I saw Bernie Sanders live in Madison tonight.
- Thread starter disastermouse
- Start date
- Status
Except he called himself a socialist?
onadesertedisland
Member
I am all for a Socialist movement in the US. Unfortunately, it will have to be renamed to be successful. Too much baggage associated with the layman definition of the word.
Well, in the interviews Ive seen of him, every time the interviewer says he's a socialist he tells the interviewer he's a "democratic socialist". He want's America to get the labour government that Denmark, Norway and Sweden have had a dozen of times. That labour government is called "a socialdemocratic government".
He often refers to how Norway has been build up by the ideology he says he's for (minimum wage, health care is a right). Norways wellfare systems was build by a socialdemocratic party called The Labour Party.
Democratic Socalist is still dead in the water in American politics. It's as unelectable as calling yourself a Democratic Communist.
instagram filter.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
The election wasnt stolen it was sabotaged intentionally by Ralph Nader.
https://web.archive.org/web/2004060...aff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html
This is how I currently see the nominations playing out -
Bernie gets an ENORMOUS chunk of the votes, but Hillary edges him out just because she's been a household name for like two decades.
Just based on the clear support for a person like him, she offers him a VP spot.
Whether or not he accepts is another story since the VP doesn't do jack shit.
I'll vote for Bernie in the primaries, but I know how stupid the American people are, and Fox News repeating 'socialist' every 5 seconds for an entire year is going to brainwash half of the country into voting for anyone besides Bernie. He can have the most intellectual debates and clearly be the best guy to lead the country, but as long as this 'us vs them' thing continues, Hillary is the only one who can beat the Republican clown car.
The only respectable Republican is sadly Jeb, the rest are legitimately insane.
Bernie gets an ENORMOUS chunk of the votes, but Hillary edges him out just because she's been a household name for like two decades.
Just based on the clear support for a person like him, she offers him a VP spot.
Whether or not he accepts is another story since the VP doesn't do jack shit.
I'll vote for Bernie in the primaries, but I know how stupid the American people are, and Fox News repeating 'socialist' every 5 seconds for an entire year is going to brainwash half of the country into voting for anyone besides Bernie. He can have the most intellectual debates and clearly be the best guy to lead the country, but as long as this 'us vs them' thing continues, Hillary is the only one who can beat the Republican clown car.
The only respectable Republican is sadly Jeb, the rest are legitimately insane.
Hillary isn't perfect, but it's her turn- And she has a fuckton of money. Much more than Sanders.
I'm not throwing away my vote on Sanders, even in the primaries... Hillary would appeal to the moderates in the country much more than Sanders ever will.
Just the way it is right now. Perhaps this will change, but I'm putting my money on the winning horse.
I'm not throwing away my vote on Sanders, even in the primaries... Hillary would appeal to the moderates in the country much more than Sanders ever will.
Just the way it is right now. Perhaps this will change, but I'm putting my money on the winning horse.
Why should it be her turn? Is it her birthright to run this country?
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
For sure, the country is nowhere near smart enough to vote Sanders into the WH. Not even remotely. It's funny to even think about it. He'd even be a liability as VP.
Orbis Tabula
Member
The way I see it, you can choose to nudge the country to the left, or you can choose to nudge it to the right. But refusing to offer your nudge just strengthens the nudges of those you disagree with. Refusing to vote doesn't send the message "run a more liberal candidate." It sends the message "liberal candidates can't win. Better rub more right."
The biggest problem the left has in the USA is that when Republicans have a shitty candidate, they fall in line, but when Democrats have a shitty candidate, they sit out. Refusing to vote implicitly strengthens the vote of the person you agree with the least.
I feel like the "utilitarian argument" is getting a lot of shit, but what other reason is there to vote ever? What's the point of refusing to vote is you've acknowledged that Hillary would offer positive utility over a republican. Why purposely allow a less desirable scenario to happen?
The biggest problem the left has in the USA is that when Republicans have a shitty candidate, they fall in line, but when Democrats have a shitty candidate, they sit out. Refusing to vote implicitly strengthens the vote of the person you agree with the least.
I feel like the "utilitarian argument" is getting a lot of shit, but what other reason is there to vote ever? What's the point of refusing to vote is you've acknowledged that Hillary would offer positive utility over a republican. Why purposely allow a less desirable scenario to happen?
gutter_trash
Banned
many political parties in Europe call themselves Socialists in their party name but govern from Center-Left and are infatuated with poets, lavish parties, stealing money and eating caviar
Primaries are also a time for a party to change direction. Not everyone on the left even likes Hillary. Allowing folks like Sanders to speak, allows for her campaign to be shaped in a better direction should she win. This "hurry up" and accept Hillary won is stupid. I agree she is likely to win, but primaries serve an important function. Plus not everyone on the left wants to vote for Clinton.
The party shouldn't take it for granted that she will already win everything. That they can push everyone around and expect those voters to then turn out. I think the likelihood of her losing is a long shot. But a party winning three admins back to back is rare, and that is in part voters being apathetic. Telling everyone to just accept Hillary already won so just accept it, can backfire.
Um, actually, you were. You were saying they were the same. You were saying there was no point in voting one over the other they were so much the same. And now you've pretty much admitted what you were saying was wrong right there.
The speech he gave last night - the one that spawned this thread - has Sanders referring to himself as a democratic socialist.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I don't think she "already won" the general election.
I do know, however, that Bernie Sanders is unelectable as a president.
entremet
Member
Yes. Nader was very popular with the college circuit.
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
of course the house was packed, it's madison.
Hari Seldon
Member
That is because our politicians raise hundreds of millions of dollars and with that kind of dough everyone in the world knows who they are.
So why not allow his platform to shape Hillary's?
I just don't like the idea of everyone having to accept Hillary is their nominee (even if she is likely to be). I see value in other candidates speaking to the voters and influencing things.
Eighty Deuce
Banned
If you like Bernie vote for him, there's nothing more disgusting than other people trying to force a candidate on someone just because. Clinton should earn the nomination rather than it being given to her.
no one wants to run against clinton
The party owed the first election to Clinton, but ultimately just wanted to win. Now that Obama is done, she's the only candidate left. In the sense that, they owe it to her. She's put in her time.
Republicans have no one in the party owed the spot. It's a wide open field. If Hillary was not running, then the Dem primary would be just as open (well maybe Biden would have ran). Apart of politics is making inroads with the party itself. Hillary is well connected and pretty much has everyone's backing within the party.
The odds of anyone else winning is like slim to none. Even if the people wanted Sanders, the people within the party all will back Clinton.
their rhetoric or yours?
Hari Seldon
Member
Translation: She has washed the balls of so many corporations that they refuse to donate to anyone else.
equippedwithtowel
Member
Vote for Sanders in the primary. If the Dems have to deal with an energized base that risks throwing primaries with leftist candidates it'll shift the calculus for centrists who want base turnout.
Not American but Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general is the best option realistically.
Not American but Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general is the best option realistically.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
If Bernie gets into the general election he's going to have completely energized Obama's 08' base.
Jaded kids who want to change the world. I see the shit all over my facebook.
WHO ALSO NEED TO VOTE IN OFF YEAR ELECTIONS FFS
Jaded kids who want to change the world. I see the shit all over my facebook.
WHO ALSO NEED TO VOTE IN OFF YEAR ELECTIONS FFS
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Oh fuck we're going to lose the white house to a republican because all the fucking democrats are in a "Both sides are the same" phase. We are a country of idiots and we deserve what we get.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Democrats don't say that.
The only people I hear say that are republicans who pretend to be independent. Which is completely anecdotal btw.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Sure they do, that's what this whole thread is. That's exactly what the OP was saying. I phrased it a little differently but it's the same sentiment.
There is no chance in the world she will offer him VP. 2008 was one of the closest primary races in American history and Obama did not ask Hillary to be his VP.
VP is about balancing the ticket. Not about who gets second place in the primary.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I still don't even really believe Sanders wants to be president, only that he wants to use the stage of the candidacy to get his ideas in circulation, which is working brilliantly.
Yep, Bernie is smart enough to realize what the outcome is here. Unlike his blind supporters.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
I wouldn't worry. GAF is hardly representative of the actual democratic electorate. You've got people here supporting Bernie who supported Ron Paul, who are polar opposites. They are just in love with populism, it's the same people. Hillary will be a pragmatic leader and and those people in love with populism and idealism hate the idea of being pragmatic, even though it's often what is necessary.
Leeroy3101
Banned
You have Dems who are bought off with big money from wall street, corporations, and banks; then you have the Dems who stand by their principals with no chance because they don't step in line with American plutocracy.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yea, that's why he's making huge grounds against Hillary in New Hampshire.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
This is exactly what this forum said about then-Sen. Obama in 2007. If he raises money like Pres. Obama and unites affluent liberal professionals with the black vote like Pres. Obama, who knows. Not that its easy, but its been done before.
I think he wants to win, because for someone around as long as he's been, he seen the problems directly evolve for decades. He's literally been in a political system that has changed radically around him, easily for the worst.
It's still a win/win hopefully, for even if he does lose, his ideas are finally being put out in the open on the political front. No job creator or other petty rhetoric, but facts that most Americans have known for ages, that very few politicians even talk about publicly. I can't even name one other candidate that actually called out the levels of underemployment among the youth, especially of people who have darker skin. That's almost always overlooked and brushed off.
I look forward to him debating Hillary. Even if he loses in the end, we'll finally have someone who has substance behind his words speaking to Americans. Right now all of Hillary's talking points sound like PR bullet points and not sincere issues.
curlyfriski
Banned
The American political system blows.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Yeah, and? Why should that make me want to vote Republican, or stay home during the election? That Hillary isn't even close to what my ideal candidate would be doesn't mean shit.
Right now enthusiasm from Democrats is well below that from Republicans, so if it's Hilldawg it's entirely likely she just won't be able to get out enough voters because of the same dumb shit espoused in this thread.
Yes it sucks, but we're too stubborn to change it any because we're the best. U S A! U S A!
Interfectum
Member
He's going to absolutely destroy Hillary in the debates. Gonna be hard for some people in here to watch, I'm sure.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
More of a problem than being black and named Hussein? Nobody would have agreed with that in 2007. What's the case for that being true now?
equippedwithtowel
Member
Yep. Exactly, he's demonstrating that 30 percent of the democratic base are in his camp. Which is still a big deal re:internal party politics.
curlyfriski
Banned
Maybe the democrats should try finding an actually exciting candidate
RustyNails
Member
It's not a dumb question. Honestly the democrats don't really have a good bench. There is Hillary, Bernie, Martin O Malley and Lincoln Chafee (so far). Some people think Julian Castro is 'the next Obama', but he is not running. That's pretty much it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked