Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
New's flash, he's been backing down over the past few days. He's taken back the "primaries are rigged" statement for one, and reaffirmed that he has no intention of running third party.
On your second remark, you can't have things both way: either Sanders's supposed "we know what's best for you better than you do" attitude is bad, or he's dangerous for bypasses the economic and political elite and appealing to the proletariat masses directly.
edited 29th May '16 10:32:44 AM by CaptainCapsase
Sanders sure does have it both ways.
edited 29th May '16 10:28:03 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username
Those two stances are inherent contradictions. In fairness, in many, perhaps most cases its been different people making different claims on why Sanders's campaign is dangerous, but I've definitely seen instances where the same person argued both that his appeal to the masses was dangerous and that he should stop acting like he knows better for people of the working class than they do. (ignoring of course that, as far as polling on individual policy positions go, the American people do generally agree with him (>50% on most positions), and the democratic base does so overwhelmingly (>50 even when the question is loaded with statements about taxation))
edited 29th May '16 10:43:38 AM by CaptainCapsase
Once again, I point out that's he's winding down now that his defeat is assured. Like, actually winding down. He took back his statements about the primaries being rigged, and he's affirmed he's not going to run third party and people should vote against Trump, especially if they are in a contested state.
edited 29th May '16 10:40:50 AM by CaptainCapsase
Demanding that the DNC remove certain people he doesn't like from their policy boards (when the only reason he has any say at all in that decision is because the DNC, which normally appoints them all, decided to let him) with the threat of essentially filibustering the nomination via procedural stonewalling if he doesn't get his way doesn't strike me as "winding down".
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Let's wait and see if he actually does that; he wants more control over the party's platform, in the same way Hillary Clinton wanted to be appointed to a cabinet position (among other concessions she may or may not have gotten from Obama), and if he stops just short of actually stonewalling the convention in order to get just a few more concessions from he democrats, that's all the better.
@flame: I would hardly call what Sanders is doing, and what Clinton was doing in 2008 "evil." These kinds of games of chicken are an inherent part of politics as usual.
edited 29th May '16 11:00:12 AM by CaptainCapsase
http://bluenationreview.com/wait-bernie-says-democratic-primary-not-rigged/
There's him taking back his statement that the primary was rigged, and as rightfully dismissive as you are of TYT, it wasn't them reporting something he said or inferring something, it was him coming on air and affirming he was not going to run third party, and that people should vote against Trump.
edited 29th May '16 11:02:15 AM by CaptainCapsase
Thank you. I keep looking at these comments going "Well, Clinton didn't back out at this point either" as if that somehow makes it better. Has anyone said she was being smart or not stubborn by not backing out? No, so I fail to see how it's a proper defense. If anything, saying "Clinton did it" should hurt your argument since a lot of you are assuming he has an actually good purpose for staying in.
edited 29th May '16 11:05:40 AM by LSBK
The GOP has not produced a remotely competitive candidate this year, and everything from demographics to electoral maps are against them this cycle. Short of running as a spoiler (which he's already said he won't do, and has also affirmed recently), he's not going to seriously harm the party's chances of victory no matter what he does. The longer he remains in the race, the more chances to get concessions he has. That's politics.
edited 29th May '16 11:10:00 AM by CaptainCapsase
Because Clinton's willingness to do it and the total lack of criticism aimed at her over it indicates that sticking around for a long time is the norm and acceptable, it's only become unacceptable new that Sanders is doing it.
As for Sanders on committee stuff, is he threatening to derail the nomination or run third party? Or just engage in the same standard bureaucratic bullshiting that everyone engages in?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
He's supposedly threatening to hold up the convention through technicalities, but we'll have to see whether he actually goes ahead and does it first. Clinton made very similar threats in 2008, which stopped, but were not taken back, after getting some concessions from Obama.
edited 29th May '16 11:15:00 AM by CaptainCapsase
Hold up or shut down? A hold up is a hassle that had to be worked around and slows everything down, a shutdown is actually dangerous and would seriously hurt the Democrats.
Out of curiosity, did any bullshit like this happen in 2004 and 2000? I'm assuming that it's pretty much standard practise.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran"Hold your own candidate to the same standards then; Clinton was still in the primary until June 7th in 2008, and I expect Sanders to drop out at that point as well."
Not the best example. Clinton's lead was razor thin, as in, she and Obama were separated by a couple dozen delegates, at most, for the entirety of May, and even after the convention, Obama won by less than one hundred delegates. Who would be the nominee was genuinely in question, whereas here, it's clearly going to be Hillary. Bernie's deficit of two hundred will never go away, and the only thing he can do now is drive a wedge between his supporters and the rest of the Democrats.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Clinton managed to resolve an even greater wedge between her own backers and Obama's in the same time frame. Moreover, there was a legitimately competitive race to look forward to; everything is against the GOP this cycle, and nothing Sanders could do short of a third party run would change that.
edited 29th May '16 11:48:24 AM by CaptainCapsase
Sanders can do more then drive a wedge, he can heal the existing one by getting policies that his base favour added to the platform.
If he just walked away and his supporters get nothing then some of them are going to stay home come November, but if he wins them a few small policy victories then they've got a win and can fall in line behind Clinton with a smile.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
He did, but the realities of American demographics and of the electoral map means that he's got to do much better than be competitive in polling, which doesn't account for the many convoluted elements of the American electoral system; he'd need to absolutely dominate Clinton to win, and that would entail either suppressing the votes of the minorities he's been scapegoating or somehow convincing them to vote for him in some appreciable quantities.
edited 29th May '16 12:22:23 PM by CaptainCapsase

"I don't know if it's because he buys his own hype and honestly sees himself as the only one who can actually advance a liberal platform, or if he's just sort of a dick and is willing to throw his political allies under the bus if that's better for his candidacy, but the effect is pretty much the same either way."
I think it mostly stems from him being a 75-year-old man who has spent his entire political career being ignored on the fringe, and getting a little too drunk on his own hype. It's honestly understandable, but it's going to hurt the party if he continues to poison the well.
"Dangerous in the sense that he's appealing to the general public without also checking with the political elite to see if they're alright with it."
"The general public" is filled with ignorant rubes. Appealing to them uncritically is always dangerous.
edited 29th May '16 10:22:09 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."