Support NeoGAF

[Clefargle]

Hai GAF,

I'm a liberal and a registered dem. I will be voting left no matter who gets the nom. For those of you that see Bernie as the superior candidate (which is fine, but off topic, so let's not get into that here please), what do you see as his path to the presidency after the nomination? I ask because I can't see a clear path, even without knowing who the eventual GOP nom will be. Here is how I see it, but I really want to hear from you:

Sanders has momentum in white, liberal regions like New England. But he has met with slow movement in the south. Nevada and North Carolina have Hilary with a large lead. I read somewhere that any republican candidate will need 40% of the Latino vote to win. HilIary has much better minority polling and more name recognition. Nothing against Sanders, but I can't see him pulling this off without making a massive turnaround with minority outreach soon.

Sanders needs a much larger number of delegates than The one or two he has now. Hilary has 440 I think. Bernie needs to make inroads with the establishment, as little as his supporters want to hear that. He MUST gain delegates at a more rapid pace to get over 2,000 by spring.

Sanders doesn't need to worry about being a socialist for the nomination. But once he is in the general election he will be dragged through the mud for it by whomever the GOP nominates. It's not his fault, but socialism doesn't poll well. It's got like, 61% negativity ratings in America. Regardless of whether the American people favor socialist policies without knowing it, (they do) using the word socialist is going to conjure a lot of distrust for Sanders. How does he deal with this without compromising his values?

This last one may be small, but I still see it as a hurdle nonetheless. Having the first female candidate with a shot at winning would probably excite the (mostly democratic) female voter base. how will sanders excite the same demographic and if he cannot, how will he win?

Again, I want the best candidate to win. That might be Bernie, but it's irrelevant to my question. So please tell me GAF, how does Bernie overcome these obstacles and rise to the highest office? Thanks, please stay on topic.

 

[Clefargle]

I know there are some Bernie supporters here, I'd like to hear from ya.

 

[Downhome]

The answer to this is the same as if you were talking about Trump on the other side. The answer is that nothing will change, there is no hope for either one to be president. The establishment is so strong that all it is for either side is false hope. Even with Trump leading the polls, I'm almost convinced that the establishment will do something to topple him befor the primaries.

All guys like this can do is hope to influence the establishment, but neither one could ever truly become part of it.

How is that for some negative thinking?

 

[BigDug13]

The answer to this is the same as if you were talking about Trump on the other side. The answer is that nothing will change, there is no hope for either one to be president. The establishment is so strong that all it is for either side is false hope. Even with Trump leading the polls, I'm almost convinced that the establishment will do something to topple him befor the primaries.

All guys like this can do is hope to influence the establishment, but neither one could ever truly become part of it.

How is that for some negative thinking?

Obama came out of nowhere and barely had any time in the Senate. I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but I wouldn't exactly call Obama an establishment candidate either. So it's not like it's impossible.

 

[dramatis]

This was the answer we got from a Bernie supporter in PoliGAF a few days ago, so take of it what you will.

I think you might be underestimating the possibility of an unprecedented landslide, in Bernie's favor, when more and more people discover that Bernie Sanders is a very rare bird, a politician who is not part of the "political class" and who would actually fight for politicies that are in the best interests of everyday Americans, not Corporations and the super rich, that would make America a great nation again, for current and future generations.

Obama came out of nowhere and barely had any time in the Senate. I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but I wouldn't exactly call Obama an establishment candidate either. So it's not like it's impossible.

Obama was an establishment candidate. He had support from within the Democratic party itself, notably Ted Kennedy which was quite an influential endorsement.

 

[Clefargle]

The answer to this is the same as if you were talking about Trump on the other side. The answer is that nothing will change, there is no hope for either one to be president. The establishment is so strong that all it is for either side is false hope. Even with Trump leading the polls, I'm almost convinced that the establishment will do something to topple him befor the primaries.

All guys like this can do is hope to influence the establishment, but neither one could ever truly become part of it.

How is that for some negative thinking?

You could argue that at this point in 2007, Obama wasn't the establishment pick. Of course, he became that as he picked up momentum. How does Bernie do the same thing? How does he convince them that he is competitive in the general election? Also it may not be hopeless for the GOP, their establishment seems to be eroding and the Tea party folks are doing well with the anti establishment rhetoric. Things can always change, Whig party used to be in control after all.

 

[Perfect Blue]

Going backwards in time so he's not 74 is really his only shot because unfortunately, I think his appearance and the way he speaks is going to deter people more than the "socialist" label. If he was a younger, taller, 45 year old or so he'd have a good shot at taking on Clinton.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Delegates aren't bound by their pledges, Clinton doesn't own the 440 votes and if Sanders continues to gain popularity while Clinton keeps struggling, they'll shift away.

As far as Sanders actually running...I don't think his struggles in minority communities will complicate their overall disdain for the conservative agenda. I know the Latino vote is changing dramatically and the GOP will play up religion, but at least in the South they vote as a united front. Once they actually have to listen to Sanders, they'll commit.

Should Sanders lose the nomination, he has garnered sufficient clout and support that I hope he considers founding a third party. I don't think Americans have actually had an election where they had to choose something outside the established power structure since...what, 1860? Hopefully it doesn't start a Civil War, but the country is going to need overhaul into the modern era.

I'm not really sure how much credit I give to concerns that the Republicans are going to smear him with labels. You could be running the Pope, they'd still smear him. If it wasn't socialism, they'd be claiming he's Muslim or not born in the US. Sanders just needs to stay on message and keep reminding people why they listen to him: he isn't full of shit.

As far as what is the ultimate question to OP's post, is Sanders worth voting for, the answer is I don't really know. I keep hearing people claim he's a populist but he doesn't act like one. It's more just that he actually responds to questions and addresses issues in a manner that hasn't been screened, rehearsed, and designed to appeal to as many people as possible. I'm not sure if this is a novelty that will wear off or something that will power him all the way through.

It's refreshing to have an honest man running, but to paraphrase Otto Von Bismarck, people don't want to know how the sausage gets made. He will have to start dealing with the unpopular stuff eventually.

 

[benicillin]

You're not wrong, Bernie is doing well all considering right now but it's a long road to the Whitehouse for him and it's not going to be easy by any stretch of the imagination. I totally support him but I also realize that the chances of him getting the nomination are very slim, but I'm really glad he's running and bringing up important issues. I have no problem with Hillary as a candidate and if Bernie wasn't running I'd be behind her 100%, but I've been a big fan of Sanders for a long time.

As for the hurdles you describe you're totally right - his campaign has been hyper focused on the early states which are predominately white and hasn't been as active about reaching out to minorities. But I do think that they've come a long way with reaching out from where they started, and he continues to work on campaigning in the southern states as well - IIRC he recently announced a southern speaking tour where he's going to his some of the states that his ground game hasn't been great in. I hope that the debates will bring more attention to the fact that he's a very strong candidate with a consistent message and that he cares about the issues of all American citizens, not just the white liberals.

Delegates are an issue no doubt. I think he's got one at least!

I wouldn't necessarily say that Hillary being a woman has any bearing on the "female vote." Many women I know personally like Sanders the more they've learned about him and recognize that he's got a really fantastic and outspoken record on women's rights.

In the end I don't think he'll win, but I'm glad he's running.

 

[Downhome]

I get what you are saying about Obama, I do, but I certainly wouldn't compare him to anything like Sanders, Trump, or any other similar situation. Obama hit it big way back in 2004 when he delivered the Democratic National Convention keynote address for John Kerry. Many people proclaimed him as the next Democratic president that night, the fire started burning and it kept raging all the way until he was elected.

It is a completely different situation. His story didn't just start when he first started running for President. He was, in a way, anointed in 2004, Hillary be damned.

 

[Downhome]

Going backwards in time so he's not 74 is really his only shot because unfortunately, I think his appearance and the way he speaks is going to deter people more than the "socialist" label. If he was a younger, taller, 45 year old or so he'd have a good shot at taking on Clinton.

I've gone back and watched his debate style from the pat, and he was pretty great, but he is way calmer now. The Sanders from years ago would have been amazing to see against Clinton, or even Trump, haha.

 

[Clefargle]

I've gone back and watched his debate style from the pat, and he was pretty great, but he is way calmer now. The Sanders from years ago would have been amazing to see against Clinton, or even Trump, haha.

True, I didn't consider his age as a negative thing. But thinking back now, I used to say McCain was too old. I guess I am a little biased and didn't think about how it effects his image. I would like to have seen him in his prime during this cycle. Oh well

 

[BertramCooper]

Should Sanders lose the nomination, he has garnered sufficient clout and support that I hope he considers founding a third party. I don't think Americans have actually had an election where they had to choose something outside the established power structure since...what, 1860? Hopefully it doesn't start a Civil War, but the country is going to need overhaul into the modern era.

You really shouldn't hope for that.

America's left-wing party splitting off into separate factions would be an absolute disaster for liberalism in this country.

 

[The Lamonster]

I don't know how he can get past the "socialist" thing. It's too dirty a word to too many voters.

 

[legacyzero]

Debate is tonight. Let's see what happens then.

 

[Clefargle]

I don't know how he can get past the "socialist" thing. It's too dirty a word to too many voters.

Unfortunately, I think this is the case

Debate is tonight. Let's see what happens then.

I'm up for an interesting turn, which is what he needs.

 

[Enduin]

Debate is tonight. Let's see what happens then.

This is my feeling. Bernie will live and die on the debates.

Winning the Primary is his biggest hurdle, if he can convince the Dems to vote for him over Hilary that will be the decisive battle in this whole affair. The General election is the Dems for the taking, no matter the nominee. The Republican party is eating itself away from within. The House is imploding, they've got an absolutely crowded and unrealistic slew of nominees that make the 2012 lineup seen reasonable. They're in shambles and they've got no big issues to ride on.

Bernie may have some weaknesses with minorities and his image, but with the full backing of the Democratic party and the election machine Obama helped build most of those can be overcome. Right now he's still seen by many as the hopeful wish of a minority of far left Dems. Most people still don't know him or much about him at all. Greater exposure is what he needs and the debates are his best chance for it.

Let people know where he stands, strike some blows against Hilary and really get people to take a serious look at him and his stance on issues. All that said, it's still a long shot. Hilary has overwhelming support still with in the party establishment. Dethroning her will be no small task.

 

[Arkeband]

I don't know how he can get past the "socialist" thing. It's too dirty a word to too many voters.

He'd need to tackle it during a debate, to start listing off everything socialized in our country, and then reiterate that he sees value in these things as long as they're responsibly implemented.

 

[And_Gignac]

He is steadily rising with minorities. He needs exposure. An excellent performance in the debates and winning Iowa / New Hampshire could give him that push. There's nothing in his record that could alienate minorities. If he becomes the leading nominee after winning the two first states (maybe even the first three, since he is rising in Nevada already) minorities will follow suit like any other demographic.

The "socialist" label is inconsequential. People who fear such label, which Sanders hasn't even embraced calling himself a "democratic socialist" instead, are the same people who think Obama is a muslim. Demographics are set in democrats advantage.

Also, Sanders is not an outsider in the way Trump is. Sanders is playing by the rules as of now: looking out for endorsements, having a legislative outreach for his ideas, etc. His detractors are trying to paint him as a total outsider nut without the will to compromise, which is not true.

 

[phanphare]

honestly I want to wait and see how the debate goes tonight. I think Democrat or Republican, Bernie has a platform that speaks to Americans in general. he is very solid on his issues and has been consistent for a very long time. with some added visibility I think his campaign could go into overdrive. people just need to hear where he stands.

minorities especially, in my opinion, would be hugely benefited from his platform. lower and middle class americans, hispanics and blacks especially, have been basically calling for what Bernie is proposing for a looooong time. he wants to do away with private prisons aka our country profiting off of what is essentially slave labor. he wants to demilitarize the police. he wants to end the war on drugs aka the war on minorities with drugs. he wants to stop putting people in jail for nonviolent crimes. he wants to raise the minimum wage. it's his opinion that if you work for 40 hours a week you should not be living in poverty. he wants to make college free for everyone. I remember reading on here many times that at this point the best solution for slave reparations would be free public college. well why not help all american citizens who would currently have trouble affording a higher education. and of course he wants to redistribute the wealth of our country and put an end to our country being largely run by the millionaires and billionaires who would rather fill their pockets at the expense of everyone under them.

also he has shown that he isn't above listening to criticism and changing his platform because of it. before the Black Lives Matter protest it was Bernie's opinion that he didn't need to explicitly address race issues because he felt that at it's core the racial divide in america was a class divide and that his platform addressed all of those issues. I tend to agree with him but I also agree with the Black Lives Matter movement that he could be better about making that point. after that encounter he changed his policies regarding race. I've seen that encounter on here occasionally brought up in a negative light but I see nothing negative about it. he listened to another viewpoint and changed his policies accordingly.

as for the socialist thing, I think he's already on a good track with the public perception of that. all he needs to do is not shy away from it and educate people on what being a democratic socialist really means. I feel like more and more young people all across the country have realized that capitalism in America has failed and the core philosophies of democratic socialism largely align with the current pulse of the younger generation.

and for the last point I think that's largely irrelevant. I hear all the time stuff like this: "I'd love to have a woman president. just not Hillary."

basically if Bernie can show that his platform resonates with the American people on a larger scale than it is currently I think people will start to shy away from the "oh, I'm just voting for Hillary because I want a Democrat in office and no one else will win" mentality. if you look at the polling for if Biden potentially enters the race you'll see that he pulls a lot of support away from Hillary. I really think that Democrats would love to back a viable candidate other than Hillary but they need to see beyond a reasonable doubt that another candidate could win it all over the Republican nominee.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

You really shouldn't hope for that.

America's left-wing party splitting off into separate factions would be an absolute disaster for liberalism in this country.

Compared to what? Another middle of the road candidate taking office? The left already is a bunch of separate factions. Another uninspiring leader would just cause more to fall off and lose interest in politics altogether. It's already happened with the midterm elections. Better to split and create a new party than just let the current one slowly die.

 

[BertramCooper]

Compared to what? Another middle of the road candidate taking office? The left already is a bunch of separate factions. Another uninspiring leader would just cause more to fall off and lose interest in politics altogether. It's already happened with the midterm elections.

Third parties simply don't work under our current system. We're not a parliament where multiple parties can coexist and form governing coalitions. If Sandersites were to form a competing party to the Democrats, it would only make it more difficult for progressives to win elections. You'd be crippling the entire left wing of this nation.

Look at what is happening to the right in this country. They're basically coming apart at the seams. You're basically proposing the same for the left.

America should seriously consider making major changes to our elections and our system of government. But until that happens, we have to live with a two-party system. A splintering of the left under our current system would be a disaster.

 

[phanphare]

America should seriously consider making major changes to our elections and our system of government. But until that happens, we have to live with a two-party system.

the widespread acceptance of this mentality is what keeps the two-party system intact, in my opinion

but I agree with the first bit for sure

tricky times we live in

 

[User 463088]

Not a Sanders supporter, but I think I have a pretty good grasp on politics. He doesn't need to just do better with minorities. He needs a gigantic shift in minority support. He's getting around 6% of the African American vote in South Carolina. That's beyond abysmal. He has not shown the ability to move that needle at all. Not even a little. Sanders also has a fairly high disapproval rating among Dem primary voters, relatively speaking. It was in the SC poll or one of the national ones. It's not enough for Sanders to appear acceptable. He has to show that he's the better choice. I highly doubt that he can do that against a known quantity like Hillary.

He also needs party support. Period. Hands down. Yes, delegates can change their support. They need a reason to do so. Sanders being an independent hurts him here. He lacks the connections necessary to build the machinery you need to win a primary.

Sanders has also squandered the summer. Hillary is now moving into campaign mode. There are things he could and should have done earlier. Super Tuesday isn't going to go well for him. He needed surrogates and infrastructure in place before now. He doesn't have the surrogates to send anywhere. I don't know how he can fix that.

Biden's waffling also hurt Sanders. Not from a raw numbers perspective, but from a narrative one. Biden pulls supporters from Hillary, but Biden rumors hurt the insurgent candidate.

Also, Obama was very much an establishment candidate. He always had a large amount of support within the party.The Kennedy endorsement, for example. Before that, though, members of the party wanted him to run. No one in the party called for Sanders.

Sanders also screwed up the socialism question on Meet the Press. When asked if he was a capitalist he immediately said no. That's a perfect soundings to tie around his neck.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Third parties simply don't work under our current system. If Sandersites were to form a competing party to the Democrats, it would only make it more difficult for progressives to win elections. You'd be crippling the entire left wing of this nation.

Look at what is happening to the right in this country. They're basically coming apart at the seams. You're basically proposing the same for the left.

America should seriously consider making major changes to our elections and our system of government. But until that happens, we have to live with a two-party system. A splintering of the left under our current system would be a disaster.

You can't complain about the status quo and then say we have to stick with it. The only way America is going to change the current election process is if a third party is large enough to force them to do it. Sanders could end up doing more for America by breaking up the electoral system than he could as President.

 

[Clefargle]

the widespread acceptance of this mentality is what keeps the two-party system intact, in my opinion

but I agree with the first bit for sure

tricky times we live in

This election isn't about demolishing the two party system. You have to do that separate of any single election. This election is about the next president, from one of the current parties.

 

[phanphare]

Sanders also screwed up the socialism question on Meet the Press. When asked if he was a capitalist he immediately said no. That's a perfect soundings to tie around his neck.

why?

This election isn't about demolishing the two party system. You have to do that separate of any single election. This election is about the next president, from one of the current parties.

I agree with that but for me personally I'll never vote for someone I don't like just because it's the more practical choice. I understand many here disagree with that and I totally understand and respect that. however for me I'll always vote for the candidate who I agree with most and who I would personally like to see in office. even if that candidate doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.

 

[BertramCooper]

You can't complain about the status quo and then say we have to stick with it.

Sure I can. I've said this a billion times on GAF already, but the simple reality is this: In politics, you play by the rules as they currently exist - and then work to change the rules once you have the power to do so. You don't win by playing by your own set of rules.

The only way America is going to change the current election process is if a third party is large enough to force them to do it. Sanders could end up doing more for America by breaking up the electoral system than he could as President.

The only way a third party works in this country is if we switch to a more parliamentary form of government and then start forming alternative parties on both sides of the political spectrum.

You really think a splintering of the left-wing into multiple parties under our current system is going to force change? How? Why would a single, dominant right-wing party (thanks to a splintered left) be inclined to completely overhaul our system of government?

 

[Enduin]

You can't complain about the status quo and then say we have to stick with it. The only way America is going to change the current election process is if a third party is large enough to force them to do it. Sanders could end up doing more for America by breaking up the electoral system than he could as President.

The way to achieve that is over many years in the House/Senate, not the Presidency. You're only setting yourself up for total defeat by trying to mount a Third Party bid for the Presidency. Maybe after a decade, if not more, of substantial gains in Congress, getting national exposure and public confidence could a Third Party Presidential nominee be even remotely viable in our current system. But even that's a stretch.

Even then it's more important to win over Congress than the Presidency because real, lasting change won't occur until we change how our elections work; implement dramatic finance reform and introduce a new voting system like Alternative Voting that would take power away from the two party system and not punish voters for wanting to vote for smaller less viable parties and platforms. The President can't change that, but Congress theoretically could.

 

[Perfect Blue]

the widespread acceptance of this mentality is what keeps the two-party system intact, in my opinion

but I agree with the first bit for sure

tricky times we live in

I'd rather have a two-party system than two left-wing parties and one right-wing party like we have in Canada right now. Ideally a two-party system brings everyone closer to the centre and makes governing more pragmatic.

 

[Downhome]

You really shouldn't hope for that.

America's left-wing party splitting off into separate factions would be an absolute disaster for liberalism in this country.

Scree it, I say let Hillary and Jeb take the nominations, and allow Bernie and Trump run as independents and let the best candidate win, haha.

Can you imagine the debates?

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

You really think a splintering of the left-wing into multiple parties under our current system is going to force change? How? Why would a single, dominant right-wing party (thanks to a splintered left) be inclined to completely overhaul our system of government?

A third party would presumably draw support from both the left and the right. I'm not sure why you think the right would not suffer any losses from a third party, especially since they're already showing huge internal issues. The new group would accrue enough votes so that neither of the two major parties would have a majority in Congress. Then they would have to start working together.

Looking at other responses to this, I'm not sure I made my point well enough. Sanders could start a third party and run candidates for both Congress and the Presidency using the momentum . He could support candidates at the state level as well. It does not stop and start at the 2016 elections alone.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

If anything will help him and improve his numbers, I think it will be the debate tonight. It'll probably be the first time a lot of people get to know him. If he gets some huge boost from the debate, it'll still be an uphill battle. But if the debate hurts him, I think he'll be a goner.

A third party would presumably draw support from both the left and the right. I'm not sure why you think the right would not suffer any losses from a third party, especially since they're already showing huge internal issues. The new group would accrue enough votes so that neither of the two major parties would have a majority in Congress. Then they would have to start working together.

I can't imagine any party formed by Sanders will get much support on the right, given he's too liberal for some on the left.

 

[BertramCooper]

A third party would presumably draw support from both the left and the right. I'm not sure why you think the right would not suffer any losses from a third party, especially since they're already showing huge internal issues. The new group would accrue enough votes so that neither of the two major parties would have a majority in Congress. Then they would have to start working together.

You were advocating for a Bernie Sanders Party, not a centrist party.

The Bernie Sanders Party isn't going to pull anyone from the right.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The Bernie Sanders Party isn't going to pull anyone from the right.

Why? Gun control being the biggest example, but the man is capable of changing to adopt policies that appeal to people who are disgusted with what the right has become.

 

[Clefargle]

why?

Polls like this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx

I agree with that but for me personally I'll never vote for someone I don't like just because it's the more practical choice. I understand many here disagree with that and I totally understand and respect that. however for me I'll always vote for the candidate who I agree with most and who I would personally like to see in office. even if that candidate doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.

Ok, that's cool. That's not something breaking the two party system will solve. It could make it better, but you will never have the perfect candidate. You will always have to compromise on some level. If you want to abolish the two party system, do it over time regardless of election cycles. This just adds another thing that has to happen for sanders to win. He has to get the delegates, turn around minority opinion, educate people on socialism, and now you want him to turn people into independent voters? Don't see it happening, which is the point of the thread, not that sanders is a good/bad candidate.

 

[User 463088]

A few reasons. Americans like the ideal of capitalism, and dislike the ideal of socialism. Some of it is irrational, but it is a well established trend. It's simply not possible to shift public perception on such and entrenched issue between now and next November. It was a mistake because he gave a definitive no. I know some people don't like political speak, but it's good to not give your opponents ammunition. A smarter statement would have been him saying he believes in the American ideal of making it, but believes there are ways in which we can and should help ensure everyone has a chance. The GOP and their PACks will use that no against him, or carefully remove the democratic part before socialist. The socialism thing will hurt him. Any time you have to defend a candidate with a "Ya, but...." you know you're in a weaker position.

Edit. Sorry I didn't quote the Why from above. I'm on mobile and screwed it up.

 

[Arkeband]

Not a Sanders supporter, but I think I have a pretty good grasp on politics. He doesn't need to just do better with minorities. He needs a gigantic shift in minority support. He's getting around 6% of the African American vote in South Carolina. That's beyond abysmal. He has not shown the ability to move that needle at all. Not even a little. Sanders also has a fairly high disapproval rating among Dem primary voters, relatively speaking. It was in the SC poll or one of the national ones. It's not enough for Sanders to appear acceptable. He has to show that he's the better choice. I highly doubt that he can do that against a known quantity like Hillary.

Has Bernie even campaigned in the Carolinas? 6% is a really bad number, but that doesn't seem accurate to me.

I mean, this would assume an unprecedented 90+% are planning to vote for Clinton, which seems odd when Bernie's initial missteps with BLM (or what the media would like you to believe were missteps) have been rectified by including them very prominently in his campaign.

 

[BertramCooper]

Why? Gun control being the biggest example, but the man is capable of changing to adopt policies that appeal to people who are disgusted with what the right has become.

Moderate and/or disillusioned Republicans are not going to become Sandersites. Outside of some mildly pro-gun tendencies, there's virtually nothing that Bernie Sanders stands for that appeals to anyone on the right. At all.

The idea that Bernie Sanders holds some sort of massive crossover appeal is a complete fantasy.

 

[phanphare]

I can't imagine any party formed by Sanders will get much support on the right, given he's too liberal for some on the left.

Republicans actually tend to align with Sanders on a lot of issues outside of abortion and gay marriage and even then he does a good job of explaining his stance to the Republican party. I remember he got asked a question about abortion at Liberty University. I think he answered it really well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EujLpZKJ15k;t=7m59s

A few reasons. Americans like the ideal of capitalism, and dislike the ideal of socialism. Some of it is irrational, but it is a well established trend. It's simply not possible to shift public perception on such and entrenched issue between now and next November. It was a mistake because he gave a definitive no. I know some people don't like political speak, but it's good to not give your opponents ammunition. A smarter statement would have been him saying he believes in the American ideal of making it, but believes there are ways in which we can and should help ensure everyone has a chance. The GOP and their PACks will use that no against him, or carefully remove the democratic part before socialist. The socialism thing will hurt him. Any time you have to defend a candidate with a "Ya, but...." you know you're in a weaker position.

Edit. Sorry I didn't quote the Why from above. I'm on mobile and screwed it up.

personally I just feel like more and more people are realizing that a huge reason why our country is in the state that it's in is because of capitalism. I think the times are changing in regards to that perception. capitalism allowed the rich elite to get where they are and since then they have given us all the shaft. in this day and age it doesn't take long for things to disseminate into the common consciousnesses of the country and world. I think all it takes is for Bernie to stay strong on this topic and continue to educate the American people.

stuff like this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePpQBCbKBw

yes it's long and most people won't visit his facebook page or watch an 8-minute video but if he does a good job of presenting these views during the debate when he has a lot more visibility I think it'll do wonders for the capitalist vs. democratic socialist stigma.

 

[ElectricThunder]

It all comes down to tonight's debate---IF, though considering his polling and fundraising thus far to some extent, he gets the equivalent to the Gravel/Kucinich treatment from 2008's first debate or so vs the establishment candidates of Obama/Clinton/damn near everybody that was a remotely serious Dem candidate on that stage...then they dye will probably be cast and that'll just about be that barring any major happenings. It helps that the stage is far less crowded compared to those times, as well as the even worse metrics for the likes of Chafee/O'Malley/etc, and all the strange shifting bits that've happened in the campaign and world at large since then, but I can't expect anything hopeful by default to come out of the DNC and CNN's moderation and format decisions.

There's probably a fair chance that this, and maybe the final, will be the only primary debates that will garner particular attention.

 

[BertramCooper]

Republicans actually tend to align with Sanders on a lot of issues outside of abortion and gay marriage and even then he does a good job of explaining his stance to the Republican party. I remember he got asked a question about abortion at Liberty University. I think he answered it really well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EujLpZKJ15k;t=7m59s

And Democrats agree with folks like Rand Paul and the Kochs on certain issues, too.

That doesn't necessarily translate into actual political support.

 

[Clefargle]

Has Bernie even campaigned in the Carolinas? 6% is a really bad number, but that doesn't seem accurate to me.

I mean, this would assume an unprecedented 90+% are planning to vote for Clinton, which seems odd when Bernie's initial missteps with BLM (or what the media would like you to believe were missteps) have been rectified by including them very prominently in his campaign.

I think it's also name recognition, like Bernie has none in the minority voting blocks.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Republicans actually tend to align with Sanders on a lot of issues outside of abortion and gay marriage and even then he does a good job of explaining his stance to the Republican party. I remember he got asked a question about abortion at Liberty University. I think he answered it really well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EujLpZKJ15k;t=7m59s

Do you have a timestamp for that question? Not in a place where I can watch the whole thing right now.

I'm also very surprised. I've literally never heard someone support Sanders by pointing out his conservative credentials. I usually hear people blasting Hillary for agreeing with Republicans and praising Sanders for being a real liberal.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Moderate and/or disillusioned Republicans are not going to become Sandersites. Outside of some mildly pro-gun tendencies, there's virtually nothing that Bernie Sanders stands for that appeals to anyone on the right. At all.

The idea that Bernie Sanders holds some sort of massive crossover appeal is a complete fantasy.

Well, so was his competing with Hillary Clinton a few months ago. You want to argue for the status quo, go for it. I don't think the kind of systemic change you're proposing we wait for happens without things getting a bit rocky.

 

[Clefargle]

Well, so was his competing with Hillary Clinton a few months ago. You want to argue for the status quo, go for it. I don't think the kind of systemic change you're proposing we wait for happens without things getting a bit rocky.

Those two are not remotely the same. Sanders gaining massive support among dems wasn't nearly as unlikely as turning enormous numbers of republican voters blue in one years time. That's not just unlikely, it's unprecedented.

 

[BertramCooper]

Well, so was his competing with Hillary Clinton a few months ago.

Hate to break it to you, but he's still not going to beat her. And it won't even be remotely close when the delegates are counted.

You want to argue for the status quo, go for it. I don't think the kind of systemic change you're proposing we wait for happens without things getting a bit rocky.

It's already getting rocky on the right, and it's doing absolutely nothing to help us fix our system of government. If the same happens on the left, it will be every bit as unproductive.

 

[phanphare]

Do you have a timestamp for that question? Not in a place where I can watch the whole thing right now.

I'm also very surprised. I've literally never heard someone support Sanders by pointing out his conservative credentials. I usually hear people blasting Hillary for agreeing with Republicans and praising Sanders for being a real liberal.

that link is already time-stamped but if it doesn't go there because you're on mobile scrub to 7m59s

also I don't think it's a negative thing that some of his views align with the Republican party because the views that do are good for America as a whole. I think it just speaks to the strength of his platform.

here's a video on the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwDY2rO9lWM

 

[User 463088]

Has Bernie even campaigned in the Carolinas? 6% is a really bad number, but that doesn't seem accurate to me.

I mean, this would assume an unprecedented 90+% are planning to vote for Clinton, which seems odd when Bernie's initial missteps with BLM (or what the media would like you to believe were missteps) have been rectified by including them very prominently in his campaign.

Yes. He has been in South Carolina. He sent Dr. West which was just asinine. The AA support is split between Biden and Hillary, with Hillary in the upper 50s and Biden in the upper 20s. Without Biden, Hillary has a 50 point lead in the state among all voters. Saunders isn't even the second choice among non white voters.

Hillary is incredibly popular among the AA community. She won Latinos over Obama in 2008. Sanders had issues before the BLM fiasco. Part of his problem is self inflicted. The other part is Clinton's popularity. Outside of lily white areas, Sanders doesn't poll well.

Of course, if he'd run a few damn polls, he might know that.

 

[Valhelm]

I think Bernie Sanders has a much better shot at the general than he does at the primary. While Hillary Clinton is certainly more electable, a huge amount of Americans agree with his policies, and in early match-up polls he stands better than Hillary Clinton against Trump, Bush, or Rubio.

That being said, the odds are still against him. If Hillary's shot at beating a Republican in the general is 70/30, Bernie Sanders' is probably 40/60.