The consensus among media is certainly that Clinton won. NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, CNN, etc all explicitly called Clinton the winner. The central story being told about the debate is Hillary defended Obama against Sanders.
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Ehhhh.
I think Bernie was getting thumped early, came back pretty strong in the middle (albeit with some very friendly questions) but then tailed off at the end.
I lean towards a tie, maybe a slight ahead for Hillary, but only because start/finish strong usually leaves a greater "impression".
Apparently the debate was basically impossible to get tickets for. 25 were raffled off to students, 1 was given out as part off a local party contest and then the party filled the rest of the venue with higher ups and big donors.
There's a shot floating around grim behind the candidates that shows the first few rows, and it's nothing but we'll dressed old white people.
Apparently the debate was basically impossible to get tickets for. 25 were raffled off to students, 1 was given out as part off a local party contest and then the party filled the rest of the venue with higher ups and big donors.
There's a shot floating around grim behind the candidates that shows the first few rows, and it's nothing but we'll dressed old white people.
This is true of basically every debate ever, though it does suck.
Apparently the debate was basically impossible to get tickets for. 25 were raffled off to students, 1 was given out as part off a local party contest and then the party filled the rest of the venue with higher ups and big donors.
There's a shot floating around grim behind the candidates that shows the first few rows, and it's nothing but we'll dressed old white people.
That might explain why the crowd seemed more enthusiastic toward Hillary than Bernie.
The problem is that a) he's been using some GOP talking points in his criticism of Obama (like the U3-U6 line), and b) he's actively pushed for Obama to be primaried when he was the incumbent.
I'm kind of amazed that anyone, least of all Democrats, would say that U3 is the most accurate method of measuring unemployment, considering how much hay was made by liberal commentators about the discrepancy between unemployment rates as measured by U3 vs U6 vs U8 during the 2008 election cycle. There's a reason that most economists use "real unemployment" as shorthand specifically for U6 - and conversely, one can easily understand why incumbent politicians invariably prefer to instead cite the misleadingly lower U3 figure when defending their domestic economic policies.
Uh, what?
No dude, calling U6 the "real" rate and U3, what then, the fake rate?, is just bullshit.
They are both real measures of the real thing they are actually designed to measure. Trying to talk about how U6 is the "real unemployment rate" is usually reserved for people telling you the BLS is lying to you because <insert reason here>.
What policies, exactly, would you guys suggest Sanders take up to be more beneficial to the average black family
Also, I hate Bernie's laser focus on income inequality and whatnot because it ignores the fact that some boats have holes in them that need to be repaired first before they can raise with the tide and if you raise the tide without doing that first they just end up underwater.
I'm really starting to sour on the entire Democratic party, the party I volunteered time campaigning for cared about things like food stamps and welfare because they combat real suffering, but I guess all we care about these days is people using precisely the correct language and fuck whether or not they go hungry
EG: Bill Clinton would be a good president if he could run because he says the right things, despite being right up there with any Republican you could name in terms of real economic harm he did to black communities
Politics is a tough business, that's why you mustn't get your hopes to high or you'll get burnt. Idealist only goes so far, that's why it's important to know how the sausage is made so your expectations don't crush you. The revolution isn't coming. not with Bernie at least - and I say that as someone who'd love for that to happen. Take a break, calm down and think long term. Nothing worth fighting for in politics is easy, Obama's tenure in the White House is proof of that. Being apathetic gets you nowhere, and gives the GOP another person who won't vote Democrat making them that much closer to winning.
What policies, exactly, would you guys suggest Sanders take up to be more beneficial to the average black family
Also, I hate Bernie's laser focus on income inequality and whatnot because it ignores the fact that some boats have holes in them that need to be repaired first before they can raise with the tide and if you raise the tide without doing that first they just end up underwater.
I'm really starting to sour on the entire Democratic party, the party I volunteered time campaigning for cared about things like food stamps and welfare because they combat real suffering, but I guess all we care about these days is people using precisely the correct language and fuck whether or not they go hungry
EG: Bill Clinton would be a good president if he could run because he says the right things, despite being right up there with any Republican you could name in terms of real economic harm he did to black communities
Politics is a tough business, that's why you mustn't get your hopes to high or you'll get burnt. Idealist only goes so far, that's why it's important to know how the sausage is made so your expectations don't crush you. The revolution isn't coming. not with Bernie at least - and I say that as someone who'd love for that to happen. Take a break, calm down and think long term. Nothing worth fighting for in politics is easy, Obama's tenure in the White House is proof of that. Being apathetic gets you nowhere, and gives the GOP another person who won't vote Democrat making them that much closer to winning.
Food stamps/min wage/welfare are idealism, but the idea that the president can solve the underlying issues that cause racism in this country isn't?
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
Careful with the "they stacked the debate against me!" Tack as in recent memory trump said the same thing.
Well, I can tell you from the 3 UWM alums I know that went down to the student union to watch it last night. The response from that audience and the response from the debate audience were markedly different.
e:
Also "crowd of old white people' should be a pretty telling point in Milwaukee a city that is 40% Black(17% Latino), and literally the most segregated city in the US.
What policies, exactly, would you guys suggest Sanders take up to be more beneficial to the average black family
Also, I hate Bernie's laser focus on income inequality and whatnot because it ignores the fact that some boats have holes in them that need to be repaired first before they can raise with the tide and if you raise the tide without doing that first they just end up underwater.
I'm really starting to sour on the entire Democratic party, the party I volunteered time campaigning for cared about things like food stamps and welfare because they combat real suffering, but I guess all we care about these days is people using precisely the correct language and fuck whether or not they go hungry
EG: Bill Clinton would be a good president if he could run because he says the right things, despite being right up there with any Republican you could name in terms of real economic harm he did to black communities
Politics is a tough business, that's why you mustn't get your hopes to high or you'll get burnt. Idealist only goes so far, that's why it's important to know how the sausage is made so your expectations don't crush you. The revolution isn't coming. not with Bernie at least - and I say that as someone who'd love for that to happen. Take a break, calm down and think long term. Nothing worth fighting for in politics is easy, Obama's tenure in the White House is proof of that. Being apathetic gets you nowhere, and gives the GOP another person who won't vote Democrat making them that much closer to winning.
This is why you get poor voter turnout. People don't turnout for speeches like that, or ideas like that. You can only get so many miles out of "the other guys suck!" before people realize you're only doing that because your own ideas are safe and somewhat boring.
What policies, exactly, would you guys suggest Sanders take up to be more beneficial to the average black family
Also, I hate Bernie's laser focus on income inequality and whatnot because it ignores the fact that some boats have holes in them that need to be repaired first before they can raise with the tide and if you raise the tide without doing that first they just end up underwater.
I'm really starting to sour on the entire Democratic party, the party I volunteered time campaigning for cared about things like food stamps and welfare because they combat real suffering, but I guess all we care about these days is people using precisely the correct language and fuck whether or not they go hungry
EG: Bill Clinton would be a good president if he could run because he says the right things, despite being right up there with any Republican you could name in terms of real economic harm he did to black communities
Politics is a tough business, that's why you mustn't get your hopes to high or you'll get burnt. Idealist only goes so far, that's why it's important to know how the sausage is made so your expectations don't crush you. The revolution isn't coming. not with Bernie at least - and I say that as someone who'd love for that to happen. Take a break, calm down and think long term. Nothing worth fighting for in politics is easy, Obama's tenure in the White House is proof of that. Being apathetic gets you nowhere, and gives the GOP another person who won't vote Democrat making them that much closer to winning.
Food stamps/min wage/welfare are idealism, but the president solving the underlying issues that cause racism in this country isn't?
Please
It isn't like Hillary isn't for those things, she's just not doing it the same scale. She's pragmatic, not evil. No president can solve racism in this country, what they can do is better understand it and do it with higher chances than Bernie (since she has the Dems in her pocket). How politicians say things is important via optics, those with bad optics don't get elected and Bernie has more to prove on every front than she does. This is why it's an advantage to be the front runner and supported by the establishment.
Hillary could probably do more as senate majority leader than president
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
The rising tide lifts all boats talk from Sanders is very hollow given the structural inequality priced into the system for blacks. It's why affirmative action is really important! Just "equal" isn't enough after a few hundred years of a system designed almost explicitly to fuck them over.
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
This is why you get poor voter turnout. People don't turnout for speeches like that, or ideas like that. You can only get so many miles out of "the other guys suck!" before people realize you're only doing that because your own ideas are safe and somewhat boring.
True, unfortunately selling impossible dreams is not the answer either. This is why it's important for politicians to be able to back up what they say with idealism, because if Bernie could do what he says he'd be changing politics forever. This is what made Obama special, and Bernie is no Obama.
The problem is that a) he's been using some GOP talking points in his criticism of Obama (like the U3-U6 line), and b) he's actively pushed for Obama to be primaried when he was the incumbent.
I'm kind of amazed that anyone, least of all Democrats, would say that U3 is the most accurate method of measuring unemployment, considering how much hay was made by liberal commentators about the discrepancy between unemployment rates as measured by U3 vs U6 vs U8 during the 2008 election cycle. There's a reason that most economists use "real unemployment" as shorthand specifically for U6 - and conversely, one can easily understand why incumbent politicians invariably prefer to instead cite the misleadingly lower U3 figure when defending their domestic economic policies.
Uh, what?
No dude, calling U6 the "real" rate and U3, what then, the fake rate?, is just bullshit.
They are both real measures of the real thing they are actually designed to measure. Trying to talk about how U6 is the "real unemployment rate" is usually reserved for people telling you the BLS is lying to you because <insert reason here>.
U6 is the much more important rate, by far. U3 paints a very misleading picture. Even U6 lacks more "blue sky" intangibles like considerations of living wage and worthwhile, dignified employment, but at least it outright doesn't just outright not count people.
It's worth separating them out for comprehensiveness of data, but U6 is a magnitude of order more important, and should nearly be the only one considered for policy purposes, whether designing or evaluating policies.
That said, they are pretty strongly correlated, so there is that.
This is why you get poor voter turnout. People don't turnout for speeches like that, or ideas like that. You can only get so many miles out of "the other guys suck!" before people realize you're only doing that because your own ideas are safe and somewhat boring.
True, unfortunately selling impossible dreams is not the answer either. This is why it's important for politicians to be able to back up what they say with idealism, because if Bernie could do what he says he'd be changing politics forever. This is what made Obama special, and Bernie is no Obama.
I would rather have the idealism, because we already know where the safe and pragmatic route takes us. You'd think we were conservatives the way we talk about slow and incremental change, the dangers of wild idealism, how impossible these big ideas are. What the hell happened? Big, bold moves aren't the most practical but sometimes that's what you need to get the damn Boulder moving.
When did we become the party of "that sounds awesome but please tone down the progressive rhetoric less we pull a muscle reaching for the stars?" Hell, we had Bernie speak out hard on mass incarceration and people immediately broke out the knives. One of our worst injustices and national shames but how dare he declare war on it because it's just too damn impractical.
Sorry if I'm coming across mad, I kind of am. All we do is elect safe politicians who roll the rick a bit one way only for the next republican majority or president to roll it back. And here we got a shot for a guy who may not know exactly how he's gonna do everything, but wants a big rock breaking hammer and the permission to go ham with it.
The arguments I see against Bernie aren't specific to him. Never safe to elect the wildcard. But sometimes that's exactly what you need.
No, how dare Bernie declare that he'll take us down to #2 on mass incarceration when the presidency literally does not have the power to do that. Bernie doesn't just not know exactly what he's doing, the plans he has range from unworkable to impossibly vague.
I would rather have the idealism, because we already know where the safe and pragmatic route takes us. You'd think we were conservatives the way we talk about slow and incremental change, the dangers of wild idealism, how impossible these big ideas are. What the hell happened? Big, bold moves aren't the most practical but sometimes that's what you need to get the damn Boulder moving.
Safe and pragmatic get results, idealism (by itself) gets people disappointed when they don't get what they want. Sure it's good to have idealism, but it must be balanced with pragmatism.
When did we become the party of "that sounds awesome but please tone down the progressive rhetoric less we pull a muscle reaching for the stars?" Hell, we had Bernie speak out hard on mass incarceration and people immediately broke out the knives. One of our worst injustices and national shames but how dare he declare war on it because it's just too damn impractical.
At least the 80's. Progressives haven't been the Dem base for a while now, that's why centrists run the party and we're talking about front runner Hillary Clinton rather than front runner Bernie Sanders. The liberal faction are politically weak, disorganized and outgunned - this is not going to change by electing Bernie president.
It isn't the issues that people find fault with Bernie about, it's how he's going to implement them. Those things you're referencing won't chance one iota unless a politician is able to influence politics on the political level - and Bernie isn't selling he can do that to many of us. If he had a plan that was capable of doing it that we'd believed could work that'd be a different story. He isn't.
Sorry if I'm coming across mad, I kind of am. All we do is elect safe politicians who roll the rick a bit one way only for the next republican majority or president to roll it back. And here we got a shot for a guy who may not know exactly how he's gonna do everything, but wants a big rock breaking hammer and the permission to go ham with it.
The arguments I see against Bernie aren't specific to him. Never safe to elect the wildcard. But sometimes that's exactly what you need.
Bernie isn't what we need, though. It'd be one thing if he was able to back up his revolutionary speeches, but he can't. Bernie failing in the White House is also bad for various reasons, he'd be the new face for liberals and if he fails that'd harm the movement going forward. We need victories here and the centrists and conservatives need to know we mean business. His supporters will also turn on him before Hillary's will, it's easy to get disillusioned with politics and when Bernie has no choice to implement his plans too many in base will peace out. Which is going to do harm to a whole generation of Democrats.
This is why you get poor voter turnout. People don't turnout for speeches like that, or ideas like that. You can only get so many miles out of "the other guys suck!" before people realize you're only doing that because your own ideas are safe and somewhat boring.
True, unfortunately selling impossible dreams is not the answer either. This is why it's important for politicians to be able to back up what they say with idealism, because if Bernie could do what he says he'd be changing politics forever. This is what made Obama special, and Bernie is no Obama.
I would rather have the idealism, because we already know where the safe and pragmatic route takes us. You'd think we were conservatives the way we talk about slow and incremental change, the dangers of wild idealism, how impossible these big ideas are. What the hell happened? Big, bold moves aren't the most practical but sometimes that's what you need to get the damn Boulder moving.
When did we become the party of "that sounds awesome but please tone down the progressive rhetoric less we pull a muscle reaching for the stars?" Hell, we had Bernie speak out hard on mass incarceration and people immediately broke out the knives. One of our worst injustices and national shames but how dare he declare war on it because it's just too damn impractical.
Sorry if I'm coming across mad, I kind of am. All we do is elect safe politicians who roll the rick a bit one way only for the next republican majority or president to roll it back. And here we got a shot for a guy who may not know exactly how he's gonna do everything, but wants a big rock breaking hammer and the permission to go ham with it.
The arguments I see against Bernie aren't specific to him. Never safe to elect the wildcard. But sometimes that's exactly what you need.
No one is saying not to shoot for the stars. However, if you're going to shoot for the stars, I'd like to hear some details about the rocket you're going to build to get there.
Basically, the loftier the goal, the more skeptical I am you'll achieve it in four years with a hostile Congress. I'm 100% behind the Bernie's goals, but the onus is on him to explain his plan to reach them.
Hillary's goals are generally more modest versions of Bernie's, and the details she's relayed for reaching them pass the sniff test. Doesn't mean she will, but there's a reasonable plan from A to B.
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
The rising tide lifts all boats talk from Sanders is very hollow given the structural inequality priced into the system for blacks. It's why affirmative action is really important! Just "equal" isn't enough after a few hundred years of a system designed almost explicitly to fuck them over.
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
The rising tide lifts all boats talk from Sanders is very hollow given the structural inequality priced into the system for blacks. It's why affirmative action is really important! Just "equal" isn't enough after a few hundred years of a system designed almost explicitly to fuck them over.
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
Sanders' statements about race always boil down to sure sure but income inequality will fix it.
guess what.
even if you could wave a magic wand that fixed income inequality, blacks would still be fucked by comparison and Sanders never addresses that because he is a single issue candidate. That is why I don't think his platform is a good fit for a big tent party like the Democrats.
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
The rising tide lifts all boats talk from Sanders is very hollow given the structural inequality priced into the system for blacks. It's why affirmative action is really important! Just "equal" isn't enough after a few hundred years of a system designed almost explicitly to fuck them over.
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
The rising tide lifts all boats talk from Sanders is very hollow given the structural inequality priced into the system for blacks. It's why affirmative action is really important! Just "equal" isn't enough after a few hundred years of a system designed almost explicitly to fuck them over.
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
Sanders' statements about race always boil down to sure sure but income inequality will fix it.
guess what.
even if you could wave a magic wand that fixed income inequality, blacks would still be fucked by comparison and Sanders never addresses that because he is a single issue candidate. That is why I don't think his platform is a good fit for a big tent party like the Democrats.
If there's one thing that you could point at to illustrate why people see him as a single issue candidate, it would be him stating in the middle of the debate that he would make race relations better by going after the 1%.
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
The rising tide lifts all boats talk from Sanders is very hollow given the structural inequality priced into the system for blacks. It's why affirmative action is really important! Just "equal" isn't enough after a few hundred years of a system designed almost explicitly to fuck them over.
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
I really don't know what you're on about re food stamps and welfare. I'd wager everyone in this thread supports them and thinks they could stand to be expanded. Food stamps in particular imo, best money the government spends
The rising tide lifts all boats talk from Sanders is very hollow given the structural inequality priced into the system for blacks. It's why affirmative action is really important! Just "equal" isn't enough after a few hundred years of a system designed almost explicitly to fuck them over.
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
Sanders' statements about race always boil down to sure sure but income inequality will fix it.
guess what.
even if you could wave a magic wand that fixed income inequality, blacks would still be fucked by comparison and Sanders never addresses that because he is a single issue candidate. That is why I don't think his platform is a good fit for a big tent party like the Democrats.
If there's one thing that you could point at to illustrate why people see him as a single issue candidate, it would be him stating in the middle of the debate that he would make race relations better by going after the 1%.
It's about as realistic as any other plan for getting different groups to get along with each other. Unless dosing the entire population with MDMA is an option.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It's about as realistic as any other plan for getting different groups to get along with each other. Unless dosing the entire population with MDMA is an option.
That's not going to do anything to get those groups to get along.
Hello! This thread is now being shut down. Further discussion of debate things will take place in the designated free speech zone democratic primary thread.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Quick turnaround by Matthews after that last Clinton interview.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think Bernie was getting thumped early, came back pretty strong in the middle (albeit with some very friendly questions) but then tailed off at the end.
I lean towards a tie, maybe a slight ahead for Hillary, but only because start/finish strong usually leaves a greater "impression".
There's a shot floating around grim behind the candidates that shows the first few rows, and it's nothing but we'll dressed old white people.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Literally don't pay attention to anything Chris Matthews says. He's mostly stupid
This is true of basically every debate ever, though it does suck.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Uh, what?
No dude, calling U6 the "real" rate and U3, what then, the fake rate?, is just bullshit.
They are both real measures of the real thing they are actually designed to measure. Trying to talk about how U6 is the "real unemployment rate" is usually reserved for people telling you the BLS is lying to you because <insert reason here>.
Bullshit, he's with whoever he thinks is winning. He did this shit with W. too.
Politics is a tough business, that's why you mustn't get your hopes to high or you'll get burnt. Idealist only goes so far, that's why it's important to know how the sausage is made so your expectations don't crush you. The revolution isn't coming. not with Bernie at least - and I say that as someone who'd love for that to happen. Take a break, calm down and think long term. Nothing worth fighting for in politics is easy, Obama's tenure in the White House is proof of that. Being apathetic gets you nowhere, and gives the GOP another person who won't vote Democrat making them that much closer to winning.
Food stamps/min wage/welfare are idealism, but the idea that the president can solve the underlying issues that cause racism in this country isn't?
Well, I can tell you from the 3 UWM alums I know that went down to the student union to watch it last night. The response from that audience and the response from the debate audience were markedly different.
e:
Also "crowd of old white people' should be a pretty telling point in Milwaukee a city that is 40% Black(17% Latino), and literally the most segregated city in the US.
This is why you get poor voter turnout. People don't turnout for speeches like that, or ideas like that. You can only get so many miles out of "the other guys suck!" before people realize you're only doing that because your own ideas are safe and somewhat boring.
It isn't like Hillary isn't for those things, she's just not doing it the same scale. She's pragmatic, not evil. No president can solve racism in this country, what they can do is better understand it and do it with higher chances than Bernie (since she has the Dems in her pocket). How politicians say things is important via optics, those with bad optics don't get elected and Bernie has more to prove on every front than she does. This is why it's an advantage to be the front runner and supported by the establishment.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm not sure what your point here was
Either you're opposed to Sanders' policies or you're not, and you seem to be
I guess he should be in favor of economic programs that benefit black americans more on an individual level? I'm not sure if food stamps, housing, etc having higher payouts to any minority groups would be constiutional
True, unfortunately selling impossible dreams is not the answer either. This is why it's important for politicians to be able to back up what they say with idealism, because if Bernie could do what he says he'd be changing politics forever. This is what made Obama special, and Bernie is no Obama.
U6 is the much more important rate, by far. U3 paints a very misleading picture. Even U6 lacks more "blue sky" intangibles like considerations of living wage and worthwhile, dignified employment, but at least it outright doesn't just outright not count people.
It's worth separating them out for comprehensiveness of data, but U6 is a magnitude of order more important, and should nearly be the only one considered for policy purposes, whether designing or evaluating policies.
That said, they are pretty strongly correlated, so there is that.
I would rather have the idealism, because we already know where the safe and pragmatic route takes us. You'd think we were conservatives the way we talk about slow and incremental change, the dangers of wild idealism, how impossible these big ideas are. What the hell happened? Big, bold moves aren't the most practical but sometimes that's what you need to get the damn Boulder moving.
When did we become the party of "that sounds awesome but please tone down the progressive rhetoric less we pull a muscle reaching for the stars?" Hell, we had Bernie speak out hard on mass incarceration and people immediately broke out the knives. One of our worst injustices and national shames but how dare he declare war on it because it's just too damn impractical.
Sorry if I'm coming across mad, I kind of am. All we do is elect safe politicians who roll the rick a bit one way only for the next republican majority or president to roll it back. And here we got a shot for a guy who may not know exactly how he's gonna do everything, but wants a big rock breaking hammer and the permission to go ham with it.
The arguments I see against Bernie aren't specific to him. Never safe to elect the wildcard. But sometimes that's exactly what you need.
Safe and pragmatic get results, idealism (by itself) gets people disappointed when they don't get what they want. Sure it's good to have idealism, but it must be balanced with pragmatism.
At least the 80's. Progressives haven't been the Dem base for a while now, that's why centrists run the party and we're talking about front runner Hillary Clinton rather than front runner Bernie Sanders. The liberal faction are politically weak, disorganized and outgunned - this is not going to change by electing Bernie president.
It isn't the issues that people find fault with Bernie about, it's how he's going to implement them. Those things you're referencing won't chance one iota unless a politician is able to influence politics on the political level - and Bernie isn't selling he can do that to many of us. If he had a plan that was capable of doing it that we'd believed could work that'd be a different story. He isn't.
Bernie isn't what we need, though. It'd be one thing if he was able to back up his revolutionary speeches, but he can't. Bernie failing in the White House is also bad for various reasons, he'd be the new face for liberals and if he fails that'd harm the movement going forward. We need victories here and the centrists and conservatives need to know we mean business. His supporters will also turn on him before Hillary's will, it's easy to get disillusioned with politics and when Bernie has no choice to implement his plans too many in base will peace out. Which is going to do harm to a whole generation of Democrats.
No one is saying not to shoot for the stars. However, if you're going to shoot for the stars, I'd like to hear some details about the rocket you're going to build to get there.
Basically, the loftier the goal, the more skeptical I am you'll achieve it in four years with a hostile Congress. I'm 100% behind the Bernie's goals, but the onus is on him to explain his plan to reach them.
Hillary's goals are generally more modest versions of Bernie's, and the details she's relayed for reaching them pass the sniff test. Doesn't mean she will, but there's a reasonable plan from A to B.
Sanders' statements about race always boil down to sure sure but income inequality will fix it.
guess what.
even if you could wave a magic wand that fixed income inequality, blacks would still be fucked by comparison and Sanders never addresses that because he is a single issue candidate. That is why I don't think his platform is a good fit for a big tent party like the Democrats.
If there's one thing that you could point at to illustrate why people see him as a single issue candidate, it would be him stating in the middle of the debate that he would make race relations better by going after the 1%.
It's about as realistic as any other plan for getting different groups to get along with each other. Unless dosing the entire population with MDMA is an option.
That's not going to do anything to get those groups to get along.