Tested with sanders, and it's harder to tell - not quite as easy to get such an obvious agree/disagree spread - but it seems to favor him slightly. I'll have to throw more time at it when I'm not busy.
It does the same for Sanders. I do think past votes are important to see as you can see which candidate can be pressured by their party and the political climate to vote incorrectly on a citizen's behalf.
It seems I would vote Sanders over Clinton according to the small number of policies presented.
Voting in Iowa finally happens tonight. How many candidates will drop out after this?
I figure 3rd democrat guy will pull the ripcord, and maybe quarter to half of the republican clown car. Paul will stay on, because he has to continue the fine tradition of staying till the end even though he lost before it began.
It depends on financials (Jeb Bush can basically stick around until March no matter how poorly he performs, that's how much money his campaign and Super PAC have on hand) and how well Rubio does. If he gets somewhere in the mid to high teens then he will start receiving direct support from party leaders, who will start working to get some of the other establishment candidates out of the race. If not, then expect the clown car to continue.
Final poll results before the vote are in! For the Republicans, it's Trump(28%), Cruz(23%), Rubio(15%), Carson(10%), followed the the broad field of people who never had a hope, with Paul, Christie, Bush, Fiorina, Huckabee, Kasich, and Santorum Polling between 5% and 2%, with Paul being the only one managing to get 5%.
On the Democratic side, It's pretty much neck and neck - 45% for Hillary, 43% for Burnie, with a +/- 4% MOR. Poor old mate O'Malley is there too, pulling in just 3%, but also our hearts with his puppydog eyes.
Cruz took top golgathan for the GOP and it's basically a split between Clinton and Sanders.
Side note: Cruz's campaign put out Paranoia-level bullshit mailers and got called out by the Iowa state. It's probably illegal buy I doubt anyone will do anything.
So, despite missing the prediction above regarding how many republican dropouts we were going to see, my sealed-envelope predictions are doing well - I caught full points on preliminary results, plus two on Sanders fan reaction. Caught the Republican nomination for full points, as well as trump supporter reaction.
You could say I technically win that one, since it's only temporary suspension - but we won't because we all know it's not temporary. He's just suspending rather than dropping out, because if he real-deal drops out, he's on the hook for a lot of cash.
I wish Rand stuck it out a little longer. The debates will be weaker without him. He often had actual counterpoints to what everyone else on that stage was taking for granted. Made them more watchable. Now it's gonna be more like:
Rubio: "I'll do X" Kasich: "I did X" Christie: "I would do X times 10" Cruz: "The only thing stopping me from doing X is the Washington Cartel" Trump "I do the best Xs."
I'm going up to New Hampshire to campaign for Bernie this weekend. Not looking forward to the inevitable Bernie Bros but that's also why I'm going. Bernie needs people who can show compassion and respect.
I'm going up to New Hampshire to campaign for Bernie this weekend. Not looking forward to the inevitable Bernie Bros but that's also why I'm going. Bernie needs people who can show compassion and respect.
Good luck, man! That's one of the two best ways to combat the problem of Burnie Bros - to show people that they're not the be all and end all of Sanders supporters.
(The other is pointing them out/Calling them out, rather than letting them pass - but only do that if you feel right with it.)
"Now here’s why so many Democrats like both of them: Most share Clinton’s view that gradual reform is the most practical way forward. But most also agree with Sanders that even moderately progressive steps will be stymied if money’s influence is left unchecked, if progressives do not find new ways of organizing and mobilizing, and if so many white working-class voters continue to support Republicans."
Can someone explain to me what "progressive" means in 2016? It was well defined in the 1890s, but fell to the liberals. I know the comeback started with the yippies trying to distance themselves from the Democratic establishment, but that was nearly fifty years ago and I don't know what it means anymore.
Can someone explain to me what "progressive" means in 2016? It was well defined in the 1890s, but fell to the liberals. I know the comeback started with the yippies trying to distance themselves from the Democratic establishment, but that was nearly fifty years ago and I don't know what it means anymore.
I found a Huffington Post article from 2011 that I think does a good job of explaining what "Progressive" means, and still applies in 2016, and also explains the difference between "Liberal" and "Progressive."
"The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules."
I just spent a while thinking, trying to figure out why I've been so incredibly cynical about Bernie's campaign this year, given that I align more closely with him politically than any other major party candidate.
My conclusion is that what I hear about Bernie makes it feel like "Upworthy: the Campaign." All the support comes is cries of "fuck the corporations" and "Hillary is a soulless corporate shill", and unfunded promises to end student loans and implement single-payer health care. It feels like the democratic version of the republican party: ideological purity and massive but simplistic promises. All of that's then packaged up into viral memes for you to share on to your friends. Meanwhile, I've seen no indication that anyone involved is actually competent at policy. It's repetitive, irritating, and it doesn't exactly inspire trust.
His plans are not immune to critique, but the math does work. Enforcement could be an issue in some cases. But to say he has no plan is not true.
As for the "Feel the Bern, Fuck the System" types, well... the average person is average. There's naturally going to be some sloganeering and jeering and weakly justified support. That's true for every candidate.
"Now here’s why so many Democrats like both of them: Most share Clinton’s view that gradual reform is the most practical way forward. But most also agree with Sanders that even moderately progressive steps will be stymied if money’s influence is left unchecked, if progressives do not find new ways of organizing and mobilizing, and if so many white working-class voters continue to support Republicans."
I think the quoted paragraph seems to demonstrate that the author hasn't spent a lot of time listening to Bernie supporters who can construct a coherent argument for him (and/or against Hillary). Most don't trust Hillary to even attempt to enact incremental reforms of the kind that are actually needed in the first place. It's not a question of should we reform carefully or aggressively, but of "how do people even still believe that Hillary will reform anything at all?"
It's a very oddly tilted analysis that seems to come from a very sheltered viewpoint. Kind of whiffs of echo chamber. The author, or you, or I, or whomever, may not agree or may pick nits with people's views of or trust in Clinton, but that is irrelevant to whether those beliefs are what impact their choice.
Assuming no dramatic change in Congress, Clinton, Sanders, and a block of wood with a veto stamp will have the same effects on domestic policies like taxes and health care.
Sanders may be able to use executive orders creatively but I agree that gridlock is a likely scenario, especially with all the gerrymandering.
I have read about quite a few young progressives getting ready to run for city/state/federal offices in response to Bernie, though, so maybe momentum can actually be sustained this time. It's blue sky, I know.
Comments
I do think past votes are important to see as you can see which candidate can be pressured by their party and the political climate to vote incorrectly on a citizen's behalf.
It seems I would vote Sanders over Clinton according to the small number of policies presented.
On the Democratic side, It's pretty much neck and neck - 45% for Hillary, 43% for Burnie, with a +/- 4% MOR. Poor old mate O'Malley is there too, pulling in just 3%, but also our hearts with his puppydog eyes.
Side note: Cruz's campaign put out Paranoia-level bullshit mailers and got called out by the Iowa state. It's probably illegal buy I doubt anyone will do anything.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/politics/ted-cruz-mailer-iowa-caucuses-voter-violation/
Mike Huckabee, and Martin O'Malley were the only candidates to suspend their campaigns.
Bonus:
Trump is also string the pot by claiming Cruz won Iowa by fraud.
Rubio: "I'll do X"
Kasich: "I did X"
Christie: "I would do X times 10"
Cruz: "The only thing stopping me from doing X is the Washington Cartel"
Trump "I do the best Xs."
(The other is pointing them out/Calling them out, rather than letting them pass - but only do that if you feel right with it.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-theory-of-change-to-believe-in/2016/02/03/c2939c16-caa9-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
The second to last paragraph sums it up best:
"Now here’s why so many Democrats like both of them: Most share Clinton’s view that gradual reform is the most practical way forward. But most also agree with Sanders that even moderately progressive steps will be stymied if money’s influence is left unchecked, if progressives do not find new ways of organizing and mobilizing, and if so many white working-class voters continue to support Republicans."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html
"The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules."
My conclusion is that what I hear about Bernie makes it feel like "Upworthy: the Campaign." All the support comes is cries of "fuck the corporations" and "Hillary is a soulless corporate shill", and unfunded promises to end student loans and implement single-payer health care. It feels like the democratic version of the republican party: ideological purity and massive but simplistic promises. All of that's then packaged up into viral memes for you to share on to your friends. Meanwhile, I've seen no indication that anyone involved is actually competent at policy. It's repetitive, irritating, and it doesn't exactly inspire trust.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
His plans are not immune to critique, but the math does work. Enforcement could be an issue in some cases. But to say he has no plan is not true.
As for the "Feel the Bern, Fuck the System" types, well... the average person is average. There's naturally going to be some sloganeering and jeering and weakly justified support. That's true for every candidate.
It's a very oddly tilted analysis that seems to come from a very sheltered viewpoint. Kind of whiffs of echo chamber. The author, or you, or I, or whomever, may not agree or may pick nits with people's views of or trust in Clinton, but that is irrelevant to whether those beliefs are what impact their choice.
I have read about quite a few young progressives getting ready to run for city/state/federal offices in response to Bernie, though, so maybe momentum can actually be sustained this time. It's blue sky, I know.