General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't want to hear about Bernie's 'unelectability' or Hillary's 'baggage'
99% of that is stupid speculation masquerading as analysis. If you want that, Politico and CNN and Morning Joe are the places for that.
Clinton and Sanders are going to debate ISSUES. And policies. They will both do so ably, with great intelligence and perspective from years dealing with the subject matter.
The horse race will sort itself out.
Let's debate where we want the party to go, and what we want it to do when in power.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)We will debate ISSUES important to the American public.
polichick
(37,152 posts)in the soap opera aspects of politics, as Bernie said today - but we can choose to participate in discussions about policy and other issues of substance, ignoring the rest.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
More seriously, those code words for likeability (and for money and gender) are unfortunately going to help decide the election., and they are about all the MSM will cover.
polichick
(37,152 posts)The msm won't even report on the TPP - the people have to work around it.
DU is typically fueled by MSM coverage, and we're going to need to be better than that.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)The msm is not interested or interesting.
The msm is to be used on our terms, and told to fly kites for theirs.
In it to win it! Givem' hell, Bernie!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's inappropriate for DU.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
TekGryphon
(430 posts)He knows he doesn't have a chance on the national stage, and he won't run as a spoiler in the General Election so that the same purists who gave us W can give us Jeb.
He's running for the sole purpose of ensuring the Democratic Party of 2016 has the opportunity to debate among itself the virtues of its platforms.
He doesn't care how much stress it causes him or how many insults are thrown his way by Fox News. He just wants the Democratic Party to be the best it can be.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)And please, enough with the 'purist' pejorative.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)If he can force debates that allow the Democratic Party to soul search on how we feel about economic inequality and access to opportunity, then I believe he feels that is a win.
As for the 'purist' pejorative, I don't really need to comment on it. Bernie won't run as a spoiler, so it's a moot point.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)TekGryphon
(430 posts)With a ~0% chance of winning according to the odd-makers. If you think he's got a chance, then by all means put some money down. You'll make a fortune.
Bernie isn't stupid. He knows he's not going to win. He also knows that allowing Hillary to skate through the primaries and going straight to debates with the Republicans is dangerous. He's going to forge her before she gets to the General Election, and he's willing to sacrifice incredible amounts of time and energy to accomplish it.
He's a God damn hero and I'm incredibly proud of him.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You mean the 200,000 "sensible" Florida Democrats who voted for George W Bush?
jalan48
(13,873 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
lovemydog
(11,833 posts) 99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)How about "gravitas"? Does he have it? 
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)keep talking about the sensationalistic bullshit. They do not want the public to have any chance to consider the differences in what they've just heard in a Paul-Cruz-Rubio debate and the topics and level of intelligence in a Clinton-Sanders debate.
Fritz Walter
(4,291 posts)...and you can count on more of the same:
SMEAR -- Especially against Hillary, viz. Bengazi -- and whatever they manufacture about Bernie;
FEAR -- Whether it's Ebola, or the unrest in Baltimore and elsewhere, they're going to try to scare the ever-loving wits out of their base of voters and donors; and
QUEER -- Pardon the rudeness of that word, but whatever the SCOTUS decides on same-sex marriage, equal rights for LGBT citizens will not be settled between now and November 2016, and the right wing is banking on that. Literally.
The challenge for the Democratic candidates will be to continuously refocus the discussion on the important issues, and do so victoriously. OUR playbook needs to be just as detailed, more precisely targeted and even more effective than theirs.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Oligarchy?
For it or against it.
appalachiablue
(41,155 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)People are free to comment on anything want, regardless if you want to
hear it or not!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Initech
(100,088 posts)Honestly I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and will help with whatever it takes to get him elected president. However, in the event that doesn't work out, I will support whoever runs on the D ticket, whether it's Hillary or someone else. But by resulting to pointless name calling, we get nowhere, and that's exactly what set the stage for two terms of George Bush, and what could also bring back the BFEE for another term. Do you really want this to happen?
haikugal
(6,476 posts)one was given to him by the SC.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Besides issue debates, there are at least two other categories that will and should be part of the discussion.
The first is fitness for office on other grounds. Being President is more than just ticking off "Yes" or "No" boxes on an issue questionnaire. The President -- pardon me for stating the obvious -- runs the executive branch of the federal government. It's reasonable to consider candidates on that basis as well. For example, although I prefer Sanders to Clinton, I wouldn't consider it out of bounds for a Clinton supporter to point to Sanders's comparative lack of executive experience. Being Mayor of Burlington, a city of about 40,000 people, is less significant than running a major Cabinet department.
Of course, mere experience by itself means less than the analysis of what that experience tells us about the candidate. I haven't paid much attention to the details of this email fracas, because my impression is that there's nothing much there, but if that or something else develops into a serious critique of Clinton's work as Secretary of State, then that's also a legitimate part of the debate.
Second, besides fitness for office based on issue positions and personal characteristics, there is the question of electability. Almost everyone on DU agrees that we want the Democratic nominee to win. Each of our prospective candidates -- Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley (who's almost certain to run IMO), and anyone else you can imagine -- has strengths and weaknesses in that respect. Will some voters, less ideological than the average DUer, reject Sanders because of his age? Are there Clinton "baggage" subjects that will make it harder for her to win? Will the riots in Baltimore, and the racial problems they epitomize, hurt O'Malley's chances? I think these are all legitimate questions, as are corresponding positive points about each candidate's strengths at the polls.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)at one point or another. The president is an executive administrator as well as an opinion leader, and how good a president Dukakis or Mondale would have been is largely irrelevant.
But I will say that this early in the campaign, ideas should occupy center stage with 'horse race" type analysis put to the side. Make them compete and defend their ideas.
The more about ideas, and the less about personalities, the better off the process gets.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)not Personality, as you stated, gt.
We have some real issues in our nation, and the person we elect to lead needs to be both sincere and strong enough to confront the issues our nation has in front of us.
My main problem with Hillary is that she doesn't seem all that sincere. There is a phoniness to her that just screams "the second I take office, I'll hand it all over to the corporations!"
I hope to hell I'm wrong about that. By positioning himself against her, Bernie has a genuine chance to push policy to the front and center, and avoid the dog and pony "personality" show a lot of elections have been about.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she needs to keep her promises that she makes today post-January 20, 2017. That's why I am wary of her. Bernie Sanders has a huge thing in his favor - he doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth. When he says something, he means it; he's not just putting on a show for the cameras.
Hillary Clinton has a credibility gap in that respect. That said, I'll vote for whoever the nominee is - I just hope we end up with a strong choice.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)could not vote for Bernie.
Do liberal values mean anything? Other candidates vote for elective wars, support trade deals that devastate American workers, support blanket surveillance - and STILL get 'liberal' votes? I don't get it.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)Thank you.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)the candidates masquerading as analysis. Leslie Marshall was on WCPT taking backhanded cheap shots at some Dem candidates and it came through as very disingenuous.
R B Garr
(16,956 posts)Great thread. Thank you.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)what he hopes to accomplish, or how he plans to accomplish it.
Any other questions we shouldn't ask?
