lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
oh i'm so happy this thread is here!
I have news to report!
Democrats Abroad, an organization for us expats that are Democrats can use to organize and vote through, is holding a Global Primary right now! It's set to run from March 1st (today) through to March 8th! And any registered members of Democrats Abroad can vote in these primaries and have our votes count towards the Democrats Abroad delegates for the convention. We aren't able to vote in our homestate primaries, but for most people, that' ok! becuase our votes as expats actually count more, since we have more delegates and less population.
Fun fact! The number of American Expats is actually the 12th largest population in the US! So basically, expats make up the 12th most populous state in the country! Although that's counting all Expats and not just Democrats.
Republicans Abroad is a 527 and not an actual organization and they do not have the ability to vote in any primaries, either a global primary or in most cases (and i think all) cannot vote as absentees for their home primaries either. At least not in any sort of organized fashion that I'm aware of. Yay voter enfranchisement.
SO! That's the background, the news part of it is that last night at midnight in the capitol city of Wellington, New Zealand, a small primary gathering was held and the votes were cast! Democrats Abroad New Zealand cleverly named the party DANZville Notch, after the midnight voting town in New Hampshire Dixville's Notch (parodied on The West Wing as Hartsfields Landing). The voting started at Midnight and ended shortly thereafter, as there were only 27 hardcore folks there.
And the results:
Sanders 21
Clinton 6
Now this is just from the voting center last night. There was another voting center set up today in both Wellington and Auckland, as well as another day to vote in Auckland set up on March 5th. Ballots can also be filled out and emailed/posted/faxed in to the Democrats Abroad organization (or your local chapters) to be counted as they go through.
So those are not the final results of the Global Primary, which is going on until March 8th, but they are the results of our very own Super tuesday Midnight voting!
If you know anybody that is an American living abroad who may want to vote in this global Primary, or needs help getting their absentee ballots for November, or even just wants to maybe connect with other Democrat Party-minded people in their countries, then these are some important links to have
If anybody has any questions about how it works being an Expat and voting abroad or anything, please just ask me. If I don't know the answer, I know the powerful people to ask and get the answer!
Voting is important! Voting is a right and an obligation for every US citizen! Even if you're not at home to do so, you can still vote!
Rawr civic duty! rawr new mummy is so tired and not thinking straight!
But seriously, vote! It's important! There should be nothing to stand in your way!
I mean, she wants to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and families
and support birth control and women's rights
and maintain the affordable care act
Also Immigration reform
So platform wise she really isn't.
I dunno, if I saw a republican candidate with those stances I'd think they were pretty great.
I'm not sure how different a Sanders presidency would be from a Clinton one
In either case they're gonna face 4 years of the same bullshit republican stonewalling and just barely manage to drag them kicking and screaming through the creation of a few somewhat progressive laws
In either case they're gonna elect a non-conservative Supreme Court justice if the republicans actually set a record for filibustering appointments this year
The only real thing I could say for sure is that sanders is laser-focused on taxes and welfare and such so that's probably where he'd put all his effort, whereas I'm not actually sure what Clinton's pet issues are that she'd push for. My perception of her is that she basically just toes the democrat party line and will push for whatever legislation the party wants, but maybe that's ignorant?
id much rather see democrats take back congress
To me the major difference between Sanders and Clinton that makes Sanders a massively better choice is his opposition to Citizens United. Sanders has gone on record stating that he would use it as a litmus test for who to elect to the Supreme Court. Hillary can call him a one issue candidate over it all she wants but that one issue of campaign finance reform effects almost every other issue in America. When lobbyists from the NRA fueled by money from gun manufacturers threaten to railroad out of office any politician who would pass legislation pertaining to background checks, that's a reason for campaign finance reform. When the Koch Brothers fund the 1 in 10 scientific studies that conveniently propose global warming isn't a thing and the politicians who cite those studies as if they're legitimate, that's a need for campaign finance reform. Of course this applies to every single economic policy that gets passed. It would honestly be easier to list political issues not effected by corrupting influence of a system whereby unlimited donations can be given in exchange for "advising" politicians to deregulate and cut taxes while shifting the burdens to the middle class.
You can't really accomplish much if any of the progressive policies you put out there without first addressing the way our political system is funded.
Clinton has been against CU for ages. This post confuses me.
Especially since CU was a ruling against her in the first place.
+4
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Why hasn't someone fed Tucker Carlson to a woodchipper yet.
He's a such a miserable little piece of shit, I don't even understand how he keeps his job. Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard fucking idiot but he has presence, Tucker is a snivelling little worm with zero charisma whatsoever.
+2
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Maybe the Secret Service were the ones that asked them to leave not me.
But then that makes sense so I would say something else over the top and out of the ring in the parking lot kind of answer
Clinton has heavily stumped for down ticket races in the past, I don't see any reason why she would change course.
Sanders is actually the opposite, and rarely seen outside his state. Not saying he wouldn't, but it's weird to assume he'd make a sudden turn to the activist, while at the same time imagine Clinton sitting on her hands.
I'm not talking about stumping for candidates, you've missed my point entirely.
Also you're comparing unknown independent senator Sanders with newly elected President Sanders as if both of these people have the same ability to put the national spotlight on specific issues. Or that they'd do the same thing during midterms as if running for President has no implication that you have decided to change things yourself.
What you've said right here. This is the entire problem. You're thinking of the "typical" thing, which I've already said Clinton would do. You are also under the impression I said she'd stop doing it, which I never did.
0
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
edited March 2016
Does the idea that Sanders would take a greater than usual interest in the midterms have any actual basis?
Like has he talked about how important mid term elections are in the past or something?
Well yes he has, and all you have to do is look at what he's been able to do with he campaign so far.
I think he's doing an amazing job. Not to mention the way he's out earning all of the other campaigns from massive small donations that don't stop coming is mind boggling. There seems to be more of a genuine effort by people to get involved when it comes to his campaign.
I don't think he'd take that for granted in off year elections.
He's also a very blunt person and I do think he'd be different in being very open in press conferences about what's standing in our way congressionally when it comes to the types of reforms he would have been elected to pass.
I chose to ignore your point because it's not based on anything. None of the things you said would lead anyone to the conclusion that Sanders would suddenly start paying so much more attention for some reason, while Clinton would pay less. I get it, you support a particular candidate, and thus believe they would thrive in ways their opponent would not, but you're ignoring basically everything else along the way in order to make your point. It's a wholly faith based argument.
There also seems to be this perception, not just with you, that Clinton sees this whole thing as the fucking Highlander. That once she wins 'The Prize,' that's it, and she can just lay back and relax. This is also something that doesn't really scan with what we know of her, considering she was basically bar none the most active First Lady to ever hold that role to date.
EDIT: I'm a pretty damn heavy Sanders supporter, but let's not suddenly raise him to Great White Hope just yet. There's no reason to attribute hypothetical feats of strength to someone when we haven't even seen him express interest in mid-term races aside from his own before.
Javen on
+8
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Regardless of whether Bernie or Hillary would care more about midterms (which is kind of a ridiculous argument anyway), what's most important is that at this election AND in 2018, progressives get out and vote to replace the shitty house of reps and the shitty senate as best as can be done.
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea about the amount of power the President has. Surely if Trump wins, there are other branches of government that could stop decisions such as his wall on the border and restricting the movement of Muslim immigrants.
Checks and balances, right?
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea about the amount of power the President has. Surely if Trump wins, there are other branches of government that could stop decisions such as his wall on the border and restricting the movement of Muslim immigrants.
Checks and balances, right?
Part of the problem we have right now is that the Legislative branch is essentially not doing anything, so this sort of reliance on regular order is futile.
if Trump wins, R also probably wins the Senate, and they will get the House no matter what because gerrymandering. And then he starts appointing SCOTUS justices as they start dying/retiring.
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea about the amount of power the President has. Surely if Trump wins, there are other branches of government that could stop decisions such as his wall on the border and restricting the movement of Muslim immigrants.
Checks and balances, right?
The President is part of the Executive Branch. There is also the Legislative Branch, which consists of Congress (the House and Senate). Currently Congress is controlled by Republicans. It's purely speculative right now but it looks as if that will continue due to the nature of how the system is rigged in their favor. Also speculative is whether or not House and Senate Republicans would rebel against President Trump. My guess? They would fall in line rather than advance the party schism.
There is also the Judicial Branch, and the most relevant part of that to Donald Trump is the Supreme Court. Given the President nominates new SCOTUS Justices, and it's likely a President Trump would be able to nominate at least 2 or 3 new Justices, I wouldn't count on the SCOTUS checking or balancing Trump either.
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Yeah it's a super heavily moderated forum. Years ago Aneurythmia managed to lurk enough on stormfront to aquire posting privileges and was promptly banned just for asking questions.
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea about the amount of power the President has. Surely if Trump wins, there are other branches of government that could stop decisions such as his wall on the border and restricting the movement of Muslim immigrants.
Checks and balances, right?
Yes. The President can't just order the wall built by fiat and not have a way to pay for it. It would need to go through Congress. Our congress is filled with republicans though. The House would be all for building a wall, and the senators might have to go along with it as well or risk getting kicked out in their primaries by Teaparty people.
And to be totally honest, they would much rather build a wall than actually stop Mexican immigration. To do that, they would have to crack down on business owners who hire illegal aliens. It's hard to pretend you're pro small business owners when you're sending them to federal prison on the regular. Our problem with illegals pretty much begins and ends with the fact that business owners like being able to pay them slave wages for back breaking and/or dangerous work.
But building a wall sure sounds (like a) nice (waste of money) doesn't it?
I chose to ignore your point because it's not based on anything. None of the things you said would lead anyone to the conclusion that Sanders would suddenly start paying so much more attention for some reason, while Clinton would pay less. I get it, you support a particular candidate, and thus believe they would thrive in ways their opponent would not, but you're ignoring basically everything else along the way in order to make your point. It's a wholly faith based argument.
There also seems to be this perception, not just with you, that Clinton sees this whole thing as the fucking Highlander. That once she wins 'The Prize,' that's it, and she can just lay back and relax. This is also something that doesn't really scan with what we know of her, considering she was basically bar none the most active First Lady to ever hold that role to date.
EDIT: I'm a pretty damn heavy Sanders supporter, but let's not suddenly raise him to Great White Hope just yet. There's no reason to attribute hypothetical feats of strength to someone when we haven't even seen him express interest in mid-term races aside from his own before.
Alright, you're not paying attention. So for the third time. I never said Clinton would do less than what she has done.I specifically said she would do what she typically has done.
Sanders has also never run for President before, and never been nationally known before, or hell even run as a Democrat before. I am not trying to 1:1 compare Senator Sanders to a potential President Sanders because that would be foolish. He's the same person but in two completely different situations with drastically different resources and influences at his disposal.
I'm not trying to paint him as the savior of the midterm elections, I just think that one thing he would do, that isn't typically done is try to motivate people to vote in the midterms period. Not stump for specific candidates, though I'm not saying he wouldn't, but speak directly to the American people in general about the importance of the midterm vote.
I think this because like I said he's a very blunt person. I think President Sanders would be a unique experience in how frank and openly he spoke to the American people about what was going on and what could and couldn't be done with congress and why. Which naturally would lead into the importance of changing congress to achieve goals because why the fuck wouldn't it with someone like that? It's just the logical extension of his demeanor.
Also, you have no idea who I'm supporting today or in the general so stop assuming you do.
"The Republicans did not win the midterm election in November," the senator said. "The Democrats lost that election because voter turnout was abysmally low, and millions of working people, minorities and young people gave up on politics as usual and stayed home."
"With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual," he continued. "The same old, same old will not be successful."
He said all this while standing mere steps from DWS.
The idea that Sanders will pursue more aggressive midterm turnout isn't coming from nowhere.
"The Republicans did not win the midterm election in November," the senator said. "The Democrats lost that election because voter turnout was abysmally low, and millions of working people, minorities and young people gave up on politics as usual and stayed home."
"With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual," he continued. "The same old, same old will not be successful."
He said all this while standing mere steps from DWS.
The idea that Sanders will pursue more aggressive midterm turnout isn't coming from nowhere.
The background here is that the Democratic Party used to invest massive energy in local races, but it largely did so through proxies like unions and student organizations. The GOP lacked these natural ins, so they built alliances with churches and began building official infrastructure in every state with paid staffing. Some of this was accomplished through the network of donor organizations, think tanks, and other organizations the conservative movement developed in the post-Vietnam era.
In the meantime, union membership fell and student participation in politics waned. The Democrats were left with anemic local organizations while the GOP had paid staffers that could literally work every state-level and many local level races in every state.
To offset that loss in local organization, the wing of Democrats that produced the Clintons advocated increased reliance on donors and national fund-raising - partially because these networks are all top down and thus easy to coordinate messaging and make sure the right people are in charge.
There have been multiple attempts - Howard Dean's being the most famous - to build a Democratic version of the GOP's national network, but the Clinton wing is firmly opposed to the effort. Obama backed Dean's ideas during his initial run, but he dropped them during his first term when he brought in a ton of Clinton-era hands to manage his Administration.
So, Sanders and Clinton going toe-to-toe on this is like Round 8 of this argument. While the on-the-ground organization is the rope they keep tugging, the real debate is whether the party should primarily focus on state-level officials and on-the-ground volunteers or major corporate and individual donors.
0
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
"The Republicans did not win the midterm election in November," the senator said. "The Democrats lost that election because voter turnout was abysmally low, and millions of working people, minorities and young people gave up on politics as usual and stayed home."
"With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual," he continued. "The same old, same old will not be successful."
He said all this while standing mere steps from DWS.
The idea that Sanders will pursue more aggressive midterm turnout isn't coming from nowhere.
Okay cool that's what I was wondering, thanks
Hopefully that's another thing Clinton will crib from Sanders
It's actually the reason I voted for Sanders. Hillary is losing the youth vote by huge margins and I have serious doubts about her ability to excite them into voting during the midterms. It's vital we have a Democratic President in the current political climate, and it's arguably even more important to retake Congress.
Well, maybe that's the pot of gold at the end of the tunnel
HRC gets the presidency, Bernie puts that extra cash on cheerleading voter turnout.
Not for me. If Hillary has to win, then the pot of gold would be her adopting more progressive stances and being more than a placeholder for her tenure in office. If she tries the Triangulation tactics with this congress that her husband did with his, we're screwed.
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
At this point the only reason I have not decided between the two is that many of the Bernie supporters on the internet have soured me. None of you guys mind.
If the Democrats are going to be a big tent party they need to figure out ways to bring Millennials/Gen X/Busters/etc. into the fold and stop paying disproportionate respect to Boomers
+12
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
It's vital we have a Democratic President in the current political climate, and it's arguably even more important to retake Congress.
I think congress is absolutely more important in the long run "effecting positive societal change" sort of way but that the presidency is more important in the immediate "lets not light the car on fire and drive it off a cliff" sense
And for that short term goal I think clinton and sanders are both perfectly fine, for the long term I'm not sure which I think would be more effective but I hope both of them work on getting their respective groups to turn out regardless of the primary
It's vital we have a Democratic President in the current political climate, and it's arguably even more important to retake Congress.
I think congress is absolutely more important in the long run "effecting positive societal change" sort of way but that the presidency is more important in the immediate "lets not light the car on fire and drive it off a cliff" sense
And for that short term goal I think clinton and sanders are both perfectly fine, for the long term I'm not sure which I think would be more effective but I hope both of them work on getting their respective groups to turn out regardless of the primary
For sure yeah, I could still be happy with Hillary.
The Democrats stopped being the party of ideas though and has become the party of not letting Republicans blow it all up. That's about all that can be expected until we retake Congress but I still want those big ideas pitched. "We will keep the status quo instead of regressing to the Stone Age" is important but it's not exactly thrilling.
+2
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
If the Democrats are going to be a big tent party they need to figure out ways to bring Millennials/Gen X/Busters/etc. into the fold and stop paying disproportionate respect to Boomers
Sure, but there are other components to that victory like turning out the African American vote, which Sanders is abysmally performing with.
It's vital we have a Democratic President in the current political climate, and it's arguably even more important to retake Congress.
I think congress is absolutely more important in the long run "effecting positive societal change" sort of way but that the presidency is more important in the immediate "lets not light the car on fire and drive it off a cliff" sense
And for that short term goal I think clinton and sanders are both perfectly fine, for the long term I'm not sure which I think would be more effective but I hope both of them work on getting their respective groups to turn out regardless of the primary
For sure yeah, I could still be happy with Hillary.
The Democrats stopped being the party of ideas though and has become the party of not letting Republicans blow it all up. That's about all that can be expected until we retake Congress but I still want those big ideas pitched. "We will keep the status quo instead of regressing to the Stone Age" is important but it's not exactly thrilling.
It also doesn't seem to work for activating the base on the left. W. getting his second term was the nail in the coffin to the strategy of vote against X in my mind. We need to excite and inspire people. You have to give the left something to vote for, or they stay home.
If the Democrats are going to be a big tent party they need to figure out ways to bring Millennials/Gen X/Busters/etc. into the fold and stop paying disproportionate respect to Boomers
Sure, but there are other components to that victory like turning out the African American vote, which Sanders is abysmally performing with.
I think the black vote is more because of how much they love Hillary than it is that they hate Sanders.
But yeah, it's a major problem for Sanders. If he had been successful at winning them over he absolutely would be winning the primaries.
Honestly regardless of which one of them is the next President they should just resign their selves to the fact that nothing they want to do will be possible for the first two years at least. Once elected the only purpose the next President has should be to highlight the opposition in Congress.
I think one of Obama's biggest failings was that everybody fucking loved stump speech and campaign Obama, because he's pure excitement and charisma, but nobody got excited for slow speaking, cold, above it all, executive Obama. He rarely seemed anything but toothless in the face of congressional opposition in his insistence on taking the highest of the high roads while the Republicans were as dirty dealing and disingenuous as fuck with constant slander, lies, and misdirection.
Now I'm not saying he should have done that, but he should have been more outraged about it and confronted it directly instead of pretending that actual real compromises were going on or that they had any intention of operating in good faith. He should have been saying "Hey, these people are the ones keeping stuff from being done, and they've got to go. If you want real change, it starts with Congress."
It is just unbearably depressing how many times I have to come face to face with the realization that most general people don't understand that the President is largely helpless in the face of an opposing Congress and that the House and the Senate are where what actually happens is determined. So many times I've had to correct and educate people that say "Well Obama just didn't do anything." as if all he had to do was say "So let it be written, so let it be done." and then shit happened.
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea about the amount of power the President has. Surely if Trump wins, there are other branches of government that could stop decisions such as his wall on the border and restricting the movement of Muslim immigrants.
Honestly regardless of which one of them is the next President they should just resign their selves to the fact that nothing they want to do will be possible for the first two years at least. Once elected the only purpose the next President has should be to highlight the opposition in Congress.
I think one of Obama's biggest failings was that everybody fucking loved stump speech and campaign Obama, because he's pure excitement and charisma, but nobody got excited for slow speaking, cold, above it all, executive Obama. He rarely seemed anything but toothless in the face of congressional opposition in his insistence on taking the highest of the high roads while the Republicans were as dirty dealing and disingenuous as fuck with constant slander, lies, and misdirection.
Now I'm not saying he should have done that, but he should have been more outraged about it and confronted it directly instead of pretending that actual real compromises were going on or that they had any intention of operating in good faith. He should have been saying "Hey, these people are the ones keeping stuff from being done, and they've got to go. If you want real change, it starts with Congress."
It is just unbearably depressing how many times I have to come face to face with the realization that most general people don't understand that the President is largely helpless in the face of an opposing Congress and that the House and the Senate are where what actually happens is determined. So many times I've had to correct and educate people that say "Well Obama just didn't do anything." as if all he had to do was say "So let it be written, so let it be done." and then shit happened.
Truman's presidency was centered around a long and direct assault on a "do nothing" Congress. This was still a de-escalation in rhetoric from FDR, who often got what he wanted by turning the public on Congress.
I think Obama saw what was coming and wanted to settle things down, try to rebuild the working relationship that existed in the 80s and 90s. He also got off-track by listening to the establishment voices. The columnists and talk show hosts at the time were all on the "Tip (O'Neil) and Ronnie (Reagan) had a drink together every night" bullshit, and the political professionals in D.C. remain the only group in America who actually listens to what the pundits have to say.
It's honestly hard to say that he was 100 percent wrong. I doubt the American people would have approved if he had gone into the White House and immediately gone on the offensive against the GOP, but I don't think he calculated the extent that his offered hand would be rejected or that the ways he compromised to make those peace offerings would demotivate his base.
I'm looking forward to one of the biggest parties in a decade.
Lots of beautiful people looking fresh as hell getting up to some revelry when Trump loses the general
Posts
I have news to report!
Democrats Abroad, an organization for us expats that are Democrats can use to organize and vote through, is holding a Global Primary right now! It's set to run from March 1st (today) through to March 8th! And any registered members of Democrats Abroad can vote in these primaries and have our votes count towards the Democrats Abroad delegates for the convention. We aren't able to vote in our homestate primaries, but for most people, that' ok! becuase our votes as expats actually count more, since we have more delegates and less population.
Fun fact! The number of American Expats is actually the 12th largest population in the US! So basically, expats make up the 12th most populous state in the country! Although that's counting all Expats and not just Democrats.
Republicans Abroad is a 527 and not an actual organization and they do not have the ability to vote in any primaries, either a global primary or in most cases (and i think all) cannot vote as absentees for their home primaries either. At least not in any sort of organized fashion that I'm aware of. Yay voter enfranchisement.
SO! That's the background, the news part of it is that last night at midnight in the capitol city of Wellington, New Zealand, a small primary gathering was held and the votes were cast! Democrats Abroad New Zealand cleverly named the party DANZville Notch, after the midnight voting town in New Hampshire Dixville's Notch (parodied on The West Wing as Hartsfields Landing). The voting started at Midnight and ended shortly thereafter, as there were only 27 hardcore folks there.
And the results:
Sanders 21
Clinton 6
Now this is just from the voting center last night. There was another voting center set up today in both Wellington and Auckland, as well as another day to vote in Auckland set up on March 5th. Ballots can also be filled out and emailed/posted/faxed in to the Democrats Abroad organization (or your local chapters) to be counted as they go through.
So those are not the final results of the Global Primary, which is going on until March 8th, but they are the results of our very own Super tuesday Midnight voting!
If you know anybody that is an American living abroad who may want to vote in this global Primary, or needs help getting their absentee ballots for November, or even just wants to maybe connect with other Democrat Party-minded people in their countries, then these are some important links to have
https://www.votefromabroad.org/vote/home.htm
http://www.democratsabroad.org/
If anybody has any questions about how it works being an Expat and voting abroad or anything, please just ask me. If I don't know the answer, I know the powerful people to ask and get the answer!
Voting is important! Voting is a right and an obligation for every US citizen! Even if you're not at home to do so, you can still vote!
Rawr civic duty! rawr new mummy is so tired and not thinking straight!
But seriously, vote! It's important! There should be nothing to stand in your way!
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I'm just cynical enough to assume otherwise
Especially since CU was a ruling against her in the first place.
He's a such a miserable little piece of shit, I don't even understand how he keeps his job. Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard fucking idiot but he has presence, Tucker is a snivelling little worm with zero charisma whatsoever.
i was thinking about using this as the theme song for the thread and now i kinda regret not using it.
yakkety sax is a great choice, but man do i love me some NOFX
Maybe the Secret Service were the ones that asked them to leave not me.
But then that makes sense so I would say something else over the top and out of the ring in the parking lot kind of answer
I'm not talking about stumping for candidates, you've missed my point entirely.
Also you're comparing unknown independent senator Sanders with newly elected President Sanders as if both of these people have the same ability to put the national spotlight on specific issues. Or that they'd do the same thing during midterms as if running for President has no implication that you have decided to change things yourself.
What you've said right here. This is the entire problem. You're thinking of the "typical" thing, which I've already said Clinton would do. You are also under the impression I said she'd stop doing it, which I never did.
Like has he talked about how important mid term elections are in the past or something?
I think he's doing an amazing job. Not to mention the way he's out earning all of the other campaigns from massive small donations that don't stop coming is mind boggling. There seems to be more of a genuine effort by people to get involved when it comes to his campaign.
I don't think he'd take that for granted in off year elections.
He's also a very blunt person and I do think he'd be different in being very open in press conferences about what's standing in our way congressionally when it comes to the types of reforms he would have been elected to pass.
There also seems to be this perception, not just with you, that Clinton sees this whole thing as the fucking Highlander. That once she wins 'The Prize,' that's it, and she can just lay back and relax. This is also something that doesn't really scan with what we know of her, considering she was basically bar none the most active First Lady to ever hold that role to date.
EDIT: I'm a pretty damn heavy Sanders supporter, but let's not suddenly raise him to Great White Hope just yet. There's no reason to attribute hypothetical feats of strength to someone when we haven't even seen him express interest in mid-term races aside from his own before.
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea about the amount of power the President has. Surely if Trump wins, there are other branches of government that could stop decisions such as his wall on the border and restricting the movement of Muslim immigrants.
Checks and balances, right?
Part of the problem we have right now is that the Legislative branch is essentially not doing anything, so this sort of reliance on regular order is futile.
if Trump wins, R also probably wins the Senate, and they will get the House no matter what because gerrymandering. And then he starts appointing SCOTUS justices as they start dying/retiring.
The President is part of the Executive Branch. There is also the Legislative Branch, which consists of Congress (the House and Senate). Currently Congress is controlled by Republicans. It's purely speculative right now but it looks as if that will continue due to the nature of how the system is rigged in their favor. Also speculative is whether or not House and Senate Republicans would rebel against President Trump. My guess? They would fall in line rather than advance the party schism.
There is also the Judicial Branch, and the most relevant part of that to Donald Trump is the Supreme Court. Given the President nominates new SCOTUS Justices, and it's likely a President Trump would be able to nominate at least 2 or 3 new Justices, I wouldn't count on the SCOTUS checking or balancing Trump either.
Yeah it's a super heavily moderated forum. Years ago Aneurythmia managed to lurk enough on stormfront to aquire posting privileges and was promptly banned just for asking questions.
Yes. The President can't just order the wall built by fiat and not have a way to pay for it. It would need to go through Congress. Our congress is filled with republicans though. The House would be all for building a wall, and the senators might have to go along with it as well or risk getting kicked out in their primaries by Teaparty people.
And to be totally honest, they would much rather build a wall than actually stop Mexican immigration. To do that, they would have to crack down on business owners who hire illegal aliens. It's hard to pretend you're pro small business owners when you're sending them to federal prison on the regular. Our problem with illegals pretty much begins and ends with the fact that business owners like being able to pay them slave wages for back breaking and/or dangerous work.
But building a wall sure sounds (like a) nice (waste of money) doesn't it?
Alright, you're not paying attention. So for the third time. I never said Clinton would do less than what she has done.I specifically said she would do what she typically has done.
Sanders has also never run for President before, and never been nationally known before, or hell even run as a Democrat before. I am not trying to 1:1 compare Senator Sanders to a potential President Sanders because that would be foolish. He's the same person but in two completely different situations with drastically different resources and influences at his disposal.
I'm not trying to paint him as the savior of the midterm elections, I just think that one thing he would do, that isn't typically done is try to motivate people to vote in the midterms period. Not stump for specific candidates, though I'm not saying he wouldn't, but speak directly to the American people in general about the importance of the midterm vote.
I think this because like I said he's a very blunt person. I think President Sanders would be a unique experience in how frank and openly he spoke to the American people about what was going on and what could and couldn't be done with congress and why. Which naturally would lead into the importance of changing congress to achieve goals because why the fuck wouldn't it with someone like that? It's just the logical extension of his demeanor.
Also, you have no idea who I'm supporting today or in the general so stop assuming you do.
He said all this while standing mere steps from DWS.
The idea that Sanders will pursue more aggressive midterm turnout isn't coming from nowhere.
The background here is that the Democratic Party used to invest massive energy in local races, but it largely did so through proxies like unions and student organizations. The GOP lacked these natural ins, so they built alliances with churches and began building official infrastructure in every state with paid staffing. Some of this was accomplished through the network of donor organizations, think tanks, and other organizations the conservative movement developed in the post-Vietnam era.
In the meantime, union membership fell and student participation in politics waned. The Democrats were left with anemic local organizations while the GOP had paid staffers that could literally work every state-level and many local level races in every state.
To offset that loss in local organization, the wing of Democrats that produced the Clintons advocated increased reliance on donors and national fund-raising - partially because these networks are all top down and thus easy to coordinate messaging and make sure the right people are in charge.
There have been multiple attempts - Howard Dean's being the most famous - to build a Democratic version of the GOP's national network, but the Clinton wing is firmly opposed to the effort. Obama backed Dean's ideas during his initial run, but he dropped them during his first term when he brought in a ton of Clinton-era hands to manage his Administration.
So, Sanders and Clinton going toe-to-toe on this is like Round 8 of this argument. While the on-the-ground organization is the rope they keep tugging, the real debate is whether the party should primarily focus on state-level officials and on-the-ground volunteers or major corporate and individual donors.
Okay cool that's what I was wondering, thanks
Hopefully that's another thing Clinton will crib from Sanders
HRC gets the presidency, Bernie puts that extra cash on cheerleading voter turnout.
Not for me. If Hillary has to win, then the pot of gold would be her adopting more progressive stances and being more than a placeholder for her tenure in office. If she tries the Triangulation tactics with this congress that her husband did with his, we're screwed.
They were decisive for Barack Obama's victories
If the Democrats are going to be a big tent party they need to figure out ways to bring Millennials/Gen X/Busters/etc. into the fold and stop paying disproportionate respect to Boomers
And for that short term goal I think clinton and sanders are both perfectly fine, for the long term I'm not sure which I think would be more effective but I hope both of them work on getting their respective groups to turn out regardless of the primary
For sure yeah, I could still be happy with Hillary.
The Democrats stopped being the party of ideas though and has become the party of not letting Republicans blow it all up. That's about all that can be expected until we retake Congress but I still want those big ideas pitched. "We will keep the status quo instead of regressing to the Stone Age" is important but it's not exactly thrilling.
Sure, but there are other components to that victory like turning out the African American vote, which Sanders is abysmally performing with.
It also doesn't seem to work for activating the base on the left. W. getting his second term was the nail in the coffin to the strategy of vote against X in my mind. We need to excite and inspire people. You have to give the left something to vote for, or they stay home.
I think the black vote is more because of how much they love Hillary than it is that they hate Sanders.
But yeah, it's a major problem for Sanders. If he had been successful at winning them over he absolutely would be winning the primaries.
I think one of Obama's biggest failings was that everybody fucking loved stump speech and campaign Obama, because he's pure excitement and charisma, but nobody got excited for slow speaking, cold, above it all, executive Obama. He rarely seemed anything but toothless in the face of congressional opposition in his insistence on taking the highest of the high roads while the Republicans were as dirty dealing and disingenuous as fuck with constant slander, lies, and misdirection.
Now I'm not saying he should have done that, but he should have been more outraged about it and confronted it directly instead of pretending that actual real compromises were going on or that they had any intention of operating in good faith. He should have been saying "Hey, these people are the ones keeping stuff from being done, and they've got to go. If you want real change, it starts with Congress."
It is just unbearably depressing how many times I have to come face to face with the realization that most general people don't understand that the President is largely helpless in the face of an opposing Congress and that the House and the Senate are where what actually happens is determined. So many times I've had to correct and educate people that say "Well Obama just didn't do anything." as if all he had to do was say "So let it be written, so let it be done." and then shit happened.
Only if they wanted to.
Truman's presidency was centered around a long and direct assault on a "do nothing" Congress. This was still a de-escalation in rhetoric from FDR, who often got what he wanted by turning the public on Congress.
I think Obama saw what was coming and wanted to settle things down, try to rebuild the working relationship that existed in the 80s and 90s. He also got off-track by listening to the establishment voices. The columnists and talk show hosts at the time were all on the "Tip (O'Neil) and Ronnie (Reagan) had a drink together every night" bullshit, and the political professionals in D.C. remain the only group in America who actually listens to what the pundits have to say.
It's honestly hard to say that he was 100 percent wrong. I doubt the American people would have approved if he had gone into the White House and immediately gone on the offensive against the GOP, but I don't think he calculated the extent that his offered hand would be rejected or that the ways he compromised to make those peace offerings would demotivate his base.
Lots of beautiful people looking fresh as hell getting up to some revelry when Trump loses the general