Red Mosquito

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote:I do think he is the only serious candidate in generations to actually understand what the fundamental issues are afflicting the United States, even if his presentation is a bit lacking in nuance

Which I think benefits him in getting his message out, but makes him entirely unelectable. He's basically Ralph Nader.

He polls better than trump in a general election. This is a fiercely restive electorate, and are much more receptive to this message than people were 15 years ago, where Nader was more of a cassandra.

stip wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote:I do think he is the only serious candidate in generations to actually understand what the fundamental issues are afflicting the United States, even if his presentation is a bit lacking in nuance

Which I think benefits him in getting his message out, but makes him entirely unelectable. He's basically Ralph Nader.

He polls better than trump in a general election. This is a fiercely restive electorate, and are much more receptive to this message than people were 15 years ago, where Nader was more of a cassandra.

I think people are far more likely (the moderate left) to get behind him and SAY they'll vote idealistically with Sanders than they actually would in reality. It's why Rick Santorum keeps running.

stip wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote:I do think he is the only serious candidate in generations to actually understand what the fundamental issues are afflicting the United States, even if his presentation is a bit lacking in nuance

Which I think benefits him in getting his message out, but makes him entirely unelectable. He's basically Ralph Nader.

He polls better than trump in a general election. This is a fiercely restive electorate, and are much more receptive to this message than people were 15 years ago, where Nader was more of a cassandra.

stip, this was a great literary reference.

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote:I do think he is the only serious candidate in generations to actually understand what the fundamental issues are afflicting the United States, even if his presentation is a bit lacking in nuance

Which I think benefits him in getting his message out, but makes him entirely unelectable. He's basically Ralph Nader.

He polls better than trump in a general election. This is a fiercely restive electorate, and are much more receptive to this message than people were 15 years ago, where Nader was more of a cassandra.

I think people are far more likely (the moderate left) to get behind him and SAY they'll vote idealistically with Sanders than they actually would in reality. It's why Rick Santorum keeps running.

Perhaps in the primary (we'll see how accurate the polls are), but the moderate left is going to be far happier with Sanders than they would be with, say, Trump--and he is way more likely than Clinton to be able to win back disaffected trump supporters with economically liberal instincts.

Do you think the cries of "He's a socialist!" would hurt Sanders in the general election? (Trump has used it as a derogatory word against him, and I know also-rans like Huckabee have as well.) I think we're far enough away from the Cold War now that most of the electorate wouldn't really bat an eye at it.

At this point I suspect the people who are turned off by that are not gettable anyway. I don't think the label has the ability to stop people in their tracks anymore.

It is far more likely to hurt him due to the fact that people think it will influence other people, rather than the actual influence.

That was not clear. It's more likely to harm him because people assume that no one will vote for a socialist, rather than people not wanting to vote for a socialist themselves.

Simple Torture wrote:Do you think the cries of "He's a socialist!" would hurt Sanders in the general election? (Trump has used it as a derogatory word against him, and I know also-rans like Huckabee have as well.) I think we're far enough away from the Cold War now that most of the electorate wouldn't really bat an eye at it.

I think the general electorate is still very afraid of socialism.

stip wrote: That was not clear. It's more likely to harm him because people assume that no one will vote for a socialist, rather than people not wanting to vote for a socialist themselves.

This is fair.

Simple Torture wrote:Do you think the cries of "He's a socialist!" would hurt Sanders in the general election? (Trump has used it as a derogatory word against him, and I know also-rans like Huckabee have as well.) I think we're far enough away from the Cold War now that most of the electorate wouldn't really bat an eye at it.

I totally agree with you on the Cold War dynamic, and I think it'll be represented a real generation gap, with Millennials not born or not old enough to remember the Cold War and the connotations to socialism that it represented. They're by far more amenable to the word than other generations.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Do you think the cries of "He's a socialist!" would hurt Sanders in the general election? (Trump has used it as a derogatory word against him, and I know also-rans like Huckabee have as well.) I think we're far enough away from the Cold War now that most of the electorate wouldn't really bat an eye at it.

I totally agree with you on the Cold War dynamic, and I think it'll be represented a real generation gap, with Millennials not born or not old enough to remember the Cold War and the connotations to socialism that it represented. They're by far more amenable to the word than other generations.

Anecdotal: I teach millennials, and whenever we come across a story or novel that criticizes capitalism, they point it out without batting an eye. I think the "evil empire" connotations around socialism are completely over their heads.

I feel like the Sanders coverage is increasing a bit as we approach the Iowa/New Hampshire. His strong numbers in those states probably has something to do wit hit.

He's going after the same crowd with a similar message as Nader, but there are marked differences. While I'm still not sure he can win a general election I'd like to think that being a sitting Senator running within a major party makes him a little more electable than ol' Ralph.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I feel like the Sanders coverage is increasing a bit as we approach the Iowa/New Hampshire. His strong numbers in those states probably has something to do wit hit.

He's going after the same crowd with a similar message as Nader, but there are marked differences. While I'm still not sure he can win a general election I'd like to think that being a sitting Senator running within a major party makes him a little more electable than ol' Ralph.

The bolded really needs to be emphasized. I used to be more sympathetic to Naderites until I learned more about how the cold, hard math of the US elections heavily weighs in favor of a two party system.

Despite all that, I still love quoting "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" and I'll probably do it several times in this craptacular cycle.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I feel like the Sanders coverage is increasing a bit as we approach the Iowa/New Hampshire. His strong numbers in those states probably has something to do wit hit.

He's going after the same crowd with a similar message as Nader, but there are marked differences. While I'm still not sure he can win a general election I'd like to think that being a sitting Senator running within a major party makes him a little more electable than ol' Ralph.

The bolded really needs to be emphasized. I used to be more sympathetic to Naderites until I learned more about how the cold, hard math of the US elections heavily weighs in favor of a two party system.

Despite all that, I still love quoting "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" and I'll probably do it several times in this craptacular cycle.

I'm gonna use this as an opportunity to once again say that Nader did not cost Gore election, systemic voter disenfranchisement in Florida did.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I feel like the Sanders coverage is increasing a bit as we approach the Iowa/New Hampshire. His strong numbers in those states probably has something to do wit hit.

He's going after the same crowd with a similar message as Nader, but there are marked differences. While I'm still not sure he can win a general election I'd like to think that being a sitting Senator running within a major party makes him a little more electable than ol' Ralph.

The bolded really needs to be emphasized. I used to be more sympathetic to Naderites until I learned more about how the cold, hard math of the US elections heavily weighs in favor of a two party system.

Despite all that, I still love quoting "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" and I'll probably do it several times in this craptacular cycle.

I'm gonna use this as an opportunity to once again say that Nader did not cost Gore election, systemic voter disenfranchisement in Florida did.

Why can't it be both, along with a lot of other factors as well? Everyone wants to try to point one specific cause of Gore's loss but that's just too easy.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I feel like the Sanders coverage is increasing a bit as we approach the Iowa/New Hampshire. His strong numbers in those states probably has something to do wit hit.

He's going after the same crowd with a similar message as Nader, but there are marked differences. While I'm still not sure he can win a general election I'd like to think that being a sitting Senator running within a major party makes him a little more electable than ol' Ralph.

The bolded really needs to be emphasized. I used to be more sympathetic to Naderites until I learned more about how the cold, hard math of the US elections heavily weighs in favor of a two party system.

Despite all that, I still love quoting "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" and I'll probably do it several times in this craptacular cycle.

I'm gonna use this as an opportunity to once again say that Nader did not cost Gore election, systemic voter disenfranchisement in Florida did.

Why can't it be both, along with a lot of other factors as well? Everyone wants to try to point one specific cause of Gore's loss but that's just too easy.

I get that. But I think some causes mean more than others, and should be the focus if you're looking not to repeat your mistakes. If you do that election over with the same three choices, and every voter who shows up at the poll gets their vote counted, then Gore wins. And that's by the Bush team's own admission. It angers me that the major takeaway from that election for most of the left has been "stop running third parties" not "let's make sure we count all the votes in a representative democracy".

cutuphalfdead wrote:I get that. But I think some causes mean more than others, and should be the focus if you're looking not to repeat your mistakes. If you do that election over with the same three choices, and every voter who shows up at the poll gets their vote counted, then Gore wins. And that's by the Bush team's own admission. It angers me that the major takeaway from that election for most of the left has been "stop running third parties" not "let's make sure we count all the votes in a representative democracy".

You could say that for more states than Florida, though. Voter suppression has been a tactic of the GOP for a long time. Perhaps that was a bigger reason than Nader, but it still doesn't deny the fact that running a third party to the extreme of one the two major parties spells disaster for both of those parties. There's a reason lefties really want Trump to run as an independent.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I get that. But I think some causes mean more than others, and should be the focus if you're looking not to repeat your mistakes. If you do that election over with the same three choices, and every voter who shows up at the poll gets their vote counted, then Gore wins. And that's by the Bush team's own admission. It angers me that the major takeaway from that election for most of the left has been "stop running third parties" not "let's make sure we count all the votes in a representative democracy".

You could say that for more states than Florida, though. Voter suppression has been a tactic of the GOP for a long time. Perhaps that was a bigger reason than Nader, but it still doesn't deny the fact that running a third party to the extreme of one the two major parties spells disaster for both of those parties. There's a reason lefties really want Trump to run as an independent.

Of course, and I don't really disagree. But to me it's just like complaining that you played a rigged game poorly instead of complaining that the game is rigged.

Jesus Christ, that is some pathetic pandering. Does she have no dignity at all?

tommymtcom wrote:Jesus Christ, that is some pathetic pandering. Does she have no dignity at all?

She's been doing this for years.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/12/10749984/h ... ton-pander

It gets me to wonder as to all the people that complain about Hillary not having a serious challenger, that what's really needed is a candidate that genuinely understands and advocates for minority causes.

Speaking of 2000--I had never seen one of the "butterfly ballots" used in some Florida counties until recently. Jesus, what a cluster: