April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Prodigal Son
Member
He needed landslides before (unlikely)
Now he needs slightly bigger landslides (still unlikely).
As many have said, it was sort of over for him a long time ago.
I still really respect that he's still going.
Chezzymann
Member
Im worried he's just going to leave shitting on Clinton and not endorse her or try anything to unify the party. He doesn't give the impression of caring about the democratic party at all. If Trump keeps on talking about Bernie getting "screwed over" by supperdelagates and using his situation as an example of the system being corrupt, im afraid a significant amount of Bernie supporters and independents will go to trump.
Right, the cumulative winning he'd need to do at this point is impossible. Not mathematically impossible, but realistically.
Why does she in any way deserve my vote? Someone who voted for the Iraq war and still feels that a Palestinian's life is worth much less that someone from Isreal. I'm not a liberal, nor a democrat. I would only vote for him (Bernie) and I'm that Latino minority which Hillarity stans seem to think don't exist.
He cares about the Democratic Party being better. He'll back Hillary, he's said a it a zillion times that a republican would be horrific. But money out of politics is a message he will still tout as long as Hillary's solution is getting rid of citizens United instead of Government funded elections.
Aaronrules380
Member
Pretty sure most Latino's prefer Hilary to Sanders based on polling. Also, as a Latino, would you really be OK with President Trump as the alternative?
Prodigal Son
Member
Like he has said, he will do everything in his power to prevent a Republican from winning.
I think he'll ultimately do more attacking of the eventual republican nominee than pro-Clinton speak.
Many of his followers would be devastated if his tune changed to a pro-Clinton one. He'll likely just shit on Trump/Cruz some while emphasizing that Hillary is better than they are.
Of course not (fortunately I'm not in a contested state), I'll be voting Green Party in November.
Fenderputty
Banned
Conservatives want him to continue on attacking too. With each passing day I lose more respect for sanders and his supporters.
I can't believe I was going to toss this guy my vote.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Even last week when things really got heated, he said him and his wife would vote for Hillary and support her, because the alternative is just awful.
That's my main issue with his campaign at this point.
Stick to the issues. If the purpose of him remaining in the race is to spread his message, then by all means... Do that. If it pushes Hillary further to the left? Fantastic.
However making her out to be a corporate shill and soulless demagogue doesn't help the party, nor does it help what he's advocating for. I hope he changes the tone of his messaging moving forward.
Okay, baby steps here. Removing CU is a huge step in that direction. It's not like she's going to radically change campaign financing the second she walks into office... How many times has that been promised to this point?
Fenderputty
Banned
Because they want him in it. He's views by the GOP as the easier candidate to defeat in the GE and is damaging their only real opposition to the whitehouse.
Prodigal Son
Member
Lose respect for the guy for effectively attacking his opponent during a primary? Uh. Okay.
More Clinton supporters were unwilling to support the eventual nominee than Sanders supporters with Clinton this year. You should really consider that.
There's nothing wrong with effectively attacking your opponent on substance-policy.
He'll campaign for her later this year if and when she's the nominee.
Ding ding.
It's amazing that people who tout his perceived advantage in a GE don't realize this- They haven't spent a second attacking him because they want him to be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Hillary hate machine has been churning for almost 20 years.
We've already seen and heard everything we will regarding attack ads against her- Can't say that about Sanders.
outunderthestars
Banned
The media does this, regardless of network, to create a more compelling narrative.
Chezzymann
Member
Oh thats good. I'd imagine whatever happens with the republicans, they'll be far more divided than the democrats regardless so it shouldn't be a huge issue.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I don't think this was true in any poll released this year except for one of the exits in the NY curb-stomping yesterday.
Though I think it's a moot point in either case.
This whole topic is silly because nobody can actually get rid of Citizens United and so nothing's going to change about campaign finance in the next like five years no matter who's president. SCOTUS is very unlikely to overturn the decision that rapidly and a constitutional amendment won't happen any time in the near future for literally anything.
I am not necessarily pleased about that, but it's the reality. It was annoying when Hillary said it would be a focus of her campaign for the same reason, and it's equally annoying when Sanders talks about how he'll do it right away.
There's nothing to be gained from it. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and further attacks from Bernie Sanders is not going to change that or in any way support Sanders' position. He would be doing the Republican's work for them.
If Bernie wants to talk about the issues he's running on? Cool, go for it. But I'm sure there's some way to talk about his policies without almost-but-not-really calling Hillary corrupt.
Orbis Tabula
Member
R/politicaldiscussion is good as a balance to the other subreddits, but I think it ended up skewing too far in the other direction. Too much Hillary. It does have some conservatives in there who seem pretty comfortable sharing their opinions, though, so that's nice.
Prodigal Son
Member
I recall reading on a number of occasions of polls where this was the case. I might be wrong. A lot of misinformation is touted these days. Like you said, moot.
He'll campaign for her. If he's running against her, even as a message candidate, he should keep hammering home his points, in my opinion. He should also respond to her attacks in kind, unless they are character attacks.
Would be a bit funny to call a campaign finance system corrupt and talk about the influence of special-interests while your opponent uses that same finance system.
That's just one example.
Yup.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I'm now seeing a lot of optimistic Sanders posts talking about how she only won 29ish delegates from NY, but that's missing the point. It's not the delegate deficit that hurts him; it's the lack of delegates of fight over. NY was another 249 delegates that are now off the table. If you go to demrace.com there aren't that many contests left, and they're mostly small (only PA, CA, and NJ with over 100 delegates, and Hillary could win all of them, certainly PA and NJ).
If one thinks about it like football, there's only so much time to score. If Hillary keeps matching his TDs with hers, and sneaking in field goals, there's no way to catch up.
If one thinks about it like football, there's only so much time to score. If Hillary keeps matching his TDs with hers, and sneaking in field goals, there's no way to catch up.
I don't think a SC ruling is that far out of the question... Assuming she does in fact have the ability to nominate two liberal judges.
That would be the quickest way to change it, on that we agree.
Fenderputty
Banned
Yes. I'm losing massive respect for Bernie and those who want him to continue.
He has next to zero chance to win now and by next week it will effectively be zero. He should be campaigning for her now. He's doing nothing at this point but hurting liberalism's chance at the White House and stroking his own ego.
eBay Huckster
Member
it's not that a ruling's out of the question, it's that they'd probably have to fast-track it to an absurd degree to get one done before the 2020 election
How does the process work? And why would it take so long?
eBay Huckster
Member
the process is basically "get a ruling in a trial court, then it gets appealed X number of times until you hit the supreme court"
and, well, those appeals take a fuckton of time
and, well, those appeals take a fuckton of time
There's plenty of precedent for overturning a previous ruling within a decade. By the time a case were to reach SCOTUS, we'd be pretty close to 10 years out from the 2009 ruling.
(Some of the turnaround times here are remarkable)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
The biggest thing, aside from actually getting judges in place, would likely be setting up a test case. A law would have to be carefully written, signed into law, and then challenged.
eBay Huckster
Member
i'm thinking that's the primary route. but either way, the court process is gonna take a while
What? Why are you talking to me?
Might as well answer your question though:
She is rather progressive in numerous ways. If you're a single issue voter and your single issue is a war that started 13 years ago under suspicious intelligence that nearly every single person in Washington supported then more power too you. However if you are a left-leaning American who wants to continue to support social and economic policies that move us closer to the Social-Democracies of Europe then there is no reason NOT to vote for her.
There's little evidence she would randomly invade some Middle Eastern nation simply because she voted for the Iraq war. To view her in such a narrow and mindset does a disservice to not only her but your own intelligence.
Prodigal Son
Member
There's zero solid basis for this but okay.
His chances are slim but not non-existent. <-- That isn't up for debate. It's factual.
He will very likely lose but that doesn't matter if not everyone has had the chance to vote yet. For his whole political career he's always been one to champion democracy. In his view, it's not over until everyone has their say. The principle is important to him and it is to many of his followers. That shouldn't be reason to have no respect for someone.
I just hate that in an election that showed the flaws in our voting processes, that I'll be forced to vote for a candidate I don't really like because the other candidate will be much worse.
I'm not an idiot, I'll still vote Clinton in the general, but I don't think Bernie has to let up at all. Call her on her bullshit. Call out the flawed system.
He's made her go further left by just staying in. We'll see how far she moves back in the general.
I'm not an idiot, I'll still vote Clinton in the general, but I don't think Bernie has to let up at all. Call her on her bullshit. Call out the flawed system.
He's made her go further left by just staying in. We'll see how far she moves back in the general.
balladofwindfishes
Member
In what ways? She's always been one of the more liberal verteran Democrats
googleplex
Member
His campaign stopped being "respectable" about a month ago.
Prodigal Son
Member
Okay.
His message has appeal beyond the democrats. He'd keep doing that.
Richest country in the history of the _______
How is it we can't provide ______
Corrupt campaign ______
He presents them in a surprisingly non-partisan way. (Except for when Repubs inevitably point how how much of a tax-raise it'll involve).
I honestly don't see how it's a flawed voting system.
She is winning the majority of the popular vote, so the super delegates are likely to support her.
Also, I would have been interested to see how much Bernie would have moved to the center in the general. You have to become somewhat centrist then, even Bernie would.
Someone ran a DW-Nominate statistical analysis of the voting pattern of Senators for the 107th-110th Congress (when she and Obama were both in office).
Hillary was 11th most liberal Senator.
Obama was 23rd.
There are legit issues of contention within her voting record, but anyone selling the idea that she's not a liberal is either misguided or has an agenda. The numbers do not lie.
Hillary was 11th most liberal Senator.
Obama was 23rd.
There are legit issues of contention within her voting record, but anyone selling the idea that she's not a liberal is either misguided or has an agenda. The numbers do not lie.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
But that's a double-edged sword because the longer he stays in, the more contempt his supporters will have for Clinton. If we know Clinton will be the inevitable democratic nominee, then by his staying in Sanders is damaging her chances in the general election.
So what's more important to you?
Sander stays in > Clinton maintains leftist views > Support for Clinton is further reduced for GE
or
Sander drops out > Clinton pivots closer to center > Support for Clinton is maintained/gained for GE
Mind you I think the "issue" of Clinton pivoting to the center is woefully overblown. I feel as if it's insinuated that should Sanders drop out today, Clinton will suddenly become a right-wing nutjob. Is that the notion some people have?
Anyway, of the options I gave, it's considerably more important to me that she begins to build up her image heading into the GE without having to split her efforts between two fronts, one of which has all but ended but still remains a tack in her foot.
What benefit does making her go further left in the primary actually serve? These campaigns are full of empty promises and unrealistic goals anyhow.
She's moved against the transatlantic trade agreement during the campaign, and... And...
Yeah, it's more people slowly discovering through various means than Sec. Clinton is more liberal than they thought she was.
It helps to normalize some of the more "radical" talking points.
For example, if Bernie is pushing on the $15/hr idea, Hillary sounds rather moderate by comparison when she says $12/hr with $15/hr provisionally.
I honestly hope his campaign goes to the very end just to piss you off, Googleplex. Why are you so insecure? She has this in the bag, why worry? I'm a huge Bernie supporter, and I hope he tries to at the very least make her go to the far left.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Sanders will do what he feels is appropriate to support Clinton, he's as committed to preventing a Republican from winning as anyone.
That said, he was awfully convincing to many people that Clinton isn't a 'real liberal'. That's about as impressive of an accomplishment as anything he's done throughout the process. I didn't think he was that slick of a politician.
That said, he was awfully convincing to many people that Clinton isn't a 'real liberal'. That's about as impressive of an accomplishment as anything he's done throughout the process. I didn't think he was that slick of a politician.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
I'd like to know what your idea of her further moving to the left would be with regard to her current stances. What about her current views would have to change in order for her to be considered more left?
Someone else just said that this primary has been filled with a lot of empty promises (I don't need to point out which side has been considerably more unrealistic with his goals), and by that virtue, realistic expectations are now considered to be of moderate or conservative values, the minimum wage issue being one of them.
Eh, his target was Hillary Clinton.
She's consistently one of the most polarizing politicians. A large minority of voters just can't accept a powerful, no nonsense woman. So convincing a lot of people that she's not a "real liberal" was fairly easy.
He probably could have convinced them that she's a lizard person.
- Status