Support NeoGAF

[Beelzeboss]

I've always been a fan.

He doesn't stand a great chance against Hilary though so it is hard to get excited.

Clinton/Sanders 2016 maybe? That would be cool.

 

[Sephzilla]

Oh, I'm not saying Walker has a good shot or anything.

But he certainly has a much better shot than Sanders when you look at both of them as they currently stand.

Oh, I get you now.

For the sake of discussion - lets just rule out money advantages/disadvantages - who would win in a Walker vs Sanders election?

 

[dramatis]

$$$

Of course, that shouldn't stop people from voting for whom they truly want to be president, but then you get into the whole "well I need to vote for X so that Y doesn't win" mentality.

So what's the distinction between "Indivs" (presumably Individuals) vs "PACs"? Bernie seems to be getting the bulk of his donations from PACs? Shouldn't it be reversed?

 

[Jonm1010]

Bernie is a self-confessed open SOCIALIST.

Take a look at this recent poll. The public isn't a hardcore liberal friendly place like it is online.

If he got the nomination he'd lose to the republican in a landslide.

the thing about this poll I don't get is they only include 1 political ideology. The other things are either religious or hereditary traits.

Frankly throw up libertarian and I would bet you get a similar response. Probably not as low but still low. Heck throw up left-liberal or right-conservative and I also think it would be low. This country is extremely polarized on political grounds.

The fact that nearly 50% of the country is at the point where they would vote for a socialist is actually immensely positive IMO. I mean one party isn't going to vote for a socialist period. That is about 40%+ of the country. And the poll presumes a party affiliation in their questioning. So to me there is actually only a small gap in the Democratic party, or people that associate themselves most as democrats, to accepting a socialist candidate.

 

[BertramCooper]

Oh, I get you now.

For the sake of discussion - lets just rule out money advantages/disadvantages - who would win in a Walker vs Sanders election?

Walker.

 

[Wafflecakes]

No, but thanks for jumping the gun. :/

You were the one who implied that her potential as president was tied to who donates to her.

There is very little evidence that donations change behavior after election. Rather, companies vote for people who they think will win, or they already like.

 

[Grym]

Those sound pretty surmountable.

We're not talking about defending pedophilia, incest, rape, or genital mutilation here. Getting people to accept those terms, in a country that has gay marriage legal everywhere which would go against the religious majority, shouldn't be that hard. Public opinion can snap just like that if needed. Get celebs on the first salvo for accepting such terms like they have done for feminism, and then the public will get around.

Disagree. socialism and anti-religion won't go over well in the midwest, among hispanics, or among african americans IMO which Dems need to win.

Can things change? Sure. I'd love them to. I just don't see it happening. It is definitely not worth risking all three branches of govt and the Supreme Court on a mere hope that opinion could change IMO

 

[Rentahamster]

Yeah, why would Americans be against Scandinavian principles? They are considered the best countries of the world in so many aspects. Of course Americans need to be educated on the benefits of such principles, but I don't see why they'd be against free education and welfare and raising minimum wages and taxing the rich more. The audience, who I suspect are not fringe socialists or leftists, seem to be applauding.

I don't know much about Sanders' positions, but is "Democratic Socialist" supposed to be different from just "Socialist" somehow? What about the Nordic model makes it necessarily Democratic Socialism? As opposed to say, the Cuban or Venezuelan model?

I mean, countries like Sweden aren't even necessarily socialist, in the sense that it's still rooted in capitalism, and the working class doesn't have ownership over the means of production.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

He's not going to win, but ideally he gets to push the conversation in a way that forces Hilary into some more left-leaning positions.

This is what I'm hoping for as well.

 

[Red Mage]

You know if everyone who said he's unelectable voted for him, he would have a really good chance.

I mean, if you're gonna vote for him at least vote for him in the primaries, in the general election he will wipe the floor against any republican candidate.

You guys are starting to sound like Ron Paul supporters...

 

[BertramCooper]

You guys are starting to sound like Ron Paul supporters...

Starting?

They've all sounded like Paul-ites for months now. It's creepy.

 

[Red Mage]

Starting?

They've all sounded like Paul-ites for months now. It's creepy.

I was trying to be polite.

 

[-COOLIO-]

While my views most align with Sanders as well, I personally hope he doesn't win the primaries (honestly I don't think he has a chance).

If he is in the general election, a Republican will end up with the presidency. There are too many "bad words" associated with Sanders for the general public to elect him. "Socialism" and "not very religious" being his insurmountable hurdles.

if he can win the primaries, then he can win the general election.

 

[Wafflecakes]

This is what I'm hoping for as well.

Lets say he is successful at forcing her to take more liberal positions (probably not effecting how she governs at all).

Then she loses a close election in the fall.



Bernie supporters are only shooting their own causes in the face.

 

[American Eskimo]

Starting?

They've all sounded like Paul-ites for months now. It's creepy.

Paul peaked at, what, 10%?

And he campaigned for how long? How many debates?

Bernie is at 20% after a couple months. If hes still at 20% after the first debate it's one thing, but he hasnt shown any plateauing.

The 80% not voting for him have probably never heard of him

 

[vicissitudes]

I don't know much about Sanders' positions, but is "Democratic Socialist" supposed to be different from just "Socialist" somehow? What about the Nordic model makes it necessarily Democratic Socialism? As opposed to say, the Cuban or Venezuelan model?

I mean, countries like Sweden aren't even necessarily socialist, in the sense that it's still rooted in capitalism, and the working class doesn't have ownership over the means of production.

From my best understanding:

Socialism: Government owns all major corporations and businesses.
Bernie's "Democratic Socialism": Government funds all public universities and grant free tuition, Government funds healthcare for all citizens, and public funding for government elections not SuperPACs.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Paul peaked at, what, 10%?

And he campaigned for how long? How many debates?

Bernie is at 20% after a couple months. If hes still at 20% after the first debate it's one thing, but he hasnt shown any plateauing.

The 80% not voting for him have probably never heard of him

Paul also had a lot more competition.

It is the identical phenomenon.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Paul peaked at, what, 10%?

And he campaigned for how long? How many debates?

Bernie is at 20% after a couple months. If hes still at 20% after the first debate it's one thing, but he hasnt shown any plateauing.

The 80% not voting for him have probably never heard of him

promising.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

The current setup of our election system creates a rigid two party structure. As long as that exists the system will elect candidates relatively close to the center politically.

It has nothing at all to do with people "naysaying".

It has everything to do with people naysaying. Bernie Sanders absolutely can win both the primary and general elections and he can spearhead radical change in this country as president... if the people who agree with him actively support him every step of the way. His opinions are those of most Americans. If everyone who's saying "I like him but he has no chance" were to instead actively support his campaign (donate $5 every month (because he's not a corporate whore), talk to their friends and relatives about him (because many people either don't know who he is or have mistaken ideas about him), attend a local meeting or rally (which is the best way to compel the media to cover him), vocally criticize those who dismiss him as irrelevant (because they're wrong)) he'd win. My 61-year-old mother went from a lifelong registered Republican to last week asking me how to re-register as a Democrat so that she can vote for Sanders in the primary. She's about as basic as a Judge Judy/Two and a Half Men/American Idol watching, Bejeweled playing baby boomer gets, yet here we are.

I'm not resigned to living in an oligarchy. If you are, that sucks, but stop trying to impede those of us who are willing to fight against it.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Starting?

They've all sounded like Paul-ites for months now. It's creepy.

Its concerning quite frankly. I dont think they will take a Bernie lost well at all.

 

[SimleuqiR]

Love the man.
Check this out:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...cc-to-investigate-cable-and-broadband-prices/

For actions like these corporations would fight tooth and nail to make sure he don't get elected.

The letter—also signed by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.)

In an ideal world, my ideal world, it would be like this:

Sanders - President
Franken - Vice President
Warren - Majority Leader of HOR

 

[King Tubby]

I want to see a general election between Trump and Sanders. Let's make it happen America.

 

[Erheller]

If he makes it past primaries, I'll vote for him.

However, unfortunately, Clinton has much influence, a tad too much actually.
It's unfortunate because the U.S. hasn't had a socialist with this much potential since Eugene V. Debs of 1912.

It's a shame that Debs isn't more widely recognized. He was one of the most influential Socialists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, founding the IWW and Socialist Party. He also ran for president 4 times - he ran in 1920 from prison, while also being disenfranchised (can't vote).

If I ever get a chance to vote for Sanders, I'll probably do it.

 

[Yaphett Kotto]

You were the one who implied that her potential as president was tied to who donates to her.

I was referring to you saying I probably want a republican in office.

There is very little evidence that donations change behavior after election. Rather, companies vote for people who they think will win, or they already like.

Has she not been supporting banks, though? What other reason will they dump thousands of dollars onto her?

 

[kirblar]

It has everything to do with people naysaying. Bernie Sanders absolutely can win both the primary and general elections and he can spearhead radical change in this country as president... if the people who agree with him actively support him every step of the way. His opinions are those of most Americans. If everyone who's saying "I like him but he has no chance" were to instead actively support his campaign (donate $5 every month (because he's not a corporate whore), talk to their friends and relatives about him (because many people either don't know who he is or have mistaken ideas about him), attend a local meeting or rally (which is the best way to compel the media to cover him), vocally criticize those who dismiss him as irrelevant (because they're wrong)) he'd win. My 61-year-old mother went from a lifelong registered Republican to last week asking me how to re-register as a Democrat so that she can vote for Sanders in the primary. She's about as basic as a Judge Judy/Two and a Half Men/American Idol watching, Bejeweled playing baby boomer gets, yet here we are.

I'm not resigned to living in an oligarchy. If you are, that sucks, but stop trying to impede those of us who are willing to fight against it.

Democrats tried this "veer to the left" shit in the '70s/'80s.

It was a complete trainwreck that set progessivism back enormously.

The GOP is doing the same suicide dive with their "RINO" stuff (thankfully) - there's no need to start repeating past mistakes.

 

[andycapps]

Without the super-PAC money, he really has no chance. Combining that with the term "socialist" and I don't think he has a shot. What we really need in this country is limits on the amount of money each candidate can raise. And then at that point, it becomes a war of ideas, not how good of a fundraiser you are.

 

[Wafflecakes]

It has everything to do with people naysaying. Bernie Sanders absolutely can win both the primary and general elections and he can spearhead radical change in this country as president... if the people who agree with him actively support him every step of the way. His opinions are those of most Americans. If everyone who's saying "I like him but he has no chance" were to instead actively support his campaign (donate $5 every month (because he's not a corporate whore), talk to their friends and relatives about him (because many people either don't know who he is or have mistaken ideas about him), attend a local meeting or rally (which is the best way to compel the media to cover him), vocally criticize those who dismiss him as irrelevant (because they're wrong)) he'd win. My 61-year-old mother went from a lifelong registered Republican to last week asking me how to re-register as a Democrat so that she can vote for Sanders in the primary. She's about as basic as a Judge Judy/Two and a Half Men/American Idol watching, Bejeweled playing baby boomer gets, yet here we are.

I'm not resigned to living in an oligarchy. If you are, that sucks, but stop trying to impede those of us who are willing to fight against it.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Labels matter, and he has been labeled socialist, making him unelectable.

While it is true that most Americans don't really understand the meaning of the term socialist, there is no chance of them being educated in it by the time of the election.



...and as to you last comment. I will also try to impede fools who hurt their own causes because of idealism.

 

[gutter_trash]

I agree with Sanders on most of his points, and it would be good one day for the US to have a real Liberal President instead of a corporatist

but the sad truth is that the Presidential campaigns are designed for millionaires and donors.

 

[googleplex]

Seems like a cool guy.

100% unelectable though. So I am not wasting much interest or any $$$ on him.

That's pretty much my opinion on the matter, maybe he'll push Hillary to the left a little.

I personally feel this election is too important to throw a vote away on Bernie. Losing Supreme Court nominations would be disastrous in the long run.

Pretty much these post.

 

[Besthelboy]

Bernie is the only candidate who represents my best interests as a citizen of the United States. He will get my vote.

 

[Red Mage]

Its concerning quite frankly. I dont think they will take a Bernie lost well at all.

Oh, it'll just be as bad as when Paul lost. No more, no less. Might want to cut out sodium from your diet before visiting GAF, though. The salt will be at dangerous levels.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Democrats tried this "veer to the left" shit in the '70s/'80s.

It was a complete trainwreck that set progessivism back enormously.

The GOP is doing the same suicide dive with their "RINO" stuff (thankfully) - there's no need to start repeating past mistakes.

Exactly. Its hypocritical and because of that the Republican's controlled picking the court for 24 years between 69'-93. Carter got no pick and was the only D between Nixon and Clinton. Clinton was the FIRST Democratic to win reelection since FDR.

Food for thought.

 

[Bowdz]

OP, this is precisely the type of sentiment that I can truly respect and applaud. Compare this original post with the "I just saw Bernie Sanders live in Madison..." thread and the difference is staggering. Great OP that acknowledges the realities of the current Democratic primary as far as I'm concerned. If everyone in the Democratic primary were this level headed, I would be a happy camper.

Kudos OP.

 

[GameAddict411]

The reasons why he won't remotely have a chance at winning is because of the reasons you listed. Clinton says god bless america not just because she believes in a God, but to cater in people even from the right wing. You have get as many votes as possible, He is just too liberal for most people.

 

[Grym]

if he can win the primaries, then he can win the general election.

He can't, so I guess no worries. I'm very happy he is in for now though to push Clinton to the left a bit.

Even if he did win the primaries, I think he would face a hard run. Nothing is going to get Rush Limbaugh-esque voters out to the general polls more than a strong socialist on the ballot to vote against. It wouldn't take many attack ads to convince the uninformed and undecided and generally unpolitical how horrible socialism is and how it must be stopped for 'Merica to remain free.

 

[Hilbert]

I like just about all of his positions.

But I also like all of Clinton's. And I think she has a better chance of getting elected, and I think she would make a more effective president, even if she won't be quite as progressive as Sanders would be.

To sum up: I would rather take a smaller sure step to the left, then attempt to make a leap to the left and have the possibility of stumbling to the right.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

I'd vote for him. Probably the biggest reason is that he seriously believes in what he says and has a track record to show for it.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Americans have the big problem of feeling better than any other country. As such, him promoting socialism, which is a system used by the communist union of europe , will never pass. Americans can't have socialized healtcare or gun control in 2015. Electing a socialist is as likely as a rich entering heaven.

I'd totally vote for him though.

 

[pgtl_10]

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. He calls himself that but isn't one. Why must vote for someone that can win? I vote Green Party because I feel Jill Stein is the best candidate for president. If I wanted to pick a winner I would just go to Vegas.

 

[jelly]

How strange that some people write him off. He isn't part of some fringe party like you get in other countries, he is one of the two choices. If you think he is the right person for the job, vote for him. I was reading about him in the paper today and I think he sounds like he has his head on straight and isn't giving a good ear to interested parties only out to screw people for their own interest. I like him.

That socialist word, don't fear it. It's like code for the red army in the US. They need to educate people more that it not only exists there already in many forms and isn't an either or nothing viewpoint and leads to very healthy and prosperous nations.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

You guys are starting to sound like Ron Paul supporters...

Ehh, if he doesn't win or get close in Iowa or some other place I'll drop it.

I have high hopes, but I have no issue voting Hillary if I need to.

Ron Paul was a fucking travesty of policy, at least Bernie isn't fucking insane.

 

[JustenP88]

Walker.

Walker would be far too alienating to minorities and the left in general to pull any bit of support away from Sanders.

 

[Septimus Prime]

Bernie is the President we need but probably won't get. The irony is that most of the Americans who would vote against him are the ones who would benefit most from his policies.

Heck, just today, he, Warren, and Franken are pushing to have the FCC investigate price gouging by ISPs. I wouldn't hold my breath on Hillary ever doing something like that, much less any of the GOP guys.

 

[inm8num2]

So what's the distinction between "Indivs" (presumably Individuals) vs "PACs"? Bernie seems to be getting the bulk of his donations from PACs? Shouldn't it be reversed?

PACs raise and donate money on behalf of their organization/cause. Bernie has the support of various labor unions, while Hillary has the support of the banks.

On top of that, Hillary has received most of her financing from individuals. They may work for the companies represented by PACs that support her, but their donations are made individually/directly rather than through the PAC.

I think I got that right...

 

[JustenP88]

Its concerning quite frankly. I dont think they will take a Bernie lost well at all.

Nowhere near as concerning as the pro-establishment cheerleading going on. We can't have a discussion about a fringe candidate without people rushing in trying to shame it.

 

[pgtl_10]

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. He can claim it all he wants but I highly doubt he believes in working class cooperatives and society owning the means of production.

 

[Cheebo]

If you're looking for ways to contribute, buy a shirt. It's sure to be trendy.

You can store it right next to this bad boy:

 

[Arkeband]

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. He calls himself that but isn't one. Why must vote for someone that can win? I vote Green Party because I feel Jill Stein is the best candidate for president. If I wanted to pick a winner I would just go to Vegas.

 

[And_Gignac]

Seems like a cool guy.

100% unelectable though. So I am not wasting much interest or any $$$ on him.

This is a really pathetic attitude to have. Plenty of countries have elected "unelectable" (by mainstream, centrists saying) candidates. I don't see why the U.S. would be any different.

 

[Interfectum]

Nowhere near as concerning as the pro-establishment cheerleading going on. We can't have a discussion about a fringe candidate without people rushing in trying to shame it.

Yup this.

Gotta love the smug Clinton supporters coming in hating on people who dare to think there could be a better choice out there than a corporate stooge.