bloc unless we get our political operations right, and I don't want to continue the endless cycle of failure any longer than I have to. We deserve better as Democrats and liberals.
Cause if the answer is you would vote for him if he was the democrat candidate in the general then I don't think there is any functional difference between us on this aside from a healthier dose of cynicism on your part.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I would vote for Bernie in either, but I've started to reluctantly grown more inclined to want Hillary to be the winner here the more I've learnt about Bernie's political operations.
Heh.
As a senator, not the president, and the GOP is growing more extreme by the day. It's one thing to pass bills with the socialist oddball who isn't front and center that much, it's quite another to have him be the president. Then he'll get the Obama/Hillary treatment, and possibly a rebellion from the centrists in his own party. He can't fight a political "war" on two fronts and win. And this will mean he won't be able to govern like a liberal.
This has no basis in reality. The Congressional Democrats who have worked with Sanders for longer than you've been alive to pass bills are not going to "go to war" with him if he is president.
Congress takes that "separation of powers" thing pretty seriously.
There's a story about LBJ, where he thought he could resume his power broker position in the Senate after being inaugurated as Kennedy's VP. After all, he was the President of the Senate, after all. That notion died a quick death when he met with the Democratic Senate leadership, who informed him of exactly where he was now positioned, and it wasn't in the legislature.
Go watch One America News Network until you realize how bad an idea this is.
If you live in a solidly blue state, you probably have the luxury of a protest vote. Go nuts.
But if your state is contested, this course of action is extremely irresponsible.
Yes and?
I fail to see how Hillary is magically better than Bernie at this. I imagine they'd both be able to navigate the waters given their decades of experience as relationships.
This is just foolish informed wisdom.
I think generally you should not expect a Senator's ability to make deals to translate into a President's ability to make deals. Which obviously counts for both candidates. Especially with the Republicans who will 100% pull an Obama on whatever Democrat wins in 2016 and oppose every single thing said President tries to do. But just generally from any history of presidents I've read, they are not viewed as the same once they jump branches.
I think Clinton is likely to be better at dealing with the GOP. Better then Obama was at the start too. I feel like she's been taking shit from them for decades now and knows the score.
No, I'm getting tired of this kind of scary hyperbole stories.
Every election, there's always a crisis of the moment. Every election, people say if the other side wins its doom and gloom. Except it never really happens. Sometimes stuff gets worse, sometimes it gets better, it all comes out in the wash. This election really is no different. The environment will likely keep going however it's going no matter what anyone here does because of entities like China. It concerns me yes, but I'm not going to pretend like coal plants are literally going to start popping up everywhere because Republicans took the White House. Wow
So yes, letting Democrats lose this election if we don't have Bernie as our candidate is a risk I'm willing to take. The one benefit of a republican president, is that it energizes the democratic base. It lights a fire under people's @$$es and gets them to DEMAND something better, and that's how we ended up with a powerful campaign like Obama's in 2008. Bush was so bad that people became motivated for change in ways I have never seen. But it makes me mad I spent so much time promoting Obama and volunteering for his campaign and calling up people and in the end we never got the kind of changes we needed. I will not make that same mistake again.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nod I will do all I can to help him get elected, but only for him. For anyone else, I will not waste my breath. Hillary's powerful brand doesn't need someone like me anyway.
Regardless, I live in Florida, which has been solid blue the past two elections, so it won't matter much.
I mean, i'm not the kind of person who thinks the sky will fall in just because the FCC does this or the TPP passes (get a lot of those on other websites), but realistically, a full GOP could take this opportunity to do a lot of damage even if they don't get to do everything on their docket.
I would strongly suggest you look in to what changes you thing "we" needed.
Cause brosef, Obama was great outside of, like, rich white peeps.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-says-support-for-iraq-invasion-was-a-mistake-2015-5
Yes.
You'd have to have never been paying attention to think otherwise.