Re: 2016 Election
 

You know who else filled stadiums...

Re: 2016 Election
 

Very few things in this election are very funny, this however is. Bernies endorsement of the Candidate who has far and away the largest support of the 1%. Just Hillaryous. Misspell intentional.

Re: 2016 Election
 

You're completely misrepresenting my argument as usual.

I didn't say anything about compromise, and that's a stupid argument anyway because I can easily turn it around and say Republicans should compromise with Trump as he's their nominee.

Second, as usual you try and hide behind the canard that progressive positions as unpopular, they're not.

5 'Radical' Bernie Sanders Ideas Many Americans Strongly Support | Alternet

And, you didn't actually address my point that if Hillary moves to the right try and win sane Republicans and in doing so loses the support of progressives, then it will be the fault of Hillary and not the progressives.

Right now, there has been good compromise and progressives should support Hillary, but she shouldn't compromise to win Republicans, as they don't deserve any reward considering Trump is their mess. Talk of being babies and acting like adults when nonsense when all progressives are doing is trying to hold Hillary to the positions she has now said she supports is nothing of the sort.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Like this?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...76_634x523.jpg

Re: 2016 Election
 

Trump is a threat to the GOP. Clinton is not a threat to the Democratic party.

Republicans are nervous about Trump because he is a threat to their political careers, so the situation isn't comparable.

I addressed it directly. I'm not sure how much clearer that I can be: Ideological purists are idiots.

In a system with two options, it is foolish to choose a spoiler that hurts ones own interests. So no, I will fault progressives who are too dogmatic and uninformed to understand the nature of US presidential elections if they want to pout like kids and avoid voting for the candidate who is closer to the left.

Sanders would need to increase taxes in order to pay for his plans. Americans are not exactly known for their love of tax increases.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Well if he endorsed Trump, that's the 0.1%.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Excellent observation. Some more politeness in order !

Re: 2016 Election
 

A 2015 Gallup poll found that 38% of Americans self-identified as conservative, 34% as moderate and 24% as liberal. Liberals are clearly a minority.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24%, but Still Trail Conservatives

The same survey found that 19% of Democrats believe themselves to be conservative, while only 5% of Republicans consider themselves to be liberal. (A Pew survey found that 17% of Democrats label themselves as conservatives: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...liberal-label/)

Liberals are a minority group in the US. Liberal numbers are growing while conservative numbers are declining, but liberals are still outnumbered.

And diehard progressives are a subset of that liberal group. With 90% of Sanders voters (who were themselves a minority among Democratic voters) supporting Clinton, that leaves relatively few holdouts.

The more liberal of the two US major political parties also includes a considerable number of conservatives. Those Democratic conservatives outnumber the Bernie Bros.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The idea of purity is a strawman. There are two options and the point is not just to chose between the two, rather it's a case of making one option more palatable to you. As a voter the only leverage you have is your vote, and the candidate has to earn your vote.

Idiots are the people who just accept that what you have is the best it's going to get because the other option is worse. Do everything you can to make the candidate better. Voter apathy is the reason you end up with such shitty politicians.

That's a different issue, I'll take this as implicit acknowledgement that progressive policies are more popular than you claim.

BTW, Hillary Clinton is also proposing to raise taxes.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Reminds me of Arthur Scargill who, when he was seen reading The Daily Telegraph, was asked why are you reading that and not the Socialist Worker replied along the lines of I know what the Socialist Worker is saying, I need to know what those I disagree with are saying.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Your idea of a better candidate will lose elections.

Diehard progressives are a minority of the electorate. Democrats not only need to win over swing voters, many of whom aren't liberal, but they also need to win over conservatives within their own party.

You aren't going to get most of what you want, and I would suggest that you either make peace with that or else endeavor to move more Americans to the left.

Well, that would be a terrible mistake. Voters reduce their support for programs when they find out that it will cost them money.

She isn't. I do hope that you're not going to misquote her as have the right-wing blogs when she said that she wasn't going to increase taxes.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Looking at the article on how people "self-identify" , my opinion is more of the people classify themselves as moderate hold more "liberal positions" than "moderates" of 10 or 20 years ago, while gradually more hard-core progressives are increasing. Listening to Clinton's speech on economics hard to believe she has a "moderate" position yet media commentators indicated it was meant to show she had a preferable economic plan for moderates.

My prediction is that because of demographics and ideology-driven media and academia, the Republican party will over time will become less of a political factor.

Instead the two party system will evolve between an establishment "center" left, and a progressive party or strong wing of the democrats.

Voting for Clinton makes sense for the progressive as two things I believe will occur. Option A is Clinton's proposed increase in regulations, taxes, more government control of economy etc will be a disaster so a more drastic option will be seen as necessary. Option B, somehow the economy does better, or people like the handouts Clinton puts into place, then logic may be seen why not go further down socialist path. Demographics working against Republicans either way.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. Hillary Clinton is third least popular ahead of only Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpZGZNSUEAA6twy.jpg:large


And you'll get even less if you don't even try to change the status quo, and this isn't just talking about the presidential race, this is more concerned about down ticket.


True, but if you take Bernie Sanders' proposal as an example, the majority of the population would come out better off.

Right wing blogs like CNN?

Here's how much Hillary Clinton's tax plan would hit the rich - Aug. 11, 2016

Re: 2016 Election
 

As no one has bothered to attack Bernie Sanders, it is not surprising that someone who comes across as a nice guy will not be loathed by the voters.

That would have changed if he had won the nomination, of course. Americans do not love socialism or tax increases on the middle class, and the GOP would have turned these into talking points.

For one, that's a strawman. Nobody on the Democratic or liberal sides claimed that the Democrats should attempt to change nothing.

At the same time, you are suffering from the sort of righteous delusional thinking that one associates with the Tea Party.

You comprise a tiny minority of the American electorate, yet you think that you are somehow entitled to get what you want. It doesn't even occur to you that you might be obliged to build popular support for your initiatives prior to getting them.

A candidate who is ideal for you would lose the election. You don't have the numbers to avoid compromise. Either do something to change that, or else get it over it.

Re: 2016 Election
 

And yet during the primary, he was painted as a tax hiking socialist and his popularity went up, weird...



Fair enough, we'll call it incremental change if it makes you feel better.

Yet again you don't have a clue what you're talking about if you think that about me. Go back through this thread, and give me examples of this so called entitlement, and how I want to get everything I want...

No, what I've consistently said is that it's all about getting the best deal possible. To do that, you propose a whole loaf, then you end up with half. It seems your approach is to negotiate with yourself and propose a half loaf and be happy if you get crumbs.