reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton or reddit.com/r/anythingevercauseredditisterrible
Also the sanders thread was closed because it hit page 100. It is taking a break because people from both camps were sniping each other and treating it as a hillary and bernie thread.
"I've never seen it!"
Citation
"Both sides are the same!"
And no one is calling Sanders names on Hillary Clinton's subreddit because they don't need to. You don't punch down
You're right, he's only been doing it for 45 years and has held the same beliefs for that amount of time and even pushed for equality when they were dirty words even inside the democratic party. He's totally in a lower weight class. :Rolleyessofuckinghard:
I like Sanders, I like Clinton and I'll be voting for whomever gets the nod-but gawwwwwwwwd.
Wait - you think Sanders and Clinton are equals in politics? There's nothing wrong with being lower class than Hillary per se, so is everyone else in this primary. Obama started out that way too, it wasn't until late in the primary that he became strong enough to match her head on. Bernie is not at that stage yet.
Equal in politics? What does that even mean? How are you even qualifying this statement?
It means what it says, and what I assumed you said with "weight class."
For instance: recognizability, resources, connections, funding, media exposure. Political might.
Or were you talking about something else, like ethics and consistency?
If we're using "weight class" in purely competitive terms, then they absolutely belong in the same weight class. I mean, his metaphor was punching down which is a boxing term-and in this continued metaphor they both absolutely command the mic, are concise with their viewpoints and opinions and both are polling reasonably close. Now, to continue the metaphor the things in your "for instance" is really more akin to boxing managers, and in that sense he's no Don King that's for sure compared to Clinton. But no, I absolutely feel that during debates they are hitting within their weight class.
reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton or reddit.com/r/anythingevercauseredditisterrible
Also the sanders thread was closed because it hit page 100. It is taking a break because people from both camps were sniping each other and treating it as a hillary and bernie thread.
"I've never seen it!"
Citation
"Both sides are the same!"
And no one is calling Sanders names on Hillary Clinton's subreddit because they don't need to. You don't punch down
You're right, he's only been doing it for 45 years and has held the same beliefs for that amount of time and even pushed for equality when they were dirty words even inside the democratic party. He's totally in a lower weight class. :Rolleyessofuckinghard:
I like Sanders, I like Clinton and I'll be voting for whomever gets the nod-but gawwwwwwwwd.
What weight class you are in is not about how strongly you hold your beliefs, or how correctly they are. E: It is also not about how well they are debating. Clinton is the frontrunner by a huge margin, to the point where she was still comfortably winning with a person who was literally never going to run put into the polls to make her numbers look worse. They are absolutely not polling closely at this point, beyond that they are both actually in the double digits.
Simply looking at their relative positions, it should be obvious that Hillary is not in a position where she needs to attack Sanders credibility or paint him as unfit for office; to do so would be punching down. On the other hand, if Bernie wants to win he actually does have to convince a large portion of Hillary supporters she is unfit for office.
Clinton's going to win though, so we're going to have another 8 years of wall street more or less getting whatever they want from the administration
but I think Sanders is right and it's probably impossible for someone who isn't on the take to ever win again
Her proposal for financial regulation is actually the strongest out of the three. Glass-Steagal is nothing but a shibboleth at this point. And it would not have prevented the '08 meltdown. Hers probably won't either, "the market" is mostly just 20 year olds with a coke habit rather than a rationality machine, but it will make it more like the S&L crisis than the Depression. Sanders and O'Malley don't seem to realize that.
I'll eat my shoe if Hillary actually does anything against Wall-Street, she's Obama 2.0 on the issue
I certainly hope so. Getting the most meaningful FinReg law passed in over a generation, expanding fiduciary requirements, and promulgating the Yates memo (albeit later than I would have preferred) is pretty remarkable. If she follows along those lines we might get back to a semblance of a functional financial system instead of a casino.
The fiduciary rule is an absolute disaster though. Basically all parties agree. There is bipartisan support to make changes to the proposed rule because it is literally poised to pass more direct fees onto larger plans and IRAs and to cause smaller IRAs to lose all access to investment advice. There are also serious defects with the rule making process that will subject it to challenges in court which may well succeed. They should repropose it again, and the only reason they are going forward with it is to get it finalized while Obama is in office. It's a serious problem.
It could certainly be better, but improvements and tweaks are easier to promulgate/adjudicate than expansion outright. So getting expansion at all is something I'm pretty happy with, even with the fact that it'll require changes. Same with a bunch of new EPA regs.
Nah, he just needs to convince them that he's electable, capable of realizing change, and has superior policies.
I don't know of many people who support Hillary who could be convinced she was unfit for office.
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.
+6
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Clinton's going to win though, so we're going to have another 8 years of wall street more or less getting whatever they want from the administration
but I think Sanders is right and it's probably impossible for someone who isn't on the take to ever win again
Her proposal for financial regulation is actually the strongest out of the three. Glass-Steagal is nothing but a shibboleth at this point. And it would not have prevented the '08 meltdown. Hers probably won't either, "the market" is mostly just 20 year olds with a coke habit rather than a rationality machine, but it will make it more like the S&L crisis than the Depression. Sanders and O'Malley don't seem to realize that.
I'll eat my shoe if Hillary actually does anything against Wall-Street, she's Obama 2.0 on the issue
I certainly hope so. Getting the most meaningful FinReg law passed in over a generation, expanding fiduciary requirements, and promulgating the Yates memo (albeit later than I would have preferred) is pretty remarkable. If she follows along those lines we might get back to a semblance of a functional financial system instead of a casino.
The fiduciary rule is an absolute disaster though. Basically all parties agree. There is bipartisan support to make changes to the proposed rule because it is literally poised to pass more direct fees onto larger plans and IRAs and to cause smaller IRAs to lose all access to investment advice. There are also serious defects with the rule making process that will subject it to challenges in court which may well succeed. They should repropose it again, and the only reason they are going forward with it is to get it finalized while Obama is in office. It's a serious problem.
It could certainly be better, but improvements and tweaks are easier to promulgate/adjudicate than expansion outright. So getting expansion at all is something I'm pretty happy with, even with the fact that it'll require changes. Same with a bunch of new EPA regs.
The way they have done it is very vulnerable to judicial challenge. For example, extending the full suite of ERISA section 404 fiduciary duties to fiduciaries to IRAs is an incredible expansion of duties by regulatory fiat that is probably contrary to section 4975 of the tax code (which contains parallels to select sections to ERISA, but not to ERISA wholesale).
Nah, he just needs to convince them that he's electable, capable of realizing change, and has superior policies.
I don't know of many people who support Hillary who could be convinced she was unfit for office.
Which is why it is unnecessary for her to punch down, and why she is so clearly the frontrunner.
I think Sanders has to make Hillary look unfit for office, or at least significantly worse than she currently does (to her supporters), because there isn't that much room above her; it would be almost impossible for him to look so much better than her that he captures 30% of her supporters, due to the advantages of her name recognition and political machine.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
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.
To illustrate one of my issues with Sanders, he's using Cornel West as a campaign surrogate. The reason this strikes me as problematic is because it signals that Sanders may very well place some distance between himself and the sitting President in a general election campaign. Which is the sort of thing we don't want happening.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
The focus group did reveal a potential strength for Mr. Sanders, who trails Mrs. Clinton by double digits in recent Iowa polls: Every one of the participants said Mr. Sanders had a “stronger message.” But the problem for him is that Mrs. Clinton, a former secretary of state, was considered far more electable, by a margin of 27 to 4.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
Bernie is certainly very charismatic. The grumpy old man image the media has assigned him is no more accurate than calling hillary 'another angry white woman' and has no value in serious discourse.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
Bernie is certainly very charismatic. The grumpy old man image the media has assigned him is no more accurate than calling hillary 'another angry white woman' and has no value in serious discourse.
I wouldn't say so. But even if you do consider him charismatic, he's not even close to Obama level. And that's the sort of thing he'd need to make real inroads.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
Bernie is certainly very charismatic. The grumpy old man image the media has assigned him is no more accurate than calling hillary 'another angry white woman' and has no value in serious discourse.
I think it's helpful to append "relative to other politicians" to criticism of their image.
Bernie does not have amazing charisma relative to other politicians, appears as a grumpy old man relative to other politicians, and Sanders isn't good at inspirational speeches relative to other politicians.
Nobody here is really saying that Bernie has zero charisma, or appears as a grumpy old man. But compared to Hillary and O'Malley and Obama, he certainly seems grumpier and lacks a level of polish. That is still charisma leagues above regular people and a far cry from "get off my lawn you damn kids," but he's not being compared to regular people.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
Bernie is certainly very charismatic. The grumpy old man image the media has assigned him is no more accurate than calling hillary 'another angry white woman' and has no value in serious discourse.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
Also, hasn't Hillary basically hired Obama's political machine for this election?
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
Bernie is certainly very charismatic. The grumpy old man image the media has assigned him is no more accurate than calling hillary 'another angry white woman' and has no value in serious discourse.
Sanders was backing things up with numbers and so he gets credit for selling what is probably the truth. That isn't necessarily charisma. Obama immediately went to kinda sketchy anecdotes and had people eating out of the palm of his hand. That is charisma.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Posts
If we're using "weight class" in purely competitive terms, then they absolutely belong in the same weight class. I mean, his metaphor was punching down which is a boxing term-and in this continued metaphor they both absolutely command the mic, are concise with their viewpoints and opinions and both are polling reasonably close. Now, to continue the metaphor the things in your "for instance" is really more akin to boxing managers, and in that sense he's no Don King that's for sure compared to Clinton. But no, I absolutely feel that during debates they are hitting within their weight class.
What weight class you are in is not about how strongly you hold your beliefs, or how correctly they are. E: It is also not about how well they are debating. Clinton is the frontrunner by a huge margin, to the point where she was still comfortably winning with a person who was literally never going to run put into the polls to make her numbers look worse. They are absolutely not polling closely at this point, beyond that they are both actually in the double digits.
Simply looking at their relative positions, it should be obvious that Hillary is not in a position where she needs to attack Sanders credibility or paint him as unfit for office; to do so would be punching down. On the other hand, if Bernie wants to win he actually does have to convince a large portion of Hillary supporters she is unfit for office.
It could certainly be better, but improvements and tweaks are easier to promulgate/adjudicate than expansion outright. So getting expansion at all is something I'm pretty happy with, even with the fact that it'll require changes. Same with a bunch of new EPA regs.
I don't know of many people who support Hillary who could be convinced she was unfit for office.
The way they have done it is very vulnerable to judicial challenge. For example, extending the full suite of ERISA section 404 fiduciary duties to fiduciaries to IRAs is an incredible expansion of duties by regulatory fiat that is probably contrary to section 4975 of the tax code (which contains parallels to select sections to ERISA, but not to ERISA wholesale).
Which is why it is unnecessary for her to punch down, and why she is so clearly the frontrunner.
I think Sanders has to make Hillary look unfit for office, or at least significantly worse than she currently does (to her supporters), because there isn't that much room above her; it would be almost impossible for him to look so much better than her that he captures 30% of her supporters, due to the advantages of her name recognition and political machine.
A lot of Hillary supporters think that Sanders has better policy positions, but that he's some combination of less electable and less effective. Those are the people Sanders should be aiming for, and they don't need to see that Hillary is unfit, only that Sanders is fit.
He's in much the position that Obama was in 2008, where he's perceived as the more liberal (in a good way) option, but unproven and kind of a gamble. But where Obama was dynamic and exciting, Sanders is just kinda pissed off. Also, Hillary was less refined back then, and more prone to making unforced errors.
I don't really think there's much Sanders can do, beyond stay persistent and hope that Hillary implodes somehow. Which, if she hasn't yet, she probably ain't going to.
I also think we've seen what happens to an idealistic candidate. Obama is a great president, but it took him a long time to get over his red states blue states mentality that ended up hurting him for 3/4ths of his presidency.
I want someone who has seen the shit, been in the shit, and can deal with the shit. Sadly, life these days isn't an Aaron Sorkin script and soaring oratory can't pass laws.
Case in point:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/14/paris-attacks-could-bolster-hillary-clintons-support-focus-group-indicates/?_r=0
Being inspiring is what gave Obama the boost he needed to be in Clinton's league though. Sanders just doesn't have that. He lacks the story and the cultural associations (ie - not the potential first black president) and he just ain't as good at the whole speechifying thing. Unfortunately for him, he ain't got the inspirational candidate thing working for him.
Obama had amazing charisma and a brilliant, game changing political machine that went well above their weight class. Politicians are usually lucky to have one of these, and Bernie hasn't got either.
Bernie is certainly very charismatic. The grumpy old man image the media has assigned him is no more accurate than calling hillary 'another angry white woman' and has no value in serious discourse.
I wouldn't say so. But even if you do consider him charismatic, he's not even close to Obama level. And that's the sort of thing he'd need to make real inroads.
I think it's helpful to append "relative to other politicians" to criticism of their image.
Bernie does not have amazing charisma relative to other politicians, appears as a grumpy old man relative to other politicians, and Sanders isn't good at inspirational speeches relative to other politicians.
Nobody here is really saying that Bernie has zero charisma, or appears as a grumpy old man. But compared to Hillary and O'Malley and Obama, he certainly seems grumpier and lacks a level of polish. That is still charisma leagues above regular people and a far cry from "get off my lawn you damn kids," but he's not being compared to regular people.
Contrast Bernie with Obama.
Bernie's got serviceable charisma, I'll grant - but c'mon, he's no Obama.
That man has charisma politicians would kill for.
Also, hasn't Hillary basically hired Obama's political machine for this election?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Sanders was backing things up with numbers and so he gets credit for selling what is probably the truth. That isn't necessarily charisma. Obama immediately went to kinda sketchy anecdotes and had people eating out of the palm of his hand. That is charisma.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck