Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Democratic nomination 2016


  

21 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just want other candidates to be forced to talk about the issues that are driving Bernie Sanders' surging popularity.

Is that so wrong?

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want other candidates to be forced to talk about the issues that are driving Bernie Sanders' surging popularity.

Is that so wrong?

Yes....well managed campaigns don't let other candidates or mobs take them off message / strategy.

When Trump does as you suggest, he gets criticized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same could be said about Barak Obama. So what happened to Barak?

Your theory completely dismisses the fact that Hillary LOST last time around at it.

Perhaps Hillary is sticking around to keep the conservative democrats around.

WWWTT

Barack wasn't Bernie in 2008! Oh sure, a lot of people thought he was an insurgent populist left/liberal Democrat (even I did) becasue that's what the packaging told us was inside! The real truth was that Barack Obama realized very early on his political career that he had to play ball with the people who have the real power of deciding who wins/who fails....especially in Chicago politics! The first tipoff should have been how nebulous and carefully scripted the Hope and Change messages were when it came to details. Since all of the criticism was mostly coming from the right, nobody noticed that Obama's health care reform strategy was Hillarycare/ not expanding Medicare. Obama posed as a pacifist and made promises that were soon broken (closing Guantanamo, ending wars etc.) but even early on, his focus was all about ending the war in Iraq.....not Afghanistan....the right war!

Some very powerful people with lots of money...such as Penny Pritzker introduced Barry to other powerbrokers, who decided very early in the primary process to invest in The First Black President rather than The First Woman President....and the rest is history. Because, in spite of all of the hype about how skillfully the Obama campaign was using the internet as a grassroots organizing and fundraising tool, it was NOT small donations that filled the coffers of the Obama Campaign....it was largely Wall Street Bankers, who dumped so much money that Obama dropped out of the matching funding arrangement (and effectively killed it) that had been put in place as a reform tool to hold down political spending.

Why did so many important oligarchs within the Democratic Party establishment shift from brand - Hillary to brand - Barack? Hillary Clinton would have been a tried and true centrist Democrat, who....like her husband...would say the right soundbites to appeal to liberal voters, while doing as much as possible to please important contributors. Maybe they reasoned that Obama would be easier to control than Hillary...who as leader, might have tended to be too hands-on, rather than the kind of leader who would more or less do what the military brass asked for on foreign policy, and do what Wall Street wanted domestically.

One thing's for sure this time around - Bernie Sanders is not as leftist as advertised, but that still makes him too radical for the people with money that Bill Clinton brought in who took over the Democratic Party. Even if Bernie is able to raise enough of those small donations to keep financing a long, expensive grinding primary campaign, the deck is stacked in favour of who the Party leadership councils favour. If it's at all close on a count of pledged delegates on the first vote at the Convention, the party leadership is almost certain to have most of the never mentioned superdelegates' votes under their control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want other candidates to be forced to talk about the issues that are driving Bernie Sanders' surging popularity.

Is that so wrong?

-k

The problem is Bernie Sanders hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected. A lot of people might like what he says, but WAY more people hate what he says, and if Hillary embraces much of it they'll hate her too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is Bernie Sanders hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected. A lot of people might like what he says, but WAY more people hate what he says, and if Hillary embraces much of it they'll hate her too.

Do people really hate what Sanders says? The issues fueling his surge are:

-college affordability;

-Trans Pacific Partnership, and the completely non-transparent negotiations surrounding it;

-big money in politics, Citizens United;

-income inequality, the disproportionate amount of economic gains going straight to "the billionaire class";

-Wall Street regulation, finance industry reform.

I think these are actually issues that a lot of people from all across the political spectrum care about.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really hate what Sanders says? The issues fueling his surge are:

-college affordability;

-Trans Pacific Partnership, and the completely non-transparent negotiations surrounding it;

-big money in politics, Citizens United;

-income inequality, the disproportionate amount of economic gains going straight to "the billionaire class";

-Wall Street regulation, finance industry reform.

I think these are actually issues that a lot of people from all across the political spectrum care about.

-k

In 1972 he might have been able to win the Democratic primaries....but this is today, and big money runs the Democratic Party, and once again I have to point to this phenomena they created "super delegates" which was supposed to make the nomination process more democratic, but is an obvious tool that can be used by Party insiders to fix the process for the candidate they want.

My big question is WHY did Bernie promise to support the nominee at the Convention if he really holds fast and true to the principles you listed above? Donald Trump didn't promise to support the Republican nominee, why would Bernie promise in advance that he will support Hillary and suck all of the oxygen out of any chances for third party reformers to emphasize just how undemcratic America's election process actually is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really hate what Sanders says? The issues fueling his surge are:

-college affordability;

-Trans Pacific Partnership, and the completely non-transparent negotiations surrounding it;

-big money in politics, Citizens United;

-income inequality, the disproportionate amount of economic gains going straight to "the billionaire class";

-Wall Street regulation, finance industry reform.

I think these are actually issues that a lot of people from all across the political spectrum care about.

-k

Same talking points we keep hearing over every election from the past. Wonder when the leaders are ready for change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really hate what Sanders says? The issues fueling his surge are:

-Trans Pacific Partnership, and the completely non-transparent negotiations surrounding it;

Fair enough, but whipping up populist protectionism as he does only validates the elitist approach to treating people like a suspicious uneducated mob, rather than a public. If Sanders expects the government to be treated like a true public, then he should play his part in elevating the debate rather than handing out torches to the villagers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders will never get elected. Trump would whip him.

Not according to a CNN poll, which shows any of the democratic or potential democratic contenders beating Trump pretty easily, including Sanders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really hate what Sanders says? The issues fueling his surge are:

-college affordability;

-Trans Pacific Partnership, and the completely non-transparent negotiations surrounding it;

-big money in politics, Citizens United;

-income inequality, the disproportionate amount of economic gains going straight to "the billionaire class";

-Wall Street regulation, finance industry reform.

I think these are actually issues that a lot of people from all across the political spectrum care about.

-k

These don't sound like issues Hillary would avoid. They're all pretty much standard Democratic issues. Nobody can do much about money in politics, though, because it's protected by the US supreme court. And the overriding theme among the American electorate remains as it has been for the last thirty years - I don't want to pay any taxes for anything! So they're sure not going to welcome an avowed Socialist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's Hilary going to do about Wall Street? The billionaire class? She spends her time in the Hamptons rubbing elbows with those guys. Where's her SuperPAC going to get a billion dollars from if she does anything about that? Obama has had 8 years to do something about it, and the best they could do was Dodd-Frank, which has been steadily gutted since before the presidential ink even dried. And Obama's DoJ is responsible for journalists coining the phrase "too big to jail".

What's Hilary going to say about Trans Pacific Partnership? She spent years flying around the world promoting it to foreign governments. She can say she's concerned about it now, but that would be kind of like Grand Moff Tarkin saying he's concerned about Alderaan's ecological condition.

For the past 8 years, the Democrats' policy on college affordability has been to make it easier for students to borrow more money, so that colleges can keep raising tuition. Does Hilary have something fresh up her sleeve on that front? Maybe she's saving it for closer to the election.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's Hilary going to do about Wall Street? The billionaire class? She spends her time in the Hamptons rubbing elbows with those guys. Where's her SuperPAC going to get a billion dollars from if she does anything about that?

Obama has had 8 years to do something about it, and the best they could do was Dodd-Frank, which has been steadily gutted since before the presidential ink even dried. And Obama's DoJ is responsible for journalists coining the phrase "too big to jail".

True. So what do you want her or anyone else to do? Forego the money and let the Republicans completely swamp them in election spending? With the supreme court ruling and a Republican congress there isn't thing one she or Sanders can do about it.

What's Hilary going to say about Trans Pacific Partnership? She spent years flying around the world promoting it to foreign governments. She can say she's concerned about it now, but that would be kind of like Grand Moff Tarkin saying he's concerned about Alderaan's ecological condition.

From what economists say free trade is a good thing overall. I'm not familiar enough with the complex agreements being negotiated to know whether this one is good or bad. And I suspect Sandes isn't either.

For the past 8 years, the Democrats' policy on college affordability has been to make it easier for students to borrow more money, so that colleges can keep raising tuition. Does Hilary have something fresh up her sleeve on that front? Maybe she's saving it for closer to the election.

What does Sanders think he's going to do about it? The Republican congress won't provide any more money. Oh, he's going to make it free? Take on the $70 billion annual cost? How many votes you think that will get in congress?

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

True. So what do you want her or anyone else to do? Forego the money and let the Republicans completely swamp them in election spending? With the supreme court ruling and a Republican congress there isn't thing one she or Sanders can do about it.

In the years to come, an honest assessment of American history....if it ever happens....will have to peg Barack Obama as one of the greatest epic failures of all time for many reasons, but continuing the Wall Street bailouts was the first sign that the Hope and Change You Can Believe In slogans were just that: empty slogans!

When Wall Street banks were failing and had to be bailed out, the Federal Reserve was authorized secretly create billions of dollars in new money to loan to effectively insolvent banking institutions (Quantative Easing) Barry had the perfect opportunity to drop the hammer on them and demand tough concession in return. Hell, he could have even called for nationalizing the banks temporarily (as some European nations did to their banks) and there's not a damn thing the Republicans in Congress could have said about it. Because, if we recall that whole Tea Party movement...prior to being coopted by the Koch Foundation...began as protest against the bank bailouts. If Obama was a real liberal, he could have followed the advice of liberal economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, and delivered the financial aid in the form of renegotiating the often fraudulent mortgages that first line lenders wrote up during the boom years.

Problem was Barry was already in the banker's pocket when he was plucked out of Chicago to be their pick over the expected favourite with plenty of Wall Street connections - Hillary Clinton. Barack brought in Rahm and Summers and Geithner, and he signed off on everything on the Wall Street bankers wish list! That's why after thousands of Americans lost their homes while seeing major banks escape their debt obligations, the eight years of shattered credibility, has led to the remaining Democrats getting excited about the old guy with white hair who would otherwise be expected to be getting ready for retirement. With Elizabeth Warren passing on the opportunity, the remaining Democrats have been looking for this kind of candidate since they got stabbed in the back eight years ago!

From what economists say free trade is a good thing overall. I'm not familiar enough with the complex agreements being negotiated to know whether this one is good or bad. And I suspect Sandes isn't either.

Those economists are talking about the rich people who hire them, when they say free trade is a good thing! Today's round of trade agreements have almost nothing to do with trade in products, but has moved on to demanding national and regional controls regulating services be ended, and the big holdup with TPP and other related pacts is the US want to extend their version of patent and copyright law internationally. But, if we go back and examine the economic consequences of NAFTA and other trade pacts, they have enriched the owners of capital and impoverished everyone else, and wages have been driven down to where many of those who think they are middle class aren't actually middle class anymore! And free trade has intensified our present ecological calamities by increasing transportation output and making economies more and more specialized rather than using local production.

What does Sanders think he's going to do about it? The Republican congress won't provide any more money. Oh, he's going to make it free? Take on the $70 billion annual cost? How many votes you think that will get in congress?

It would depend on whether Sanders is willing and able to use the "bully pulpit" of the presidency. Even in today's era of five corporations controlling 85% of US media...and controlling most of the public media through grants and donations, when the President speaks, the media has to listen....even on Fox News.

*worth noting that Obama seems to be willing to use the bully pulpit for something he cares about: the TPP! He wasn't willing to use it to allow other promises he made....like a Medicare buy-in option, closing Guantanamo, ending wars....so, the Bernie fans will have to hope that...even after being disappointed every four years, this one will be different!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the years to come, an honest assessment of American history....if it ever happens....will have to peg Barack Obama as one of the greatest epic failures of all time for many reasons,

I respectfully disagree, but at this point in time it is all speculation. It appears that the Obama Health Plan is permanent. Roosevelt is remembered for Social Security and Johnson for Medicare. "Obama Care" will be one of his legacies.

Obama got the Americans out of Iraq and I believe will keep them out of a land war in the Middle East. The nuclear deal with Iran may go down in history as one of the bravest acts that avoided a Middle East meltdown.

Opening up relations with Cuba, addressing clean energy and maintaining a strong economy in the face of a global recession will all be considered success. Obviously, it will be a long time before either one of us is proven correct but historically, it is the good things and the saving of lives that history celebrates. I believe his record is far better than the last eight American Presidents.

It is interesting that both Republican and Democrats seem to agree on a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...