Support NeoGAF

[Kill3r7]

Look, all you have to do is bundle a bunch of those loans together and sell them in highly rated packages to other financial institutions.

Yeah because that worked out great last time.;-)

 

[Rentahamster]

Sanders is technically a social democrat, from my recollection, rather than an actual socialist.

I still think that implies social ownership of the means of production, which the Nordic model doesn't have.

 

[benjipwns]

2008 and 2016 are nowhere near comparable, Hillary never had these leads in the 2008 cycle.

The first CNN/ORC poll with Obama in it, October 2006:
Clinton 28%
Obama 17%
Edwards 13%
Gore 13%
Kerry 12%

The first CNN/ORC poll with Sanders in it, November 2014:
Clinton 65%
Warren 10%
Biden 9%
Sanders 5%
Cuomo 1%
Webb 1%
Patrick 1%

W/O Clinton:
Biden 41%
Warren 20%
Cuomo 7%
Sanders 7%
O'Malley 4%
Webb 3%
Patrick 2%

 

[NeoXChaos]

Key words on why that won't be an issue--if they really don't know what it means, than why would they care/why would it be an issue?. The GOP have already made that word lose all meaning by trying to drag candidates like Obama through the mud with it, only for it to bounce off him since people apparently aren't as stupid as you think they are. It would be the same with Sanders--people won't give a fuck whether he actually calls him a socialist or whatever, since that has just become a buzzword, people know it, and those actually convinced by it were never going to vote for a candidate with a (D) next to their name regardless whereas those who aren't will care more about stuff like policy and the debates, as per usual.

This is also just completely ignoring current polling data and just how tight the electoral map is for the GOP right now, period. If Bernie gets past the primary, he'll have the general on lock--there's just no real viable way to a GOP presidency in 2016 way.

I just don't get how it's misguided at all, especially with the above combined with a feeling of how much of a snail's pace the Democratic party has been moving at these past years due to this exact train of thought. It's due to this exact train of thinking and somehow feeling we need a candidate who appeals to both Democrats and Republicans and is able to compromise or whatever to get stuff done now that we're at where we're at now, where the Dems have to fight tooth and nail to get anything passed the GOP-controlled congress, and despite knowing that it will take such a fight regardless of what they do, opt for compromise "feel-good-for-all-side" stuff like the Affordable Care Act that neither side is really happy with, but having all their political pull used up to get it past regardless because... why exactly?

What's the benefit of "compromise" politics like that when the GOP will fight it regardless, trying every trick they possibly can to fight it back like shutting down the government and going to the Supreme Court, and using up all their political clout and going through all that effort just for the sake a "compromise" the GOP was never interested in to begin with and the left isn't happy with regardless?

What's the point of fighting that hard for something that still doesn't bring the United States anywhere close to being in line with the rest of the developed world on issues like healthcare? If the GOP's going to fight so tooth-and-nail regardless, shouldn't the Democratic party be doing the same? Actually fighting for legislation that actually will bring the US in line with the rest of the world, not just fighting for some compromise with the GOP that they're not interested in and resulting in bills the left isn't happy with anywhere and leaves the fundamental core issues they're meant to "treat" still in place?

And we're just supposed to continue down this road with more "compromise" candidates like Clinton? Just what's the point of this train of thought? Just how long will it take the US to actually get with the rest of the world and implement changes such as a single-payer health-care system when we continue to be obsessed with compromise candidates who can "appeal" to both the bases of the left and the right, when the right has clearly made it evident that they're not interested in the word time and time again and it just results in legislation neither side is happy with. Who does this really benefit? What's the point of this approach? How can anyone truly be satisfied with it? I just don't get it.

Meanwhile, current polling data is very favorable towards Sanders in a hypothetical run in the general election, and that's just now, before most of the public even knows who the dude is. That's how skewed against the GOP the electoral map is. That being the case, why not give him a shot? If the polls are favorable toward him now, that could only become more the case with time, especially as he would completely clown the GOP in the debates. Why not go for him, a candidate actually in favor of a single-payer healthcare system for a change? I mean, even if he gets elected, there's the question of if he'd even be able to get such a thing passed, but at least he'd be someone to fight for it and due his hardest to get it passed and try, which is much better than just giving up right from the get-go and assuming defeat from the beginning.

Why vote against him and favor candidates that continue to be in favor of the compromise method instead, who vote for and fight for legislation that leaves neither side happy instead? That instead of fighting for stuff like single-payer, fight for stuff like the ACA, which, while certainly an improvement, still leaves the fundamental issues in play and thus make it necessary for us to come back and fight over these same issues election after election anyway? Why fight for someone instead who would just go for compromise options that leave neither side happy and the core issues remaining, for someone else to have to tackle again regardless at a later day? If we're going to fight so hard, shouldn't it at least be something to bring the US in line with the rest of the world? Regardless of if it actually happens or not, shouldn't that at least be what we're willing to fight for, to say we did our best for and actually tried what we could to make it happen instead of just kicking it decades further down the line to even do that much?

How can anyone, Democrat, or Republican, liberal or conservative, truly be happy with the current state of the Democratic party when that's it's current mindset and as a result it just keeps moving at such a snail's pace to nowhere in particular, accomplishing nothing, leaving no one satisfied and energizing the bases on neither side? Why is that what we want? Why is that what we fought for and we continue to fight for? If we're going to fight, and the current polls by all right suggest we should, then shouldn't we fight for something more?

Sorry this turned into such a rant, but I'm just tired of the current Democratic party at this point and just don't get it and why people keep fighting for something that they themselves admit they don't really event want and leaves them unsatisfied and leaves the core issues in play, and then does it again, again, and again, and for some reason then attacks anyone who even so much as suggests doing otherwise despite it being in everyone's best interests, there's no reason to not believe we can do it, the polling and electoral maps suggest we can, but yet we stop ourselves and turn pessimistic and cynical at every turn and just keep doubting ourselves, resulting in us fighting for policy that does nothing instead of policies and candidates that are truly worth fighting for. I just don't get it...

I actually read all of this. I can sympathize with your plight but I disagree with you ultimately. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Compromise has always been how this nation worked. Why would it suddenly stop no matter who ultimately gets in there? Why so much blame on the Democratic Party? I am tired of the current Republican Party and its buffoonery but here they are the majority party in all but the WH. They are not going away anytime soon. It is better to incrementally effect change at a snails pace and is more probable than take a quick hard left and leave it to hope's chance. As for the ACA, people are quite happy with it. You may not be but plenty are despite the concessions. We could have just had nothing but something is better than nothing. As for Sanders and his positions the country has not shifted enough in our direction to guarantee that he will win on the issues to enough people in the middle that still decides election. The electoral college is no guarantee no matter how "nutty" you may think the otherside is. I have stopped trying to pretend the "clown car" has "no chance" of winning when they still do.

 

[HylianTom]

Pretty much. And besides which, it's not like the GOP will want to work with any candidate with a D next to their name. Anyone who's paid any attention to the GOP during Obama's presidency should have picked up at least that much from it--the GOP has gone fully insane and has thrown any semblance of compromise out the window. It's a worthless goal and there's absolutely no reason Hillary would be any better at it than Bernie, since it's just not something the current GOP is interested in regardless.

The Congressional GOP's intransigence, combined with the daunting math needed to retake the House, sets the theme in my mind for this election: "2016: Making the Best of a Bad Situation"

If the next President is a Democrat, that person will be basically issuing executive orders and making judicial appointments, biding his/her time until the Congressional logjam breaks (if it ever does so in the next 8 years). It's depressing to think about for too long, given the huge fundamental problems that loom over our country.. but at least we'd be able to get a fifth judge in place to reverse Citizens United. Removing unlimited money would be a huge step in and of itself.

 

[werks]

Also, one of the big things that happened the last time a Clinton worked with Congress was repealing Glass-Steagall. Sanders has already shown he can work with Republicans for things so I don't think that's a huge concern versus Hillary.

Well Clinton can work together with congress to repeal Dodd-Frank this time. I'm sure the GOP will also work with her on bipartisan policies that support her private prison donors. At least she will get shit done, now let go ahead and ignore Bernie's record of bipartisanship can actually favor progressives.

 

[Interfectum]

response

Those are all good responses to his platform. And you know what happened, you were forced to talk about the issues. Which is the point. Sanders will bring these issues (some radical, some not) to the table under his presidency. Some might be booted off immediately, others compromised. But regardless, these economic issues will be talked about front and center.

I believe we need a candidate like him who will reach high and even if he gets 10% of his ideas his place we'll be better off for it. Unlike Clinton who will most likely play it very safe economically for the majority of her presidency.

 

[lednerg]

Sanders is technically a social democrat, from my recollection, rather than an actual socialist.
While nothing is a forgone conclusion this early on, the situation to Obama isn't really that analogous.

Obama drew a coalition of the more liberal wing of voters, while sweeping the black vote after his early wins, the latter of which really seems key to winning the candidacy. Obama essentially matched Clinton in fundraising. Clinton also had a relatively small proportion of weighted endorsements in 2008, when last I checked on 538, Sanders still had none to a weighed score of 300+ for Clinton. And I was just reminded, national polling results didn't show the degree of disparity we're seeing. Again, while these are only loose indicators for eventual nomination this early, there's a major disparity between the 2008 and current situations.The given voter may simply value greater probability than whatever particular issue doesn't align as well.

And/or alternatively, a greater proportion of the Democratic base may simply align ultimately better with Clinton's platform, which ultimately will be pretty "liberal" (under American political vernacular.)

Again, I don't see how he could pull it off, either. Just saying, like John Oliver pointed out, a child conceived today will be three months old during the 2016 DNC. We're way out, and lots can happen. Obama's campaign was lightning in a bottle; the stars aligned for that, so I don't mean to directly compare the two. But for all we know, Martin O'Malley could save a school bus of puppies from drowning and become the toast of the town. We just don't know.

Mostly, I'm just looking forward to the debates.

 

[benjipwns]

but at least we'd be able to get a fifth judge in place to reverse Citizens United.

I can't wait for a Hillary Clinton appointee to help overturn the case that a prohibited critical film of Hillary Clinton caused which restored some press rights and protections.

 

[dramatis]

Then you are ignoring the most fundamental issue in our political process today, the influence of corporate money. Hillary can say all the words she wants, we know who is signing the checks. It's not like we have her great progressive record to support her sudden shift to the left on issues.

I'll say this to the Hillary supporters. If she is the better candidate, then beat sanders in the primary (shouldn't be an issue according to you guys). Quit telling us that we shouldn't vote for sanders because Hillary is the default choice. A contested primary didn't hurt Obama and it won't hurt whoever the presidential candidate is.

The same applies to Bernie supporters, no? If he's the better candidate, you don't need to tell people how Bernie is the only choice, the only genuine candidate, the only one who will listen to the people, etc. I don't recall an instance in which people are telling Bernie supporters not to vote for Sanders. The statement, "vote Sanders in primary, vote Hillary in general" has come up quite often though, and that's not even offensive.

Bernie can also say what he wants, but the great Congressional record of the past eight years will prove his efforts to enact significant change futile. Sorry if the people who actually followed politics in non-presidential election years are more realistic about what happens in government. It's a rather conceited attitude to pretend you are on the high ground here when you weren't here when we lost the House and nor were you here when we lost the Senate. You can support Bernie to your hearts content, that's fine. Don't pretend you actually care about the issues, you guys just want someone who will bear the whole burden of acting on the issues for you. I feel sorry for Bernie Sanders having to support all of these unrealistic dreams.

Hillary didn't suddenly shift left. On various issues she has a range of opinions. I imagine people are allowed to have different positions on different things, and certainly those positions can change over time. It's why we have a formerly Democratic Rick Perry turning into a Republican, or why Donald Trump blusters about immigration but supports universal health care. Call it flip flopping, call it whatever. I'm not of the opinion that people won't change their views in the course of years.

You can also disparage the influence of money all you want, but Bernie can't win a general election without that money—those who think that the electoral votes roll in just because their candidate is great and on the Democratic side are naive. In the general election, the Republicans will be backing their candidate with millions to finance ground game to contact voters in battleground states and drive them to the elections. This is what the Obama campaign did to get the votes out in the places that mattered, and it eats a lot of manpower and money. Those extra votes in hotly contested states didn't come out to vote Obama; his campaign picked them up.

I think it's not about how the votes look on the surface, how the states poll, etc. Serious resources and effort win electoral votes. For all those states poll you need the ground game to get those polled voters to the ballot box. Denying yourself the money to do so while your opponents are outspending you by several orders larger is frankly stupid.

 

[Future]

Problem with Bernie is there are some thing's he says that will turn people off immediately. Whether he uses the term socialist, or democratic socialist, or whatever... Those terms are toxic to a lot of America and puts a lot of people in the will not vote camp immediately. People may consider the republican the best of two options and claim: at least I didn't vote for a socialist

Other democrats have been tactful in talking about socialist policy. Berny is just way to direct to win IMO

 

[HylianTom]

I can't wait for a Hillary Clinton appointee to help overturn the case that a prohibited critical film of Hillary Clinton caused which restored some press rights and protections.

I still want to see that movie at some point. If she's the nominee, they should play it as an infomercial..

 

[King Tubby]

Here's where it is on a few issues: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/4-politically-controversial-issues-where-all-economists-agree/255600/

That first article completely misses the boat on why most people who are opposed to free trade acts (at least in my experience) are opposed. Look at the reaction to the TPP. Baseline "free trade is good!" is not a part of the equation.

 

[dabig2]

Honestly, I wish we had a more charismatic and younger Bernie Sanders. Aka an Obama with Sander's brain. Or just give us Elizabeth Warren *sigh*

Because I think Bernies ideas can get him elected. The American public isn't some rigid conservative monolith. Shit changes all the time, but in order for it to change you have to push sometimes too. I want Hilary to push, and not just stall around waiting for the American electorate to advance before even mentioning more liberal ideas. You can push ahead too.

 

[Cheebo]

Then you are ignoring the most fundamental issue in our political process today, the influence of corporate money. Hillary can say all the words she wants, we know who is signing the checks. It's not like we have her great progressive record to support her sudden shift to the left on issues.

If you think anyone outside of fringe liberals care about this issue you are very mistaken.

 

[Rebel Leader]

I smell bullshit.

PhoenicIans
FeltTheBern

 

[Fox318]

A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for a Republican landslide, a vote for four or more years of fuck you hard right policy, a vote for the replacement of Justice Ginsberg with a conservative zealot.

Think long and hard at what you're playing at, progressives.

Honestly I feel like this is closer to the truth.

I can't see Bernie leading the democratic party.

 

[Kill3r7]

Those are all good responses to his platform. And you know what happened, you were forced to talk about the issues. Which is the point. Sanders will bring these issues (some radical, some not) to the table under his presidency. Some might be booted off immediately, others compromised. But regardless, these economic issues will be talked about front and center.

I believe we need a candidate like him who will reach high and even if he gets 10% of his ideas his place we'll be better off for it. Unlike Clinton who will most likely play it very safe economically for the majority of her presidency.

But will he win? I admit that Sanders is a more idealistic candidate than Hillary but I think Hillary has a better chance of winning the general election because she is not alienating the non partisan voters. At the end of the day addressing all of these issues though admirable does not bring Sanders closer to winning and winning is all that matters.

 

[benjipwns]

The real Ron Paul comparison and why they don't win has nothing to do with issues or anything. It's appearance and goals. They're both old and speak differently on topics/issues, like professors or something, at a depth more than a couple sentences.

While Hillary is basically a celebrity more than anything detailed. Like Obama was.

At the joint press conferences we call debates Sanders isn't going to get to talk in depth in the 60 seconds per answer he gets anymore than Ron Paul ever got a chance to explain why foreign wars are bad to the "small government" party. Hillary will have every needed box ticked and a bag full of applause lines focused on the only goal necessary, and in reality the only goal relevant, being elected.

 

[Sunset Samurai]

Thank you Based God! #ProtectBernieAtAllCost

 

[jtb]

Bernie will not win the nomination.

The real Ron Paul comparison and why they don't win has nothing to do with issues or anything. It's appearance and goals. They're both old and speak differently on topics/issues, like professors or something, at a depth more than a paragraph.

While Hillary is basically a celebrity more than anything detailed. Like Obama was.

At the joint press conferences we call debates Sanders isn't going to get to talk in depth in the 60 seconds per answer he gets anymore than Ron Paul ever got a chance to explain why foreign wars are bad to the "small government" party. Hillary will have every needed box ticked and a bag full of applause lines focused on the only goal necessary, and in reality the only goal relevant, being elected.

What? They're both extremists (I don't mean this in a pejorative sense; they're both undeniably on the fringes of the American political spectrum) that largely preach to the already converted. Bernie will have a very difficult time expanding beyond that base. It's an obvious analogue.

 

[ShadowKingpin]

It is likely an outlier.

So.....what is an Outlier?

 

[benjipwns]

If Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul looked like Mitt Romney and stuffed their positions into rising sound bites that didn't need an understanding of an issue first they would do better than they did/will.

We can't tell where they stand on the American political spectrum because duopoly elections have basically nothing to do with any of that.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The same applies to Bernie supporters, no? If he's the better candidate, you don't need to tell people how Bernie is the only choice, the only genuine candidate, the only one who will listen to the people, etc. I don't recall an instance in which people are telling Bernie supporters not to vote for Sanders. The statement, "vote Sanders in primary, vote Hillary in general" has come up quite often though, and that's not even offensive.

Bernie can also say what he wants, but the great Congressional record of the past eight years will prove his efforts to enact significant change futile. Sorry if the people who actually followed politics in non-presidential election years are more realistic about what happens in government. It's a rather conceited attitude to pretend you are on the high ground here when you weren't here when we lost the House and nor were you here when we lost the Senate. You can support Bernie to your hearts content, that's fine. Don't pretend you actually care about the issues, you guys just want someone who will bear the whole burden of acting on the issues for you. I feel sorry for Bernie Sanders having to support all of these unrealistic dreams.

Hillary didn't suddenly shift left. On various issues she has a range of opinions. I imagine people are allowed to have different positions on different things, and certainly those positions can change over time. It's why we have a formerly Democratic Rick Perry turning into a Republican, or why Donald Trump blusters about immigration but supports universal health care. Call it flip flopping, call it whatever. I'm not of the opinion that people won't change their views in the course of years.

You can also disparage the influence of money all you want, but Bernie can't win a general election without that money—those who think that the electoral votes roll in just because their candidate is great and on the Democratic side are naive. In the general election, the Republicans will be backing their candidate with millions to finance ground game to contact voters in battleground states and drive them to the elections. This is what the Obama campaign did to get the votes out in the places that mattered, and it eats a lot of manpower and money. Those extra votes in hotly contested states didn't come out to vote Obama; his campaign picked them up.

I think it's not about how the votes look on the surface, how the states poll, etc. Serious resources and effort win electoral votes. For all those states poll you need the ground game to get those polled voters to the ballot box. Denying yourself the money to do so while your opponents are outspending you by several orders larger is frankly stupid.

This too. Putting everything on Bernie's(Hillary's) shoulder is not fair when he(she) like Obama needs Democrats elected in Congress to support his(her) agenda. You were there when Obama was elected and reelected but were not there when he needed you in 2010 and 2014.

 

[noshten]

A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for a Republican landslide, a vote for four or more years of fuck you hard right policy, a vote for the replacement of Justice Ginsberg with a conservative zealot.

Think long and hard at what you're playing at, progressives.

Sure it is. Just like a vote for Hilary is a vote for 4 more years of the same old politics that have continued on even after Bush left the office - unpopular wars, drone strikes, CIA sponsored terrorism, big business bailouts and tax breaks, corporations having more and more power in elections and the total destruction of the American middle class.

 

[dabig2]

But will he win? I admit that Sanders is a more idealistic candidate than Hillary but I think Hillary has a better chance of winning the general election because she is not alienating the non partisan voters. At the end of the day addressing all of these issues though admirable does not bring Sanders closer to winning and winning is all that matters.

This is dangerous thinking though. We don't get an Obama with that logic.There's always going to be some blue dog democrat somewhere that has the potential to win more votes just mainly due to them straddling the lines while at least being decent people towards minorities.

If Bernie wins the nomination then good for him. He did it legitimately. The next step would be to band together and help him win the general election. We did all of this already in 2008 for Obama, so why not with Bernie? I rather fight then resign myself to defeat at least. If you think the american electorate is too conservative for Bernie's idea, then volunteer and move them closer to your ideals! Be active.

Also, for those thinking that Bernie won't be able to pass anything with this Congress, neither can Hillary...or Obama. But what we can do is nudge the public to the left, show them that these assholes in Congress don't have their best in mind and that they're literally reversing progress that can be made.

 

[benjipwns]

Sure it is. Just like a vote for Hilary is a vote for 4 more years of the same old politics that have continued on even after Bush left the office - unpopular wars, drone strikes, CIA sponsored terrorism, big business bailouts and tax breaks, corporations having more and more power in elections and the total destruction of the American middle class.

It's almost like voting...doesn't matter?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Thanks, Obama?

 

[dehydratedbabies]

No, it's not, that would be terrible. It's exactly why people say the Republicans can't win the GE because to get the nom they have to go really far right to appease their base. Going further right or left just pulls you further away from independents and moderates. Those are the votes you have to win. The people far right or left will generally fall in line and vote for their candidates party once the selection is made.

It's not like anything the candidates say now has much of a bearing on what they do once in office anyway.

I was mocking that idea with sarcasm

 

[soleil]

The same applies to Bernie supporters, no? If he's the better candidate, you don't need to tell people how Bernie is the only choice, the only genuine candidate, the only one who will listen to the people, etc. I don't recall an instance in which people are telling Bernie supporters not to vote for Sanders. The statement, "vote Sanders in primary, vote Hillary in general" has come up quite often though, and that's not even offensive.

Bernie can also say what he wants, but the great Congressional record of the past eight years will prove his efforts to enact significant change futile. Sorry if the people who actually followed politics in non-presidential election years are more realistic about what happens in government. It's a rather conceited attitude to pretend you are on the high ground here when you weren't here when we lost the House and nor were you here when we lost the Senate. You can support Bernie to your hearts content, that's fine. Don't pretend you actually care about the issues, you guys just want someone who will bear the whole burden of acting on the issues for you. I feel sorry for Bernie Sanders having to support all of these unrealistic dreams.

Hillary didn't suddenly shift left. On various issues she has a range of opinions. I imagine people are allowed to have different positions on different things, and certainly those positions can change over time. It's why we have a formerly Democratic Rick Perry turning into a Republican, or why Donald Trump blusters about immigration but supports universal health care. Call it flip flopping, call it whatever. I'm not of the opinion that people won't change their views in the course of years.

You can also disparage the influence of money all you want, but Bernie can't win a general election without that money—those who think that the electoral votes roll in just because their candidate is great and on the Democratic side are naive. In the general election, the Republicans will be backing their candidate with millions to finance ground game to contact voters in battleground states and drive them to the elections. This is what the Obama campaign did to get the votes out in the places that mattered, and it eats a lot of manpower and money. Those extra votes in hotly contested states didn't come out to vote Obama; his campaign picked them up.

I think it's not about how the votes look on the surface, how the states poll, etc. Serious resources and effort win electoral votes. For all those states poll you need the ground game to get those polled voters to the ballot box. Denying yourself the money to do so while your opponents are outspending you by several orders larger is frankly stupid.

1) No, the same does not apply to Bernie because Bernie still faces name recognition issues. So the idea is a lot of people DON'T know what he's about, and it helps to inform people.

That's not the case with Hillary. We know who she is.

Even here on GAF once in a while you see someone go "Oh, isidewith.com says Bernie is my best match. Maybe I should find out more about him." These people didn't even know Bernie's positions matched with theirs, so why would they know his record of sincerity? Same cannot be said for Hillary.

2) Bernie has a great record of working with Republicans and getting things passed in Congress.

3) Hillary has a history of pushing right-wing things like the Iraq war, tough on crime policies, deregulating banks, opposing gay marriage until after public opinion shifted... you can have different opinions but at a certain point, the evidence says you're just saying whatever it takes to get elected. Changing your mind on a couple issues over decades is believable. Changing your mind on all the issues that Hillary has supposedly "evolved" on is not believable.

4) In the days of the internet where a lot more people are online (and even among senior citizens, way more are on social networks compared to 2008), the money can indeed be brought out of politics, and we need leaders who can set the example. Bernie is a leader on that. Hillary is not a leader on that, nor is she for many other things.

5) Thinking you'll get corruption fixed by voting in the beneficiaries of said corruption is frankly, stupid.

 

[lednerg]

I think the excitement that Bernie is generating is going to help Hillary in the end. Those who are afraid he will spoil the election, I feel, are being a tad fatalistic. His rallies are revitalizing the political left in this country. After last year's elections, that's exactly what we need.

 

[tanooki27]

I definitely heard a lot of similar statements during the primaries eight years ago.

you are comparing the Obama campaign machine to the Sanders campaign machine. consider the variables at work here.

did you know that Harry Reid personally (and privately) pushed O to run against Hillary in '08? Reid, one of the top senatorial leaders? the importance of party support is paramount. it is almost essential.

consider that Sanders openly aligns himself with socialism. Is America ripe for radicalism? ripe enough for a Sanders administration?

finally, recognize Obama's charisma as a candidate.

there is a vast gulf between the two campaigns.

 

[werks]

The same applies to Bernie supporters, no? If he's the better candidate, you don't need to tell people how Bernie is the only choice, the only genuine candidate, the only one who will listen to the people, etc. I don't recall an instance in which people are telling Bernie supporters not to vote for Sanders. The statement, "vote Sanders in primary, vote Hillary in general" has come up quite often though, and that's not even offensive.

There is a difference between shutting down discussion on the merits of the candidates because Hillary is the default and actually pointing out why your candidates policies are better and his record is also better. I don't see a whole lot of Bernie supporters saying Bernie is the only candidate.

Bernie can also say what he wants, but the great Congressional record of the past eight years will prove his efforts to enact significant change futile.

And Hilary's toxic relationship with the GOP will result in what?? Bernie has had more success with GOP bipartisanship than Hillary.

Sorry if the people who actually followed politics in non-presidential election years are more realistic about what happens in government. It's a rather conceited attitude to pretend you are on the high ground here when you weren't here when we lost the House and nor were you here when we lost the Senate. You can support Bernie to your hearts content, that's fine. Don't pretend you actually care about the issues, you guys just want someone who will bear the whole burden of acting on the issues for you. I feel sorry for Bernie Sanders having to support all of these unrealistic dreams.

Lol what? I wasn't where? I didn't realize you were the great martyr that paid the price for the loss of the house and senate. How can I ever thank you for your sacrifice. And you want to talk about conceited.

Hillary didn't suddenly shift left. On various issues she has a range of opinions. I imagine people are allowed to have different positions on different things, and certainly those positions can change over time. It's why we have a formerly Democratic Rick Perry turning into a Republican, or why Donald Trump blusters about immigration but supports universal health care. Call it flip flopping, call it whatever. I'm not of the opinion that people won't change their views in the course of years.

You can also disparage the influence of money all you want, but Bernie can't win a general election without that money—those who think that the electoral votes roll in just because their candidate is great and on the Democratic side are naive. In the general election, the Republicans will be backing their candidate with millions to finance ground game to contact voters in battleground states and drive them to the elections. This is what the Obama campaign did to get the votes out in the places that mattered, and it eats a lot of manpower and money. Those extra votes in hotly contested states didn't come out to vote Obama; his campaign picked them up.

I think it's not about how the votes look on the surface, how the states poll, etc. Serious resources and effort win electoral votes. For all those states poll you need the ground game to get those polled voters to the ballot box. Denying yourself the money to do so while your opponents are outspending you by several orders larger is frankly stupid.

Yes money is important for elections, but please don't call me an idiot who doesn't realize the importance of money in campaigning when you aren't willing to admit the corrosive effect it has on our democracy and how much it influences politicians.

 

[King Tubby]

I'm not going to put very much stock into this poll and Bernie's position against Hilary nationwide is still quite weak. It will take a minor miracle for him to sniff the nomination.

That said, if he does get nominated it is not completely outside the realm of possibility for Bernie to win. If the Republicans trot out a wet fish like Jeb Bush and Donald Trump runs as a third-party, and Bernie has built up the sizable following he would've needed to defeat Hilary for the nomination, there may be a chance for his victory, shortly before I win the lotto jackpot.

 

[soleil]

There is a difference between shutting down discussion on the merits of the candidates because Hillary is the default and actually pointing out why your candidates policies are better and his record is also better. I don't see a whole lot of Bernie supporters saying Bernie is the only candidate.

And Hilary's toxic relationship with the GOP will result in what?? Bernie has had more success with GOP bipartisanship than Hillary.
Lol what? I wasn't where? I didn't realize you were the great martyr that paid the price for the loss of the house and senate. How can I ever thank you for your sacrifice. And you want to talk about conceited.


Yes money is important for elections, but please don't call me an idiot who doesn't realize the importance of money in campaigning when you aren't willing to admit the corrosive effect it has on our democracy and how much it influences politicians.

Boom.

You make a good point about shutting down the discussion. Hillary supporters saying Hillary is the only candidate are doing it to shut down discussion. Bernie supporters saying he's the only genuine candidate are doing it to further discussion (about someone that a lot of people still don't know about).

And it's funny how dramatis is accusing Bernie supporters of wanting someone to do it all for them. Bernie supporters have been more active in going out and spreading the message than Hillary supporters. That's why at Bernie rallies, his supporters SHOW UP. 28,000 very recently. Hillary's biggest turnout was 5,500, back when she (re-)announced her campaign. Its Hillary supporters who are sitting back and wanting other people to do everything. They even stopped talking about what legislation could be passed. They're instead, talking about Supreme Court nominees. So instead of pushing for a process of introducing legislation and the public getting involved to show their support for the issue (which is what Bernie said is how he plans on dealing with obstructionist Republicans), Hillary supporters are strategizing around a process that involves making appointments, and then waiting for a court case to get elevated to the level where those nominees can make a ruling. If any side is waiting for everything to be done for them, it's Hillary's side.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It is interesting that an aged left-of-his-party socialist is polling well right now in the US. The UK Labour party is currently running around terrified because their next leader is probably going to be Corbyn, who is also an aged left-of-his-party socialist.

Unfortunately, although I am having extreme schadenfreude watching the Labour contest, I am worried that if Sanders wins the nomination, the US centre will zerg back to the Republicans out of fear and the West get eight more years of insanity when we've only begun to recover from Bush.

 

[tanooki27]

further comparing the Obama and Sanders campaigns

anyone remember the 2004 democratic national convention? we lost bad this year, but remember the keynote speech from the black senator from Illinois? He seemed impossibly young but his rhetoric and internal sense of messaging were polished.

real polished. he wanted it bad (you could tell), and hit every note of that speech and following appearances with the force of real political skill. so too over the next three years. media buzz all the way. then he became president.

where has sanders been? compared to Obama '04-'07, he's a ghost. he does not have the interest Obama had. he will not get within spitting distance of national executive power.

 

[SyNapSe]

I was mocking that idea with sarcasm

You cheeky SOB. *dies of embarrassment*

 

[soleil]

further comparing the Obama and Sanders campaigns

anyone remember the 2004 democratic national convention? we lost bad this year, but remember the keynote speech from the black senator from Illinois? He seemed impossibly young but his rhetoric and internal sense of messaging were polished. real polished. he wanted it bad (you could tell), and hit every note with the force of real political skill. so too during the next four years. media buzz all the way. then he became president.

where has sanders been? compared to Obama '04-'07, he's a ghost. he does not have the interest Obama had. he will not get within spitting distance of national executive power.

Obama is an establishment Democrat. Sanders is not establishment (and not even technically a Democrat). So comparing the ambition and strategy of the two in this regard seems a bit weird to me...

But I do agree that Sanders doesn't "want it" the same way Obama did. Sanders just wants to help the people. He's not power hungry like Obama, Hillary, and almost everyone else. Winning the White House would maximize his ability to help, but even if he doesn't, he can change the way people are involved (or NOT involved) in politics. He's giving people a reason to to do something besides just voting. At his rallies, his staff tells people to sign up to volunteer. And for the people who have not been voting all this time, if you read articles about the types of people showing at his rallies, you will hear many stories of people saying they never voted before or were into politics before, but Bernie is giving them a reason to change that.

His campaign is about the people, not about him. Support and vote for him not because he's going to win (chances are, he won't), but because we have to make a statement that we've made progress not just in terms of progressive issues, but in terms of public participation in politics.

 

[And_Gignac]

Pack it up Clinton, QUEEN is about to leave your ship.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Sure it is. Just like a vote for Hilary is a vote for 4 more years of the same old politics that have continued on even after Bush left the office - unpopular wars, drone strikes, CIA sponsored terrorism, big business bailouts and tax breaks, corporations having more and more power in elections and the total destruction of the American middle class.

it's almost like voting is the absolute bare minimum political engagement possible and changes absolutely nothing on its own

 

[besada]

if bernie sanders gets the nomination, i think his only path to victory will come down to just how many people the republicans can piss off. he'll be up against millions of dollars he doesn't have.

His best path to victory would be a Trump third party run, at which point the democratic candidate could be a very dumb log and still win.

 

[Abounder]

Thank you Based God and New Hampshirites. Bernie needs all the support he can get and he is the change the nation needs

 

[gutter_trash]

Trump should tap Sanders as his veep and have Ying-Yang Presidency

 

[Kill3r7]

His best path to victory would be a Trump third party run, at which point the democratic candidate could be a very dumb log and still win.

Agreed. Trump running as third party would guarantee a win regardless of who the democratic candidate ends up being.

 

[reckless]

Sure it is. Just like a vote for Hilary is a vote for 4 more years of the same old politics that have continued on even after Bush left the office - unpopular wars, drone strikes, CIA sponsored terrorism, big business bailouts and tax breaks, corporations having more and more power in elections and the total destruction of the American middle class.

No this election is all about SCOTUS. This election is pretty much the Democrat's election to lose and it looks like we are going to try our hardest to lose, this is not the time to get some fringe candidate who is almost certainly going to lose the general election especially since even if he got elected, congress is going to stop him from doing pretty much anything.

 

[down 2 orth]

you are comparing the Obama campaign machine to the Sanders campaign machine. consider the variables at work here.

did you know that Harry Reid personally (and privately) pushed O to run against Hillary in '08? Reid, one of the top senatorial leaders? the importance of party support is paramount. it is almost essential.

consider that Sanders openly aligns himself with socialism. Is America ripe for radicalism? ripe enough for a Sanders administration?

finally, recognize Obama's charisma as a candidate.

there is a vast gulf between the two campaigns.

A lot of powerful Democrats despise the Clintons and would back any candidate that would stand a chance against her. I can't help but think that many of the people who paved the way to Obama's rise to power would do the same for Bernie if given the chance, and I'm guessing they will.

As for ideological labels, I don't think it really matters if you have media tycoons ready to go to bat for you.

 

[soleil]

No this election is all about SCOTUS. This election is pretty much the Democrat's election to lose and it looks like we are going to try our hardest to lose, this is not the time to get some fringe candidate who is almost certainly going to lose the general election especially since even if he got elected, congress is going to stop him from doing pretty much anything.

1) Reducing the office of the President down to only Supreme Court nominations basically means you're admitting that Hillary won't be much different than Republicans on all other fronts.

2) Even on the front of the Supreme Court nominations, Hillary's record on the issues has been more conservative than liberal (proponent of repealing Glass-Steagall, tough on crime policies, oppose gay marriage until public opinion made it politically bad to keep opposing it, etc). There's no guarantee her nominations would be liberal.

3) If for some reason she actually did nominate liberal nominees, she would have to get them ratified by the same GOP Congress (Senate, specifically) that you are saying will stop Bernie from doing anything. Kind of odd how GOP obstructionism is a talking point with Bernie, but with Hillary we conveniently forget it exists.

4) If you actually look up Bernie's track record, you'll see he works well with Republicans and Senate GOP members view him as pragmatic and result-oriented.

5) Bernie has stated his strategy on how to deal with GOP obstructionism, and that is get the people involved. With the people marching on Washington, the pressure will be on for the GOP support Sanders' policies or risk losing their next reelection run. If you're wondering if this can work, then I offer you this: Without endorsing the content of his policies, I point to Ronald Reagan's strategy of communicating directly with the American people to get a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives to support his radically conservative agenda. Public pressure is a winning strategy. Ask the FCC board after net neutrality activists called their office thousands of times a day until they agreed to recategorize the internet so they could protect net neutrality (after initially announcing there was nothing they could do to help it).

 

[NeoXChaos]

A lot of powerful Democrats despise the Clintons and would back any candidate that would stand a chance against her. I can't help but think that many of the people who paved the way to Obama's rise to power would do the same for Bernie if given the chance, and I'm guessing they will.

As for ideological labels, I don't think it really matters if you have media tycoons ready to go to bat for you.

Source? Most of these "powerful" Democrats who supported Obama last time are with her this time. She has won the "invisible primary".

 

[tanooki27]

Obama is an establishment Democrat. Sanders is not establishment (and not even technically a Democrat). So comparing the ambition and strategy of the two in this regard seems a bit weird to me...

me too. someone in the discussion above me made the comparison. but there is no comparison.