It would be so hilarious if Trump squeaks by a win for the GOP nom, and BAM Hilary gets hit with an indictment/criminal charges and we get Trump for Prez.
It would be so hilarious if Trump squeaks by a win for the GOP nom, and BAM Hilary gets hit with an indictment/criminal charges and we get Trump for Prez.
I think people just want to be offended by Trump. He's actually a good guy.
... which is a core part of why we're voting for her. I think most of us have made it very clear that we don't want someone as progressive as Bernie and don't think that he can accomplish what we need in our country.
Like, we live all of these politics being thrown around, every day. Those of us who support Hillary don't think that Bernie is best for the country that we see around us in a constant state of imbalance and tension. We don't think that his policies are ideal for the current economic and political climate. Many of us don't think that his primary focuses of the wage gap and campaign finance are actually appropriate as his only main points. Many of us know that his plans for the banks would do nothing and that his plans for healthcare would be an impossible legal feat that would essentially destroy Obamacare to build it from the ground up.
Political views exist on a spectrum from conservative to liberal, not from wrong to right. Being more progressive isn't always equivalent to being more right, or more enlightened, and that's the basis on which a lot of Bernie supporters seem to exist. The only time I think that's true is with social policy - race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, it's not always "progressive = right."
When we talk about socialism, even brought about through a democratic process as Bernie advocates, we're talking about a complex political ideology that has existed for over a century. It has been attempted in many places, to highly varying degrees of success. It rarely works in practice how it works on paper - it is idealist, and it is a vulnerable system. Democratic socialism doesn't even have a solid definition, though Bernie's brand of it seems to basically just be socialism that needs establishment through a democratic process.
Now this brings us to another problem: the opposition. We all talk about who would negotiate better with the Republican party, particularly if they maintain a majority but not the Presidency, and I think that the conversation ignores some things. The Republicans will be vehemently opposed to absolutely every proposal that Sanders has put forth. His healthcare plan would never fly in a country in which the GOP has tried to repeal the current, less progressive plan sixty-seven times; his plans for breaking up the big banks, aside from being rather pointless, would never fly; a $15 minimum wage would be viewed as completely ludicrous, and many Democrats don't even agree with it; the list goes on. Having a more moderate nominee would seem to be more effective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it would be far easier to defend the Affordable Care Act than to push an even more progressive system; raising the minimum wage is much more likely if it's to a lower, but still adequate, number. The woman in question also has considerable experience in negotiating and compromising to pass bipartisan legislation, something that literally could not happen with Bernie's promises.
Then we finally get to electability. We have quite a lot of people peddling the notion that Bernie is more electable - but does that really even make sense? Aside from the fact that polls tell a new story about that issue every other week, most recently showing Hillary to have better chances in the general, the idea of Bernie being more electable is short-sighted and dangerous. Bernie isn't mention nearly as much - hell, nearly at all - in GOP speeches, debates, and social media posts. It's all Hillary, it's all attacks on Hillary, and it's all targeting her as a politician and as a person. Bernie is not yet a victim of that level of scrutiny or attack - and that has a significant impact on the general election. When the general election comes, if he is the nominee, Republicans will be absolutely merciless. They will paint him as a radical socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle and upper classes (he wants to do both), fund free college education with money that we simply do not have, destabilize the economy by breaking up important financial institutions, and cost the government millions in totally reworking healthcare. You and I might know that's an exaggeration, but does the general American citizen? I mean, it's been proven that not all people even have a solid idea of who he is - there's plenty of capacity for his numbers in the general to decline. Additionally, he's not a good debater, he's not as experienced as Hillary in foreign policy and thus will lack that advantage, lacks the minority vote so far... there are plenty of issues with him in the general, and we need to stop acting like he has an astronomically better shot there. In all reality, he probably has a worse shot given his low establishment support (fundraising, publicity, etc.) and his excessive focus on ideals that the general American likely will not want. Him being more progressive may actually hurt him quite a bit in the general election.
Ultimately, the fact that Hillary isn't as "progressive" as Bernie is a huge part of why she receives so much support. There are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a more progressive candidate being a good idea. I am a citizen of the United States who wants to get through college with as little debt as possible; who wants to make a reasonable living wage throughout my life; who wants reliable access to healthcare no matter what my economic circumstances. I want plenty of other things that both candidates propose, but to put any of these things at risk is not acceptable to me. That's a big part of why I support Hillary - I will not be responsible for putting at risk any of the things that I consider essential to a good life for myself and the rest of my country.
That's my soap for the day (hope I didn't come of as "smug," since I was only laying out my actual personal views and thoughts). I only typed a literal essay because I really think that the issue of progressiveness is something we need to talk about seriously and not trivialize or paint as the only acceptable mode of operation. Maybe - just maybe - the most progressive candidate is not what we need right now. And a lot of Hillary supporters have been saying that for a long time. It's something she acknowledged, to pretty wide support, when she said she's "a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done."
Nice post, speaking as a Bernie supporter. You have a good point on the general election electibility of Sanders. But I still think that when faced with a choice of Bernie or Trump, with the way Trump is portrayed (or portrays himself) as an unreasonable, egotistical xenophobe, more would be inclined to vote for Sanders, no matter how much mud flinging the gop does at him. But yeah, general election polls should be taken with a grain of salt at this point.
I guess I'm just one of the idealistic people. A Bernie presidency could either be great (he manages to reason with Congress, things get passed) or terrible. Given his history of getting things passed as a congressman and his markedly bold/dogged attitude towards the things he wants done, I'm ok taking my chances. Hillary feels like such a same old/establishment candidate to me, as I'm sure she does to most of his supporters.
It would be so hilarious if Trump squeaks by a win for the GOP nom, and BAM Hilary gets hit with an indictment/criminal charges and we get Trump for Prez.
I don't know about "squeaks by" tho - I think we're more or less going to know whether Trump is the "inevitable" GOP nominee very soon. If he manages to win Iowa, I think he'll sweep February (it's the only state where the polls are close). If he can do that, there's a good chance he'll mostly or entirely sweep Super Tuesday, and that will essentially mean he has it wrapped up.
The Sarah Palin vine i keep seeing on my timeline, where she's screaming sth about about "right-wingin, bible-clingin"
Can't believe she's a real person. I want to watch the whole speech now.
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 2m2 minutes ago
IMO, GOP party elites are wrong here, but fact they think like this makes me way less skeptical of Trump's chances. http://nyti.ms/1JYBg5q
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 53m53 minutes ago
Our polls-plus forecast in N.H.:
Trump 40% chance of winning
Rubio 16%
Kasich 14%
Cruz 13%
Bush 8%
Christie 6%
The Sarah Palin vine i keep seeing on my timeline, where she's screaming sth about about "right-wingin, bible-clingin"
Can't believe she's a real person. I want to watch the whole speech now.
The Alaskan Classic coming to a record store near you
I agree that was a very well-written post by Retro
I'm still gonna go with the guy who champions my cause no matter how much people think Hillary is going to be able to settle with politicians of all different stances. Bernie's also more progressive, which to me is more important than anything.
I also stand by the ideology that compromise would be much less damaging when you lay out your agenda on the far left initially; Republicans will always have something to protest, so if Hillary starts laying out moderately-liberal schemes, she'll get dragged far more to the right than Bernie would. Furthermore, Bernie's consistency and authenticity gives him a far bigger advantage over any presidential candidate imo.
Like I said many times before, I'd be happy with either of them taking office, but I do have a preference for Bernie.
... which is a core part of why we're voting for her. I think most of us have made it very clear that we don't want someone as progressive as Bernie and don't think that he can accomplish what we need in our country.
Like, we live all of these politics being thrown around, every day. Those of us who support Hillary don't think that Bernie is best for the country that we see around us in a constant state of imbalance and tension. We don't think that his policies are ideal for the current economic and political climate. Many of us don't think that his primary focuses of the wage gap and campaign finance are actually appropriate as his only main points. Many of us know that his plans for the banks would do nothing and that his plans for healthcare would be an impossible legal feat that would essentially destroy Obamacare to build it from the ground up.
Political views exist on a spectrum from conservative to liberal, not from wrong to right. Being more progressive isn't always equivalent to being more right, or more enlightened, and that's the basis on which a lot of Bernie supporters seem to exist. The only time I think that's true is with social policy - race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, it's not always "progressive = right."
When we talk about socialism, even brought about through a democratic process as Bernie advocates, we're talking about a complex political ideology that has existed for over a century. It has been attempted in many places, to highly varying degrees of success. It rarely works in practice how it works on paper - it is idealist, and it is a vulnerable system. Democratic socialism doesn't even have a solid definition, though Bernie's brand of it seems to basically just be socialism that needs establishment through a democratic process.
Now this brings us to another problem: the opposition. We all talk about who would negotiate better with the Republican party, particularly if they maintain a majority but not the Presidency, and I think that the conversation ignores some things. The Republicans will be vehemently opposed to absolutely every proposal that Sanders has put forth. His healthcare plan would never fly in a country in which the GOP has tried to repeal the current, less progressive plan sixty-seven times; his plans for breaking up the big banks, aside from being rather pointless, would never fly; a $15 minimum wage would be viewed as completely ludicrous, and many Democrats don't even agree with it; the list goes on. Having a more moderate nominee would seem to be more effective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it would be far easier to defend the Affordable Care Act than to push an even more progressive system; raising the minimum wage is much more likely if it's to a lower, but still adequate, number. The woman in question also has considerable experience in negotiating and compromising to pass bipartisan legislation, something that literally could not happen with Bernie's promises.
Then we finally get to electability. We have quite a lot of people peddling the notion that Bernie is more electable - but does that really even make sense? Aside from the fact that polls tell a new story about that issue every other week, most recently showing Hillary to have better chances in the general, the idea of Bernie being more electable is short-sighted and dangerous. Bernie isn't mention nearly as much - hell, nearly at all - in GOP speeches, debates, and social media posts. It's all Hillary, it's all attacks on Hillary, and it's all targeting her as a politician and as a person. Bernie is not yet a victim of that level of scrutiny or attack - and that has a significant impact on the general election. When the general election comes, if he is the nominee, Republicans will be absolutely merciless. They will paint him as a radical socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle and upper classes (he wants to do both), fund free college education with money that we simply do not have, destabilize the economy by breaking up important financial institutions, and cost the government millions in totally reworking healthcare. You and I might know that's an exaggeration, but does the general American citizen? I mean, it's been proven that not all people even have a solid idea of who he is - there's plenty of capacity for his numbers in the general to decline. Additionally, he's not a good debater, he's not as experienced as Hillary in foreign policy and thus will lack that advantage, lacks the minority vote so far... there are plenty of issues with him in the general, and we need to stop acting like he has an astronomically better shot there. In all reality, he probably has a worse shot given his low establishment support (fundraising, publicity, etc.) and his excessive focus on ideals that the general American likely will not want. Him being more progressive may actually hurt him quite a bit in the general election.
Ultimately, the fact that Hillary isn't as "progressive" as Bernie is a huge part of why she receives so much support. There are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a more progressive candidate being a good idea. I am a citizen of the United States who wants to get through college with as little debt as possible; who wants to make a reasonable living wage throughout my life; who wants reliable access to healthcare no matter what my economic circumstances. I want plenty of other things that both candidates propose, but to put any of these things at risk is not acceptable to me. That's a big part of why I support Hillary - I will not be responsible for putting at risk any of the things that I consider essential to a good life for myself and the rest of my country.
That's my soap for the day (hope I didn't come of as "smug," since I was only laying out my actual personal views and thoughts). I only typed a literal essay because I really think that the issue of progressiveness is something we need to talk about seriously and not trivialize or paint as the only acceptable mode of operation. Maybe - just maybe - the most progressive candidate is not what we need right now. And a lot of Hillary supporters have been saying that for a long time. It's something she acknowledged, to pretty wide support, when she said she's "a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done."
This is why you're one of my favorite members. As a Bernie supporter, you point a lot of real issues that need to be addressed from Bernier's camp more directly (especially his relatively lackluster debate performances). Regardless of who's the Democratic nominee, I will be happy to vote for them.
... which is a core part of why we're voting for her. I think most of us have made it very clear that we don't want someone as progressive as Bernie and don't think that he can accomplish what we need in our country.
Like, we live all of these politics being thrown around, every day. Those of us who support Hillary don't think that Bernie is best for the country that we see around us in a constant state of imbalance and tension. We don't think that his policies are ideal for the current economic and political climate. Many of us don't think that his primary focuses of the wage gap and campaign finance are actually appropriate as his only main points. Many of us know that his plans for the banks would do nothing and that his plans for healthcare would be an impossible legal feat that would essentially destroy Obamacare to build it from the ground up.
Political views exist on a spectrum from conservative to liberal, not from wrong to right. Being more progressive isn't always equivalent to being more right, or more enlightened, and that's the basis on which a lot of Bernie supporters seem to exist. The only time I think that's true is with social policy - race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, it's not always "progressive = right."
When we talk about socialism, even brought about through a democratic process as Bernie advocates, we're talking about a complex political ideology that has existed for over a century. It has been attempted in many places, to highly varying degrees of success. It rarely works in practice how it works on paper - it is idealist, and it is a vulnerable system. Democratic socialism doesn't even have a solid definition, though Bernie's brand of it seems to basically just be socialism that needs establishment through a democratic process.
Now this brings us to another problem: the opposition. We all talk about who would negotiate better with the Republican party, particularly if they maintain a majority but not the Presidency, and I think that the conversation ignores some things. The Republicans will be vehemently opposed to absolutely every proposal that Sanders has put forth. His healthcare plan would never fly in a country in which the GOP has tried to repeal the current, less progressive plan sixty-seven times; his plans for breaking up the big banks, aside from being rather pointless, would never fly; a $15 minimum wage would be viewed as completely ludicrous, and many Democrats don't even agree with it; the list goes on. Having a more moderate nominee would seem to be more effective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it would be far easier to defend the Affordable Care Act than to push an even more progressive system; raising the minimum wage is much more likely if it's to a lower, but still adequate, number. The woman in question also has considerable experience in negotiating and compromising to pass bipartisan legislation, something that literally could not happen with Bernie's promises.
Then we finally get to electability. We have quite a lot of people peddling the notion that Bernie is more electable - but does that really even make sense? Aside from the fact that polls tell a new story about that issue every other week, most recently showing Hillary to have better chances in the general, the idea of Bernie being more electable is short-sighted and dangerous. Bernie isn't mention nearly as much - hell, nearly at all - in GOP speeches, debates, and social media posts. It's all Hillary, it's all attacks on Hillary, and it's all targeting her as a politician and as a person. Bernie is not yet a victim of that level of scrutiny or attack - and that has a significant impact on the general election. When the general election comes, if he is the nominee, Republicans will be absolutely merciless. They will paint him as a radical socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle and upper classes (he wants to do both), fund free college education with money that we simply do not have, destabilize the economy by breaking up important financial institutions, and cost the government millions in totally reworking healthcare. You and I might know that's an exaggeration, but does the general American citizen? I mean, it's been proven that not all people even have a solid idea of who he is - there's plenty of capacity for his numbers in the general to decline. Additionally, he's not a good debater, he's not as experienced as Hillary in foreign policy and thus will lack that advantage, lacks the minority vote so far... there are plenty of issues with him in the general, and we need to stop acting like he has an astronomically better shot there. In all reality, he probably has a worse shot given his low establishment support (fundraising, publicity, etc.) and his excessive focus on ideals that the general American likely will not want. Him being more progressive may actually hurt him quite a bit in the general election.
Ultimately, the fact that Hillary isn't as "progressive" as Bernie is a huge part of why she receives so much support. There are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a more progressive candidate being a good idea. I am a citizen of the United States who wants to get through college with as little debt as possible; who wants to make a reasonable living wage throughout my life; who wants reliable access to healthcare no matter what my economic circumstances. I want plenty of other things that both candidates propose, but to put any of these things at risk is not acceptable to me. That's a big part of why I support Hillary - I will not be responsible for putting at risk any of the things that I consider essential to a good life for myself and the rest of my country.
That's my soap for the day (hope I didn't come of as "smug," since I was only laying out my actual personal views and thoughts). I only typed a literal essay because I really think that the issue of progressiveness is something we need to talk about seriously and not trivialize or paint as the only acceptable mode of operation. Maybe - just maybe - the most progressive candidate is not what we need right now. And a lot of Hillary supporters have been saying that for a long time. It's something she acknowledged, to pretty wide support, when she said she's "a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done."
This! I can't fathom Bernie getting elected president & facing obstruction at every turn even worse than Obama.
Many of his proposals won't get through congress & even many democrats don't support some of them.
I'm voting for Hillary since she knows how to compromise & work with republicans in congress
to get legislation passed which she's proven throughout her political career.
I don't think it's been a candidate that's this experienced & prepared to be president in any time in recent history.
Plus I don't even pay attention to the hateful rhetoric coming from republicans about Hillary becomes when she's in office in any position she's attained they often say great things about her experience bringing the parties together to get things done.
When it comes to foreign policy we definitely need her in the white house
since she's highly skeptical of the Iranians following through on the deal.
I think many are unsure of the deal seeing as though Iran sponsors much terrorism in the region.
... which is a core part of why we're voting for her. I think most of us have made it very clear that we don't want someone as progressive as Bernie and don't think that he can accomplish what we need in our country.
Like, we live all of these politics being thrown around, every day. Those of us who support Hillary don't think that Bernie is best for the country that we see around us in a constant state of imbalance and tension. We don't think that his policies are ideal for the current economic and political climate. Many of us don't think that his primary focuses of the wage gap and campaign finance are actually appropriate as his only main points. Many of us know that his plans for the banks would do nothing and that his plans for healthcare would be an impossible legal feat that would essentially destroy Obamacare to build it from the ground up.
Political views exist on a spectrum from conservative to liberal, not from wrong to right. Being more progressive isn't always equivalent to being more right, or more enlightened, and that's the basis on which a lot of Bernie supporters seem to exist. The only time I think that's true is with social policy - race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, it's not always "progressive = right."
When we talk about socialism, even brought about through a democratic process as Bernie advocates, we're talking about a complex political ideology that has existed for over a century. It has been attempted in many places, to highly varying degrees of success. It rarely works in practice how it works on paper - it is idealist, and it is a vulnerable system. Democratic socialism doesn't even have a solid definition, though Bernie's brand of it seems to basically just be socialism that needs establishment through a democratic process.
Now this brings us to another problem: the opposition. We all talk about who would negotiate better with the Republican party, particularly if they maintain a majority but not the Presidency, and I think that the conversation ignores some things. The Republicans will be vehemently opposed to absolutely every proposal that Sanders has put forth. His healthcare plan would never fly in a country in which the GOP has tried to repeal the current, less progressive plan sixty-seven times; his plans for breaking up the big banks, aside from being rather pointless, would never fly; a $15 minimum wage would be viewed as completely ludicrous, and many Democrats don't even agree with it; the list goes on. Having a more moderate nominee would seem to be more effective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it would be far easier to defend the Affordable Care Act than to push an even more progressive system; raising the minimum wage is much more likely if it's to a lower, but still adequate, number. The woman in question also has considerable experience in negotiating and compromising to pass bipartisan legislation, something that literally could not happen with Bernie's promises.
Then we finally get to electability. We have quite a lot of people peddling the notion that Bernie is more electable - but does that really even make sense? Aside from the fact that polls tell a new story about that issue every other week, most recently showing Hillary to have better chances in the general, the idea of Bernie being more electable is short-sighted and dangerous. Bernie isn't mention nearly as much - hell, nearly at all - in GOP speeches, debates, and social media posts. It's all Hillary, it's all attacks on Hillary, and it's all targeting her as a politician and as a person. Bernie is not yet a victim of that level of scrutiny or attack - and that has a significant impact on the general election. When the general election comes, if he is the nominee, Republicans will be absolutely merciless. They will paint him as a radical socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle and upper classes (he wants to do both), fund free college education with money that we simply do not have, destabilize the economy by breaking up important financial institutions, and cost the government millions in totally reworking healthcare. You and I might know that's an exaggeration, but does the general American citizen? I mean, it's been proven that not all people even have a solid idea of who he is - there's plenty of capacity for his numbers in the general to decline. Additionally, he's not a good debater, he's not as experienced as Hillary in foreign policy and thus will lack that advantage, lacks the minority vote so far... there are plenty of issues with him in the general, and we need to stop acting like he has an astronomically better shot there. In all reality, he probably has a worse shot given his low establishment support (fundraising, publicity, etc.) and his excessive focus on ideals that the general American likely will not want. Him being more progressive may actually hurt him quite a bit in the general election.
Ultimately, the fact that Hillary isn't as "progressive" as Bernie is a huge part of why she receives so much support. There are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a more progressive candidate being a good idea. I am a citizen of the United States who wants to get through college with as little debt as possible; who wants to make a reasonable living wage throughout my life; who wants reliable access to healthcare no matter what my economic circumstances. I want plenty of other things that both candidates propose, but to put any of these things at risk is not acceptable to me. That's a big part of why I support Hillary - I will not be responsible for putting at risk any of the things that I consider essential to a good life for myself and the rest of my country.
That's my soap for the day (hope I didn't come of as "smug," since I was only laying out my actual personal views and thoughts). I only typed a literal essay because I really think that the issue of progressiveness is something we need to talk about seriously and not trivialize or paint as the only acceptable mode of operation. Maybe - just maybe - the most progressive candidate is not what we need right now. And a lot of Hillary supporters have been saying that for a long time. It's something she acknowledged, to pretty wide support, when she said she's "a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done."
.
