Which ironically, is the best odds the American people have gotten in about 16 years.
Hillary Clinton's lead a puddle in the Sanders Sahara #deadheat #feelthebern
- Thread starter And_Gignac
- Start date
- Status
Which ironically, is the best odds the American people have gotten in about 16 years.
The good thing is that Bernie's popularity should lead to a number of younger Democrats being influenced by his beliefs, similar to how many young Republicans are influenced by libertarian thought due to Ron Paul.
Plus, Trump's whole schtick is very ineffective against Sanders. He can get to every common politican like Clinton, but Bernie has not edges that Trump can grab.
... wat.
Fenderputty
Banned
The republicans have been campaigning for YEARS against Hillary regarding Benghazi. Or do you think the multiple fruitless probes only had to do with Obama? Benghazi didn't even win them the last election in 2012, but it's gonna sink Hillary in this one?
Almost as good as your "socialist Bernie has a better shot against the republican hate machine" claim.
SenorArdilla
Member
The title change is great.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Have you been living under a rock for the past three years.
They have ran Benghazi story into the ground, they got extremely lucky they have a back up story with the email scandal
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
Compassion? What are you some kind of socialist? This is 'Merica land of exceptionalism and "F*ck you I've got mine!"
Rerun that election where Mondale lost in a landslide with today's demographics and see what happens. The national (presidential) electorate is significantly less white, less conservative, and more female than in 1984. Using that election as a metric for what is and isn't electable is exactly the kind of attitude causing some people to be frustrated with the DNC leadership.
And like I've said, in the last polls I've seen Sanders only trailed Bush by 1 point and lead every other GOP candidate while Hillary did 3-5 points better in each matchup. Hillary is more of a sure thing but Bernie would still have a shot according to the actual polling.
I'm glad that Hillary is starting to embrace the leftward shift of the electorate, and i won't really have an issue voting for her in the general (outside of some reservations about her foreign policy) given that she'll very likely be the nominee. But people are justifiably skeptical of her authenticity. Authenticity doesn't matter as much as strong political pressure from a voting base though, which is even more reason to support a strong Sanders candidacy. He's helping to rile up a liberal base that will hopefully be able to maintain pressure on Hillary even if Bernie loses.
Gleefully? C'mon...
It's about as crazy as liberals Gleefully yelling "SOCIALISM!"
Dude Abides
Banned
Hillary's been dealing with GOP non-scandals for two decades while Bernie's been completely irrelevant. I know who I'd trust to deal with negative ads and it isn't the guy who nobody heard of until this year.
Hell, he fumbled around with Black Lives Matter. I shudder to think what American Crossroads would do to him.
Hell, he fumbled around with Black Lives Matter. I shudder to think what American Crossroads would do to him.
I don't think Trump would do so well in a general election. He's said too much. National opinion polls put Sanders well ahead of him, and ahead of every other Republican hopeful.
Sanders will have to deal with smears and misrepresentations, but that will be much easier to counter with Trump as opposition.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Do you really think America is going to elect someone who doesn't believe in climate change? It would be the most pathetic american president. Forget George W. Bush. Any of the current candidates would be the laughing stock of the entire world.
I know a lot Americans are disengaged from politics, but the daily life, and amount of middle class people has become poor, and have risky lifestyles that can make them lose everything with relative ease, should be up in arms over more social benefits.
Remember- The current trends are going to get worse. more people, and more people moving into the cities is going to mean higher prices for rent. its going to keep being more difficult for people to make it on their own, they have to work more (as jeb bush said), they have to earn less (as the minimum wage wont keep up with inflation).
I think if Americans knew how screwed and backwards their country is on social security benefits in contrast to how rich the country is, then a lot of- even republicans would change their tune.
She makes up for it by being a policy wonk.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
In a couple of decades? Possibly sooner.
There is no way this form of capitalism is sustainable when tuition rates and a rising aging population going into 2030 and beyond will be a huge impact on the economy if there isn't some find of reform in healthcare and education.
There is a GAFer whose medical school tuition total is over $400k at a public university (including residency), and yet this country needs primary care physicians to meet the demands of our aging population.
http://www.aoa.acl.gov/Aging_Statistics/index.aspx
Almost one in five people by 2030 will be 65 and older. That's a lot of people not working and thus putting no money back into the economy. And of course, healthcare costs will rise.
Think about that for a second.
As for higher education, no one will want to go to college in the future because it will be net-negative for them, even in fields known for stability and/or high-paying.
Then throw in automation into the mix, and I doubt it will take a couple of decades when Americans finally wake up and vote for their interests instead of against.
No, it's not. People repeating the line that Sanders would lose in a landslide to the GOP need to start bringing data.
Sanders/Trump 59/38
And just for fun
Sanders/Walker 48/42
Sanders/Bush 48/47 (although Sanders loses by one point when limited to registered voters, but still beats the other two)
This is from a CNN poll, it's the most recent i can find of Sanders in a general. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2179399-cnn-orc-poll-2016-election-9-a-m-july-26-2015.html
Polling data this far out from the actual election is universally considered useless.
Yeah, it's as scientific as the opinions of random video gaming forum members.
Are you surprised after the thread last week where posters happily repeated the right-wing conspiracy theory that George Soros funded the Ferguson protests?
It's kind of bumming me out, actually, because it's clear that there are ostensible Bernie Sanders "supporters" here who are way more interested in winning arguments than in actually being correct or indeed in actually supporting Bernie Sanders or progressive policy in general.
Then people saying Sanders will get blown out are as equally useless.
I will absolutely not vote in general if Sanders doesn't make it. I very much plan on registering as Democrat, from unaffiliated, for PA primaries.
If he doesn't make it through I will continue my as of now 8 year stretch of not voting. I always have been a democratic socialist and I already gave the Sanders campaign my information so I can volunteer for his campaign.
Feels good to be out of the socialist closet.
If he doesn't make it through I will continue my as of now 8 year stretch of not voting. I always have been a democratic socialist and I already gave the Sanders campaign my information so I can volunteer for his campaign.
Feels good to be out of the socialist closet.
Polls saying Bernie would win = irrelevant
Polls saying people wouldn't vote for a socialist = taken as law
boiled goose
good with gravy
While this sounds reasonable it is a false narrative.
First, issue by issue Americans are center left, not center right.
We saw democrats get creamed at midterms when they went right. They lost by playing Republican light. Why? Extremely low voter turnout. You have to appeal to your base first. Obama did not win by going right, he won by making people who don't normally vote get excited about participating in the process.
User 463088
Banned
Okay, I just need to say this.
There are no parallels between 2008 and 2016. None. Bernie Sanders is not President Obama. Here's why.
1) President Obama was able to raise more (or essentially the same) amount of money as Hillary. He was never, ever in a financial hole compared to her. He used bundlers and PACs and every other group necessary to secure the nomination. Sanders does not, and will not have, the money to compete with Hillary, let alone the GOP candidate. We can clutch our pearls and wish that campaign finances didn't matter...but they do. They shouldn't, but they do.
2) President Obama's ground game was INSANE. Seriously...INSANE. I volunteered for Hillary, but we and the Obama people shared the same building (which was part of the DNC headquarters in the city I lived in.) The Obama people were able to target individual houses on individual streets. Their methodology and resources were crazy. (They spent a lot of money on it too.) Ours was good...theirs was far, far better. Most of the people responsible now work for Hillary. Plus, what Obama did was not cheap. It was, in my small experience of political activism, the most impressive thing I have ever seen. Bernie Sanders refuses to run polls. Any kind of polls. You do not win by refusing to play by some of the conventions of politics. You run polls to know where you're strong and where you're weak.
3) President Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary. You can look it up. She did not get "crushed" by him. Not even close. President Obama got more delegates because he used a rather brilliant strategy of running up margins in red, caucus states. In Texas, for example, Hillary received more votes, but Obama got more delegates because he played the math. If you think there's a snowballs chance in hell that Clinton's people don't know how to avoid that trap again....(from the few volunteer meetings I've been to, they've learned the hard way.
4) Both Hillary and President Obama had party support. Sanders has no support within the DNC. You don't get to be an Independent, and then suddenly decide "I'm a squid now, I'm a kid now!" Sander's nomination would fracture the Democratic party. Superdelegates are not going to run to him. If Sanders gets the nomination, the DNC will have to run with him as the candidate. However, with his lack of financial resources, he will not help down ticket Dems. (And if, in fact, he's a drag on the party, he'll have a good chance of bringing down any Reps and Senate candidates we have.
These aren't reasons why he won't win (he won't) but reasons why he's not Obama 2.0.
There are no parallels between 2008 and 2016. None. Bernie Sanders is not President Obama. Here's why.
1) President Obama was able to raise more (or essentially the same) amount of money as Hillary. He was never, ever in a financial hole compared to her. He used bundlers and PACs and every other group necessary to secure the nomination. Sanders does not, and will not have, the money to compete with Hillary, let alone the GOP candidate. We can clutch our pearls and wish that campaign finances didn't matter...but they do. They shouldn't, but they do.
2) President Obama's ground game was INSANE. Seriously...INSANE. I volunteered for Hillary, but we and the Obama people shared the same building (which was part of the DNC headquarters in the city I lived in.) The Obama people were able to target individual houses on individual streets. Their methodology and resources were crazy. (They spent a lot of money on it too.) Ours was good...theirs was far, far better. Most of the people responsible now work for Hillary. Plus, what Obama did was not cheap. It was, in my small experience of political activism, the most impressive thing I have ever seen. Bernie Sanders refuses to run polls. Any kind of polls. You do not win by refusing to play by some of the conventions of politics. You run polls to know where you're strong and where you're weak.
3) President Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary. You can look it up. She did not get "crushed" by him. Not even close. President Obama got more delegates because he used a rather brilliant strategy of running up margins in red, caucus states. In Texas, for example, Hillary received more votes, but Obama got more delegates because he played the math. If you think there's a snowballs chance in hell that Clinton's people don't know how to avoid that trap again....(from the few volunteer meetings I've been to, they've learned the hard way.
4) Both Hillary and President Obama had party support. Sanders has no support within the DNC. You don't get to be an Independent, and then suddenly decide "I'm a squid now, I'm a kid now!" Sander's nomination would fracture the Democratic party. Superdelegates are not going to run to him. If Sanders gets the nomination, the DNC will have to run with him as the candidate. However, with his lack of financial resources, he will not help down ticket Dems. (And if, in fact, he's a drag on the party, he'll have a good chance of bringing down any Reps and Senate candidates we have.
These aren't reasons why he won't win (he won't) but reasons why he's not Obama 2.0.
2016: Celebrity Billionaire DONALD TRUMP takes on Independant socialist BERNIE SANDERS
2020: Human mop BORIS JOHNSON takes on Hamas supporting marxist JEREMY CORBYN
If anyone says they saw this coming even 6 months ago they are definatively a liar.
Obviously this is humourous, but I find it illustrates the balkanisation of politics over the last five years rather well.
2020: Human mop BORIS JOHNSON takes on Hamas supporting marxist JEREMY CORBYN
If anyone says they saw this coming even 6 months ago they are definatively a liar.
Obviously this is humourous, but I find it illustrates the balkanisation of politics over the last five years rather well.
Interfectum
Member
What's more useless, actual polling data or random GAF hilldawg fans "guessing" Sanders would be destroyed in the general 'cause "Socialist!"
boiled goose
good with gravy
Interesting and insightful.
Actually, what it tells me is that people are sick of the establishment. Being outside the Washington mainstream and not being corrupt politicians is the one thing Bernie and Trump have in common.
Well, okay, I'll be the one to say I actually don't agree with Sanders on policy. Specifically, he's too far right for me.
Sanders's populist positions on immigration and protectionism are bad ideas right out of the economic populist playbook. They represent a lack of perspective about how the American economy functions and, frankly, peddling to right-wing xenophobia. (You mean Sanders might have actual problems with race? Say it ain't so!) If he's going to be a socialist he should be an intelligent one, acknowledge that free trade is happening and it means America isn't going to have a significant labor class, and embrace the opportunity to advocate for a basic income. Instead he's pandering.
I also don't appreciate Sanders's positions on gun control. I'm actually pretty moderate about gun control issues -- I tend to think this is an issue that kind of got dragged into the Democratic coalition by accident -- but Sanders has repeatedly voted against reforms I think are very minimal and valuable. Not really surprising, given that he's the Senator from Vermont, but it's relevant. (And amazing how many people keep saying they prefer his positions on gun control/hate his crazy gun control positions without actually looking at his voting record.)
I think Hillary will be more effective at enacting more progressive policies, and that's why I prefer her. I also think she's a lot more electable.
User 463088
Banned
Can you imagine a meeting between President Trump and PM Boris Johnson.
The hair...oh dear god, the hair.
I don't disagree, but do you have some magic ball that makes your insight into his chances uniquely reliable?
I was so hopeful for a moment than Bernie had a chance. Now I'm saddened by the realization he can't win 
Isn't there a chance some kind of political revolution could happen and he surges way beyond Hillary even without the money? What would it take for something so drastic to happen?
I almost feel like it's too late to take the country back from the greedy. Tell me I'm wrong please
Isn't there a chance some kind of political revolution could happen and he surges way beyond Hillary even without the money? What would it take for something so drastic to happen?
I almost feel like it's too late to take the country back from the greedy. Tell me I'm wrong please
I wouldn't call the inherent reality that being an avowed socialist is probably second only to being an athiest in terms of being a general election albatross around the neck a magic eight ball.
Interfectum
Member
So again, ignore polling data, listen to random GAF member instead. Got it.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I am to the right of Sanders on many issue and my overall stances agree with Hillary more.
However I would still vote Sanders because I agree with him on what I think is the single most important issue. The influence of money in politics.
It is also why I would prefer Trump over the rest of the crooks on the right.
Of course he can. Half of the people voting Clinton don't even like her. Once Bernie grows even stronger and people realize that he can win, there will be major ship jumping.I was so hopeful for a moment than Bernie had a chance. Now I'm saddened by the realization he can't win
Isn't there a chance some kind of political revolution could happen and he surges way beyond Hillary even without the money? What would it take for something so drastic to happen?
I almost feel like it's too late to take the country back from the greedy. Tell me I'm wrong please
Interfectum
Member
Sanders is going to win a lot of people over during the democrat debates.
Absolutely this. I totally consider Hillary as a candidate who will try to give the American people just enough cake that they stop complaining for a little while. I truly believe she is not going to tackle the major issues of Big Money when her largest donors are the fucking banks, who are institutionally a major problem on this earth.
I know, Americans will totally laugh at the idea as they literally get fucked and become more and more of an unequal and uncivilized epicenter of human worth in the developed world. Almost all of the democratic socialist countries wipe the fucking floor with the States in sheer human values.
But hey, we have freedom, whatever that means now. The freedom to always settle for less.
Lord_Byron28
Member
For Bernie he has to win over women and minorities to beat Clinton. He seems aware of this issue and hired Symone Sanders as his press secretary. However he has a long way to go and odds are in Hillary's favor.
On the other hand, I don't understand those who say they won't vote for him only because he won't win the general election. Hillary Clinton will be the harder opponent for him to beat in his run for presidency. She has a ton of money to outspend him and has been the presumed next president for the past 3 years. On top of that her name recognition is strong especially compared to Bernie where nearly half the population doesnt even know who he is. For Democrats to pull a victory in the general they need to bring out women and minorities. Hillary is polling well among these groups so the only way for Bernie to succeed would be by having a stronger polling in these groups giving him an advantage in the general. The GOP are successfully turning women and minorities away with Trump, Cruz and Bush's comments.
Anyway that is my two cents maybe I'm completely wrong. I think the presidential debate will be a telling sign as to where Sanders will go.
On the other hand, I don't understand those who say they won't vote for him only because he won't win the general election. Hillary Clinton will be the harder opponent for him to beat in his run for presidency. She has a ton of money to outspend him and has been the presumed next president for the past 3 years. On top of that her name recognition is strong especially compared to Bernie where nearly half the population doesnt even know who he is. For Democrats to pull a victory in the general they need to bring out women and minorities. Hillary is polling well among these groups so the only way for Bernie to succeed would be by having a stronger polling in these groups giving him an advantage in the general. The GOP are successfully turning women and minorities away with Trump, Cruz and Bush's comments.
Anyway that is my two cents maybe I'm completely wrong. I think the presidential debate will be a telling sign as to where Sanders will go.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't like basically any of Bernie's policies that differ from Hilary's. I'm sure he's a nice enough guy, I suppose.
The idea he's not gonna accept money if he gets the nomination is legitimately laughable. Bernie Sanders not having any money doesn't equal Bernie Sanders not wanting any money. The idea that he's going to win against multiple GOP SuperPACs AND take no money, yet people still think he should be the nominee is I don't even know what.
If you agree with Bernie about money in politics, you agree with Hillary too? They have the same position? Bernie and Hillary both want a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and a litmus test for any SCOTUS nominees.
Henchmen21
Banned
This x a billion
At the start of the campaign: "Bernie can't win. Polling data shows that!"
Bernie starts picking up momentum: "It's too early. Polls are useless!"
boiled goose
good with gravy
I was so hopeful for a moment than Bernie had a chance. Now I'm saddened by the realization he can't win
Isn't there a chance some kind of political revolution could happen and he surges way beyond Hillary even without the money? What would it take for something so drastic to happen?
I almost feel like it's too late to take the country back from the greedy. Tell me I'm wrong please
There are other ways outside of the presidency to enact change. I would look into movements to pass ConstitutionAl amendments. It is possible because this is actually an issue that both liberals and conservatives agree on. Measures for call to convention happened passed already in several states
User 463088
Banned
Bull.
Among Democrats, Hillary has a 74% approval rating.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx
Interfectum
Member
Yeah I'm sure she'll get money of out politics when elected... I'm sure that's first on her list!
I was so hopeful for a moment than Bernie had a chance. Now I'm saddened by the realization he can't win
Isn't there a chance some kind of political revolution could happen and he surges way beyond Hillary even without the money? What would it take for something so drastic to happen?
I almost feel like it's too late to take the country back from the greedy. Tell me I'm wrong please
I mean, politics is not a thing that happens overnight.
Bernie running for President will help shift the Overton Window and pull the country further to the left. (I would argue that's the primary reason he's doing it.) Progressive activism and progressive candidates are a big part of why the country has been able to enact progressive legislation in the last eight years and why the Reagan coalition is falling apart.
So, you know, yes, Bernie is part of a political revolution. It's just not an actual revolution, so it takes decades.
Yeah I'm sure she'll get money of out politics when elected... I'm sure that's first on her list!
I mean, if your whole argument is "Hillary takes large donations," then sure, Hillary takes large donations.
I suspect this is because, you know, she wants to win the Presidency, and having a lot of money is a big part of that.
If you would rather have a candidate that doesn't take large donations, has a huge financial gap in the general, and loses in a landslide, then I guess Bernie is a better choice.
But in a political system in which you need money to compete, it's basically stupid to say you'll only support candidates who don't take money. I'd rather support a candidate who says they want to get money out of politics but has the intelligence to understand they'll need a lot of money in order to do that.
Exactly. Russ Feingold a martyr of WI progressives is learning from his 2010 defeat and is taking SuperPAC/outside influence dollars breaking a previous pledge he's held for years.
- Status