I think they're considered neogafs.
Bernie Sanders = Ron Paul
- Thread starter Butts-a-plenty
- Start date
- Status
I think they're considered neogafs.
The term has many meaning. I think Adam Smith would be considered a liberal economist. Neo-liberalism is more akin to libertarian view on matters.
Starfish Hero
Member
It's hard to find polls that parallel the same point in the campaign, but Hillary had a pretty crushing lead over Obama later then than we are now. And while I'm not one to downplay Obama's brilliant campaign that snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, I also can't downplay Hillary's campaign that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. There was a time when Obama was the wide-eyed idealist candidate who people liked, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for because Hillary had a better shot. There's plenty of reasons Hillary screwed herself out of a near surefire nomination, reasons I expect she's learned from. But if she can't get over her biggest flaw, her inability to be a consistently likable candidate, she's not going to win.
I'm surprised Walker gets slightly less support against Sanders than against Clinton. I assume it's a name recognition thing?
gutter_trash
Banned
to be fair, Obama saved big banks but didn't save the litte guy and his financial team was all former Goldman-Sachs crew members.
Rham Emanuel was no left wing liberal. Rham Emanuel was mostly responsible for Obama's more Center-Right comprising approach with Republicans and wasted his 2 first years when he had a House majority but wasted it comprimising
AstroNut325
Member
I really think that the people who want Bernie for President need to focus on their local and state politicians first. Voting in a left wing candidate with a right wing Congress won't change a damn thing.
benjipwns
Banned
But Hillary isn't. That's the key.
June 21-July 8, 2007
Cook/RT:
Hillary Clinton 32%, Barack Obama 22%, Al Gore 12%, John Edwards 11%, Joe Biden 2%, Dennis Kucinich 2%, Bill Richardson 1%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 0%
CNN/OR:
Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 23%, Al Gore 16%, John Edwards 13%, Bill Richardson 4%, Joseph Biden 2%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Christopher Dodd 0%, Mike Gravel 0%
FOX/OD:
Hillary Clinton 42%, Barack Obama 19%, Al Gore 14%, John Edwards 10%, Dennis Kucinich 2%, Joe Biden 1%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 1%, Bill Richardson 1%
Rasmussen:
Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 26%, John Edwards 13%, Bill Richardson 5%, Joe Biden 3%, Dennis Kucinich 3%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 0%,
USA Today/Gallup:
Hillary Clinton 37%, Barack Obama 21%, Al Gore 16%, John Edwards 13%, Joe Biden 3%, Bill Richardson 2%, Dennis Kucinich 2%, Mike Gravel 1%, Christopher Dodd 0%
June 21-July 6, 2015
FOX:
Hillary Clinton 61%, Bernie Sanders 15%, Joe Biden 11%, Jim Webb 2%, Martin O'Malley 1%, Lincoln Chafee 0%
CNN/OR:
Hillary Clinton 57%, Joe Biden 16%, Bernie Sanders 14%, Jim Webb 2%, Martin O'Malley 1%, Lincoln Chafee 0%
Economist/YouGuv (D only):
Hillary Clinton 59%, Bernie Sanders 19%, Joe Biden 9%, Jim Webb 1%, Martin O'Malley 2%, Lincoln Chafee 0%
Economist/YouGuv (D only):
Hillary Clinton 55%, Bernie Sanders 24%, Joe Biden 8%, Jim Webb 1%, Martin O'Malley 0%, Lincoln Chafee 0%
Jawbreaker
Member
I wonder what the public perception would be like if Bernie had instead referred to himself as a social democrat, because that's essentially what he is. He could have likened his ideas to the Scandinavian model instead of calling himself a socialist, which carries a lot of baggage in America. People would likely have less reservations and he'd be more true to his positions.
And_Gignac
Member
Another tid bit from the yougov poll:
He is having massive gains with people under 45, so de "young idealists" excuse do not fly with him. He only needs to gain on boomers.
Sanders needs to show his credential and convince the black community, too.
So yeah, he is far from being a joke candidate. The republi-crats can stay in denial.
He is having massive gains with people under 45, so de "young idealists" excuse do not fly with him. He only needs to gain on boomers.
Sanders needs to show his credential and convince the black community, too.
So yeah, he is far from being a joke candidate. The republi-crats can stay in denial.
onadesertedisland
Member
Neoliberal is sort of a statist economic stance that has a lot to do with why banks needed a bailout. Neoliberal, Austrian economic policies seek to remove any restrictions to the free-market. A very chaotic laissez faire economic policy.
I think it's probably fair to say that he's actually a socialist and probably doesn't want to be caught criticizing capitalism publicly. He has been careful to make distinctions between social democracy and democratic socialism everytime it gets brought up. Maybe he wrote an edgy critique of the private ownership of the means of production when he was young and knew that if he were ever to run for president -- it'd have his name on it.
Yes, Bush and Cheney would be neocons. Neoliberals would be libertarians like Ron Paul is commonly viewed.
I've been saying this for a while now. Bernie is a hell of a lot better than Ron Paul - a hell of a lot, but his fan club behaves in a very similar way to the way that Ron Paul fans supported their candidate. I expect Bernie will end up doing just about as well - maybe 10%-12% of the overall primary vote.
And_Gignac
Member
He just formaly announced his campaign in late May. And yet he has made remarkable gains over Hillary. Theres a part of the democratic party voting bloc that isnt convinced or satisfied, and their voice shouldnt be silenced with "lol Ron Paul fans".
Wrong on so many levels.
CrocMother
Banned
Neo-liberal in economic terms refers to someone who favors shifting economic factors from public to private hands. Most Republicans have neoliberal economic beliefs.
Team Alucard
Banned
Hillary is more liberal than Obama.
Don't understand the massive hate she's getting considering Bams is still mostly liked.
She does have the charisma of a rock, but policy-wise she isn't the monster that libs keep portraying her as. Although she is way too much of a Hawk for my tastes..
Don't understand the massive hate she's getting considering Bams is still mostly liked.
She does have the charisma of a rock, but policy-wise she isn't the monster that libs keep portraying her as. Although she is way too much of a Hawk for my tastes..
benjipwns
Banned
No, Bush and Cheney are not neoconservatives, they were never Democrats or "liberals" to switch from. Cheney was part of the Ford and Bush Administrations. Bush came up with his dad. (Who was part of the Nixon/Ford Administrations.)
No, he hasn't. He's barely made a dent in her numbers. He just sucked up all the non-Hillary "votes" that were going to Elizabeth Warren in polls.
perfectchaos007
Member
Before Ron Paul, wasn't Ross Perot the OG internet candidate? Either way, being labeled "internet candidate" is a political death sentence
benjipwns
Banned
Ralph Nader was.
I (and some others) explained the history of neoconservatives in this thread a while back: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=849227
You're somewhat correct.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Yes, but if Sanders wins the primary, that means he'll have won over a significant amount of people who don't currently support him.
40-32 is him trailing, but he'll have to pick up more support for that number to even matter. And even if that holds, that's 28% of people who don't have an opinion on the matter right now.
Clinton is absolutely a neo-liberal. So is Obama. They're both very big supporters of corporations as well as corporate and financial sector involvement in government matters.
Abinash117
Member
Many candidates get a boast in polling numbers when they announce their run and also when candidates get taken out of polls.
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
I remember in the early primaries and before when there were rumblings of an Obama run at the White House. Everybody said it that wasn't possible too.
Hidden One
Member
Need to make the headshake a bit faster.
benjipwns
Banned
The 2008 announcements:
Mike Gravel: April 17, 2006 (first candidate, both parties)
Tom Vilsack: November 9, 2006
Evan Bayh: December 1, 2006 (Dropped out on the 16th lol)
Dennis Kucinich: December 12, 2006
John Edwards: December 26, 2006
Joe Biden: January 7, 2007
Chris Dodd: January 11, 2007
Hillary Clinton: January 20, 2007
Barack Obama: February 10, 2007
Bill Richardson: May 7, 2007
For comparison, 2016:
(Ted Cruz: March 23, 2015 - first candidate both parties)
Hillary Clinton: April 12, 2015
Bernie Sanders: April 30, 2015
Martin O'Malley: May 30, 2015
Lincoln Chafee: June 3. 2015
Jim Webb: July 2, 2015
benjipwns
Banned
She's gone from 64% on RCP average to 63%.
Her LOW is 57% in early March when Sanders was at 4%.
Barely made a dent.
User 463088
Banned
Another tid bit from the yougov poll:
He is having massive gains with people under 45, so de "young idealists" excuse do not fly with him. He only needs to gain on boomers.
Sanders needs to show his credential and convince the black community, too.
So yeah, he is far from being a joke candidate. The republi-crats can stay in denial.
Okay. I'm not sure if you're familiar with what YouGov does or not. YouGov is a rolling poll. They poll the same group of people over and over. Also, those numbers you quoted are NOT weighted. That's very, very important. Also, look at the number of minorities covered in this poll. Hell, look at the break down. It says Bernie's best demo is HISPANICS. He supposedly does better with Hispanics than with Whites. There is no one in any universe, real or otherwise, who at this point would say Bernie is polling better with Hispanics than with Whites.
That's issue number one.
Issue number two, the numbers you quoted include independents. Not every state has an open primary. This also makes quite a bit of difference.
Issue the third which is a combination of the aforementioned issues, is that when the numbers are weighted, which is required in any polling to get an accurate representation of what the electorate is thinking, Hillary is far, far ahead.
In the field where all announced (and Biden) candidates are listed, the results are:
Hillary 55%
Sanders 24%
Biden 8%
(The rest are whatever)
In a head to head matchup, the weighted results are as follows:
Hillary 64%
Bernie 29%
The newest Iowa caucus poll has Hillary ahead by 43 points. I don't deny he's made gains in the polls. That's obvious, and a normal reaction to actually announcing you're running.
----
The only reason Bernie has any traction at all is because he's the only one really running other than Hillary. He gets all of the "Not Clinton" votes, since most people don't give a rats behind about Webb or O'Malley. If this were a regular Dem primary season, and we had an actual group of potential nominees, Bernie wouldn't be anywhere close to where he is now.
As to the question in the OP, yes, there are parallels between Bernie/Bernie's supporters and Ron Paul/Ron Paul's supporters. As sure as Bernie's fans are in his rightness, the Paul people were equally as....sure, I suppose, in theirs.
Bush just announced he, along with his PAC, raised $100 million. If you think there's a snow balls chance in Bowser's castle that Bernie could feasibly win the White House with the paltry sum he's been able to raise...you're sadly mistaken. He's said no PACs. The DNC will not be able to pay for his infrastructure, grass roots, or ads. We have to pay for down ballot races. I suppose, though, just once America sees that they've been wrong for decades on everything, and they get scolded into voting for him, the money will just magically fly in on unicorns and rainbows.
For Bernie to be a serious candidate here's what has to happen:
1) Citizens United has to be overturned between now and the beginning of the Primary Season.
2) A vast majority of Americans are going to have to have a sudden and insanely rapid change of heart on socialism. (I don't care if it's democratic socialism or not. Doesn't matter to John Q. Public.)
Neither of these will happen. He is a fringe candidate, although a fringe I happen to believe in. In a normal election, he'd be relegated to the role of Gravel or Kucinich.
In that they speak positively of him?
User 463088
Banned
You don't have the most recent Iowa poll:
Hillary 63%, Sanders 20%
Also, a day before the poll in NH you mentioned, a poll with a larger sample size and smaller MOE showed Hillary ahead 56% to 24%. I also don't expect Hillary to outright win New Hampshire. That should go easily to Sanders. Because of proportional delegates, though, it won't much matter in the grand scheme of things. Once we get into Super Tuesday, Sanders is in a lot of trouble. Very few winnable states for him
Take a look at South Carolina. Sanders is losing....to Biden. Nationally, Sanders is losing...to Biden. (Who's not running....)
Abinash117
Member
Each ideologue will have a figure that will appeal to a certain group within that ideologue and sometimes that group will become very passionate and assertive to a point. It usually comes from some kind of dissatisfaction.
A lot of people will fully believe that their side, the good side will win regardless of the obstacles and odds, and supporting the underdog is pretty attractive.
benjipwns
Banned
Which didn't have Biden in it and yet...
Pretty much. It is the classic case of finding a couple similarities, perverting a few others, then concluding a false equivalency.
Biden is also only 1 point behind Sanders nationwide.
Sanders is barely ahead of someone who isn't running. Yeah, this guy's got a great chance at the nomination...
benjipwns
Banned
Apology accepted.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think Bernie will win the primary or the general election.
That being said that Gallup poll isn't a good indicator of why. 49% of the county didn't vote for Obama. Why would you expect a Democrat to win any significant amount of those votes. I imagine that 47% that said they could see themselves count for a socialist would be pretty much in the bag for Sanders.
That being said that Gallup poll isn't a good indicator of why. 49% of the county didn't vote for Obama. Why would you expect a Democrat to win any significant amount of those votes. I imagine that 47% that said they could see themselves count for a socialist would be pretty much in the bag for Sanders.
User 463088
Banned
Exactly. There's strong trends showing that when Biden is removed, his support goes to Hillary. They're from the same "wing" of the party. Most of Sander's support is coming from the Warren voters who finally accepted she's not running.
I think what's even more telling is when you look at the question of, regardless of who people support, who do you think will get the nomination. Hillary's numbers hover around 80% on that mark. There's a well documented trend of people wanting to support the winner.
No he wouldn't.
Bernie Sanders and the Pauls are polar opposites, but their relative position on the political spectrum is somewhat similar; Sanders is farther left than his Democratic peers while the Pauls are farther right (in the traditional sense of liberalism) than his Republican peers.
They both certainly cater to a niche–but vocal–minority.
It's really disheartening that so few liberal politicians embrace Western Europe's form of democratic socialism–Bernie Sanders is about the only outspoken democratic socialist in the US Senate. I guess the same could be said about Ron/Rand Paul in regards to Libertarianism.
They both certainly cater to a niche–but vocal–minority.
It's really disheartening that so few liberal politicians embrace Western Europe's form of democratic socialism–Bernie Sanders is about the only outspoken democratic socialist in the US Senate. I guess the same could be said about Ron/Rand Paul in regards to Libertarianism.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
oh that racist bernie sanders
User 463088
Banned
Also, since people love to throw the Hillary 2008 thing around, here's some polling from this point in 2007.
Iowa
Research 2000
Edwards.........27%
Clinton............22%
Obama...........17%
ABC/Washington Post
Obama...........27%
Clinton............26%
Edwards.........26%
New Hampshire
CNN
Clinton......33%
Obama......27%
Richardson...11%
Harris
Clinton....35%
Obama....28%
Nationwide polling around this time gave Hillary a 10-15 point lead. Not a 43 point lead.
People also don't realize that Hillary actually had a larger popular vote total than President Obama. Out of 4000 and some delegates, he only won by 230.
President Obama's success was in caucus states. Hillary didn't have the required ground game to turn out voters in these states. Had she, it would have been a very different result. She's corrected that issue with her current campaign team.
If Sanders hopes to do well, he'll focus on caucus states exclusively. He can't afford to compete in larger markets where ads are going to cost more.
Iowa
Research 2000
Edwards.........27%
Clinton............22%
Obama...........17%
ABC/Washington Post
Obama...........27%
Clinton............26%
Edwards.........26%
New Hampshire
CNN
Clinton......33%
Obama......27%
Richardson...11%
Harris
Clinton....35%
Obama....28%
Nationwide polling around this time gave Hillary a 10-15 point lead. Not a 43 point lead.
People also don't realize that Hillary actually had a larger popular vote total than President Obama. Out of 4000 and some delegates, he only won by 230.
President Obama's success was in caucus states. Hillary didn't have the required ground game to turn out voters in these states. Had she, it would have been a very different result. She's corrected that issue with her current campaign team.
If Sanders hopes to do well, he'll focus on caucus states exclusively. He can't afford to compete in larger markets where ads are going to cost more.
That racist POS would get eaten alive up here.
benjipwns
Banned
IIRC, the Hillary team didn't even know how caucus delegates were selected.
Speaking of Ron Paul, in 2012 his campaign did the same thing as the Obama team, they knew to stay around because the straw polls weren't binding or anything. The Santorum/Romney "tie" in Iowa didn't allocate any delegates and Paul actually won 21 of the 22 delegates.
Speaking of Ron Paul, in 2012 his campaign did the same thing as the Obama team, they knew to stay around because the straw polls weren't binding or anything. The Santorum/Romney "tie" in Iowa didn't allocate any delegates and Paul actually won 21 of the 22 delegates.
You have got to be kidding me here. Are you seriously arguing that Sanders and Paul are the same because you find their supporters equally annoying? This has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard. If you must compare them, then compare and contrast their policies or voting record, not how annoying you think their supporters are.
Terra Firma
Banned
I'd have said Alberta might be welcoming to him but NDP's win there showed me.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Today, I learned bish is Canadian. Cool.
- Status