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
Just because I didn't mention that Obama's victory against Clinton was narrow in 2008 doesn't mean it wasn't. Indeed, it was more narrow between Obama and Clinton than it was between Clinton and Sanders. That being said, both Obama and Clinton in 2008 were actual Democrats compared to Sanders who was an Independent who became a Democrat just to run in the 2016 Democratic Primaries. Despite losing to Obama, Clinton was a long-established member of the Democratic Party, former Senator of New York, and former First Lady in 2008.
Face it, Bernie Sanders did well in the 2016 Democratic Primaries period, and amazingly well for someone who was Independent until the 2016 Democratic Primaries.
edited 6th Jul '16 5:36:09 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyHistorically speaking, Sanders got roasted. If this was within five points you'd maybe have an argument but this is the Primary. Even with all the aura of negativity around her and all right wing and left wing attacking her, he still couldn't come out on top.
Obama was a once in a generation politician yet he at the height of his cult of personality (let's keep it real) could only manage to barely beat her by a few percentage points.
Sanders ain't even in the same league, and lost by every possible metric.
New Survey coming this weekend!Sanders' loss is by a sizeable margin. Unless I misremember my history, it is a historically large margin.
I'd also like to note that it's very annoying to me that the narrative is so often spun as "outsider does very well against establishment candidate" and not "first woman to win major party nomination bests old white man". The historic nature of Clinton's victory gets ignored, and we are expected instead to pay tribute to her male adversary for "doing so well".
Screw that. I'm not paying tribute to him. He ran. He lost. He lost by a fair amount, in fact. To act like the party or progressives in general owe him so much is to, in many ways, spit in the face of the first female nominee.
She was never the underdog. That was always Sanders thing, as this entire conversation illustrates with people getting upset about how we're somehow underselling him despite admitting he did really well, even though he lost decisively.
Again, both of these are facts, that you dislike the second part doesn't make it any less true, anymore than some people disliking Sanders changes the fact that he did do really well, especially considering his position.
edited 6th Jul '16 6:17:26 PM by LSBK
The problem is Sanders and Clinton are both more then single identify lines. Clinton is a women, but she's also a monied, establishment, beltway politican and white. Sanders is a man, but he's also anti-establishment, descendant of immigrants and a Jew.
When it comes to gender Sanders is more privileged them Clinton, but when it comes to class, wealth, connections and race he's worse of then her, so you can't reduce it to a binary "one is a minority one isn't".
edited 6th Jul '16 6:25:44 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran55-45 is a pretty ideal margin for someone running as an outsider in terms of getting his platform out. It's a large enough win for the establishment that the whole thing shouldn't derail into "Sanders really won"-ishness that might damage the party in November or afterwards (see the question of "who won?" in 2000), but it's a large enough vote for the outsider to tell Clinton "hey! There are a lot of dissatisfied people in your party who want some leftist policies. Please pay attention to us or we'll be having this talk again in 2020."
C.v. the last Scexit referendum, which I think was about at this margin.
As to the college thing:
If I remember from reading various articles, one of the things causing the ballooning of costs is a combination of sports programs (and coaches) costing quite a ton of money alongside keeping scientific and computer equipment up to date.
Secondly, not college for everyone technically is right, apparently a huge amount of the unfulfilled jobs in the US economy are jobs taught at Trade Schools and the like. And are about just as well paying as some college backed jobs.
As to Hillary's proposal, do note:
- States (i.e. Republican states) are allowed to opt out, a la Obamacare.
- It has a 10 hour a week work requirement (which could have damaging consequence to jobs at the college's in-campus stores and jobs held in the surrounding area.) in the interest of garnering conservative votes.
- They want to have administrative costs gutted to help pay for this/cover this, by automating and firing people as much as possible
edited 6th Jul '16 9:41:07 PM by PotatoesRock
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/750868980299104256
Holy shit.
I'm dead.
New Survey coming this weekend!

@LSBK: The salient point is that Sanders' performance in the primaries was to be expected...For an establishment democrat with a solid base of support in the party going against the party's goldenboy/girl, not for someone who was an independent until this particular cycle.