The Student Room Group

US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Inexorably
I find this very strange as well. When watching a few of Bernie Sanders debates/demonstrations etc. I was very confused every time he appealed to the ''middle class'' as I thought the average American would've classed themselves as working class :s-smilie:.


Politicians used to talk about the Working Class in America. It all changed when the pollsters and focus group managers realised that many working class people there regarded it as a pejorative term, a sign of failure and of being insufficiently aspirational. That change really began to bite in the late 70s and politicians like Reagan began to address all voters and all voter concerns as 'middle class' - this was later adopted by the Democrats and Bill Clinton used it all the time. It was hilariously misplaced when they clearly meant it as covering blue collar workers in factory towns or guys with pickups, but it is used by the media almost exclusively now in the States to cover those kinds of people. Basically the code now is that anyone with a job, however degrading, low paid or menial, is 'middle class'.

It's absolute trash and another sign of how deeply Conservative plutocratic agendas control the political scene in the US. Clearly Wall St does not want the truth - that massive numbers of Americans, in work or out of it, are living in poverty with no hope, that huge numbers lack proper housing, medical care or even sanitation (seriously, there are some cities where the latter is made unavailable on failure to keep up with crippling water charges) - and they pay the politicians to make sure they don't get into that as well.

Parts of the US are really third world countries.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Politicians used to talk about the Working Class in America. It all changed when the pollsters and focus group managers realised that many working class people there regarded it as a pejorative term, a sign of failure and of being insufficiently aspirational. That change really began to bite in the late 70s and politicians like Reagan began to address all voters and all voter concerns as 'middle class' - this was later adopted by the Democrats and Bill Clinton used it all the time. It was hilariously misplaced when they clearly meant it as covering blue collar workers in factory towns or guys with pickups, but it is used by the media almost exclusively now in the States to cover those kinds of people. Basically the code now is that anyone with a job, however degrading, low paid or menial, is 'middle class'.

It's absolute trash and another sign of how deeply Conservative plutocratic agendas control the political scene in the US. Clearly Wall St does not want the truth - that massive numbers of Americans, in work or out of it, are living in poverty with no hope, that huge numbers lack proper housing, medical care or even sanitation (seriously, there are some cities where the latter is made unavailable on failure to keep up with crippling water charges) - and they pay the politicians to make sure they don't get into that as well.

Parts of the US are really third world countries.


And then people wonder why British left wingers support Sanders :lol:

Original post by Midlander
There is something about American political speak I have never understood and it's that 'middle class' refers to the baseline voter whereas here it's 'working class'. Is that because they don't think it's worth acknowledging them or because they don't think a blue collar class exists?



It's class warfare. You erode class conscious of the working class.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
And then people wonder why British left wingers support Sanders :lol:



It's class warfare. You erode class conscious of the working class.


One of the things Obama opened up and they cannot now put back in the box is that people across the US are once again discussing class, crushing inequality and the surging power and wealth of the mega-rich. This discussion is no longer confined to a few New York liberals or other easy-to-marginalise people - it involves doctors, teachers, students, factory workers and working people of all kinds.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/bernie-sanders-america-ready-for-socialist-president

The Wall St controllers have a serious problem.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
One of the things Obama opened up and they cannot now put back in the box is that people across the US are once again discussing class, crushing inequality and the surging power and wealth of the mega-rich. This discussion is no longer confined to a few New York liberals or other easy-to-marginalise people - it involves doctors, teachers, students, factory workers and working people of all kinds.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/bernie-sanders-america-ready-for-socialist-president

The Wall St controllers have a serious problem.


I hope you are right.
Reply 584
Clinton is also weak on foreign policy. You can bet the Republicans, whoever is their candidate, will attack them on this. The Democrats will have to move the focus of the campaign on home policies, but it will be tough. I don't think they will win if there are other terrorist attacks in the USA.
Original post by Josb
Clinton is also weak on foreign policy. You can bet the Republicans, whoever is their candidate, will attack them on this. The Democrats will have to move the focus of the campaign on home policies, but it will be tough. I don't think they will win if there are other terrorist attacks in the USA.


Yes the party that instigated the worst foreign policy decision in US history can justify slating anyone else on that issue. I am no great Hillary fan but I would say that foreign policy is her trump card when debating Bernie and is a strong point when debating the Republicans. George W Bush initiated this destabilisation when he chose to invade on a false premise, I don't think many forget that.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
One of the things Obama opened up and they cannot now put back in the box is that people across the US are once again discussing class, crushing inequality and the surging power and wealth of the mega-rich. This discussion is no longer confined to a few New York liberals or other easy-to-marginalise people - it involves doctors, teachers, students, factory workers and working people of all kinds.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/bernie-sanders-america-ready-for-socialist-president

The Wall St controllers have a serious problem.


I think the comparison to FDR, and even the Republican who followed Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, is valid. The New Deal of the 1930s was revolutionary for its time and proved remarkably popular but also worked out very well indeed for the economy. Roosevelt was told the same things, the country couldn't afford it and it would just weaken the economy further, but he proved those people wrong.

On the British spectrum I would put him in line with the SDP that split off from Labour in the 80s.
Failing a sudden big swing within the next day or two, Bush, Christie and Fiorina are all finished. They're all polling nowhere - before Iowa, Bush looked like he might be able to get something in NH, but since then not one poll has given him more than 10%. Kasich looks to still be in with a chance, at least for now - a few polls are showing him in second or third, at around 15-16%. Carson will do hopelessly in NH as well, but unlike the aforementioned four this was never expected to be one of his stronger states, so he'll keep going until South Carolina.
Just started watching last night's debate. This has to be the most hilarious opening 3 minutes to a debate in the history of mankind. Oh Carson, you are amusing.

Original post by anarchism101
Failing a sudden big swing within the next day or two, Bush, Christie and Fiorina are all finished. They're all polling nowhere - before Iowa, Bush looked like he might be able to get something in NH, but since then not one poll has given him more than 10%. Kasich looks to still be in with a chance, at least for now - a few polls are showing him in second or third, at around 15-16%. Carson will do hopelessly in NH as well, but unlike the aforementioned four this was never expected to be one of his stronger states, so he'll keep going until South Carolina.


I think Bush will continue because he has the money. Carson I'm fairly sure will bow out after NH. I'm sure you're right about the others.
:rofl: Bush could hardly get by, there wasn't room!

Seriously, what a bunch of nincompoops.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
:rofl: Bush could hardly get by, there wasn't room!

Seriously, what a bunch of nincompoops.


I love the way he dropped later (when the moderators finally paid attention to him) that it was too loud and he didn't hear himself get called despite the fact that they obviously told him to walk out.

In other news, Rubio got absolutely savaged by Christie in that first ten minutes, and props to Christie for calling him out on repeatedly using the same rehearsed line about Obama. I haven't watched the full debate (gotta catch a train, hopefully it'll have WiFi), but apparently he tries using it at least one more time and gets outright booed for it.
When you are an establishment stooge with no individuality that is what happens. Also Bernie appeared on Saturday Night Live this weekend alongside his parody, well worth watching.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I thought Christie was excellent last night. Listening to him on one or two issues one could easily be lulled into a sense that the Republican party is fairly reasonable.
Marco Rubot on malfunction watch!

That exchange between him and Christie was honestly one of the most cringe-worthy exchanges I'd ever seen in a publicised political debate. Why repeat a line again after already being pulled up on it?

I'll admit, Rubio is a very smooth communicator, but that moment has really shown him up to be a scripted establishment shill. I'd be quite surprised if his ratings don't take a bit of a hit before the NH caucus.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I thought Christie was excellent last night. Listening to him on one or two issues one could easily be lulled into a sense that the Republican party is fairly reasonable.


Christie's the only remaining Republican candidate that doesn't make my skin crawl. On the whole I'm as against his policies just as much as I am every other Republican (on isidewith the closest match I have to a Republican is 35%, which is Christie, compared to 93% Clinton and 97% Sanders), but he seems to conduct himself better in debates and I don't think I've seen him pander to the evangelicals yet in the campaign. He seems like the lesser evil of the remaining GOP field, or at least the one with the fewest crippling character flaws or nutty policies.
Reply 596
It says I cannot watch the vid because of NBC copyrights. :frown:
In what way? I thought he showed strength last night that he hasn't before, especially in directly taking down Rubio. Also, I don't know if you've watched the whole debate yet, but listen to him speak on drug policy, for example. I was surprised by how moderate he came across.


Original post by looseseal

I'll admit, Rubio is a very smooth communicator, but that moment has really shown him up to be a scripted establishment shill. I'd be quite surprised if his ratings don't take a bit of a hit before the NH caucus.


I actually thought he came across fairly well in the latter half -- I didn't catch the part where he was destroyed by Christie when I watched it live, so I didn't really understand why all the analysts were saying he lost until I went back and saw why.
Original post by Josb
It says I cannot watch the vid because of NBC copyrights. :frown:


Original post by Josb
It says I cannot watch the vid because of NBC copyrights. :frown:


Carson traffic jam:


Rubio implosion:


I'm sure the full debate will be hosted on an official channel by now too :yep:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending