I don't think he is. Not only do I agree with him, I think Bernie offers our best chance of keeping the White House. Hillary has too much baggage.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Am I in bizzarro land? This is such the opposite of reality, that I'm not even sure where to begin.
Sanders stands no chance.
There are Supreme Court Justices on the line here! We can't and shouldn't, take that chance.
If there is any group of people that want Bernie to win the primaries more than progressives, it's republicans. And it's not because they agree with him.
But I also can't understand why people would not want to support him. I'm not saying anyone here is necessarily doing it, but I have seen a sense that certain people like what he's saying and want him to keep saying it but that they don't actually want want him to win. It's like the people saying that Elizabeth Warren is more useful to the liberal cause in congress than she would be as president. That's just nonsensical to me.
Hillary is definitely the safer bet, by a very large margin and it's probably not even worth imagining what a Bernie nomination would mean (since it is so improbable); but I would absolutely support him either way.
ErasureAcer
Banned
There will always be supreme court justices on the line. The republicans are out of step with mainstream america. Undermining the sc and its validity, constitutional amendments to ban ssm, making the rich richer, denying climate change, getting rid of aca with nothing to replace it....they are fucking nuts. whoever gets the dem nomination will win. The republicans arent right about anything and demographics continue to to support democrats as liberal youth can vote and old farts die.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
What is happening in this thread?
Did we already forget Bill Clinton's speech at the democratic convention? People LOVE him. LOVE. Hillary has that ace in her pocket the whole time. Sanders would be a disaster as a general election candidate.
Did we already forget Bill Clinton's speech at the democratic convention? People LOVE him. LOVE. Hillary has that ace in her pocket the whole time. Sanders would be a disaster as a general election candidate.
Not to mention Obama.
He's going to be invaluable to her once he doesn't have the stress of the Presidency.
He can SELL her ideas where she can't. Bill Clinton can campaign for a bill in one area of the country to get support, and Obama another, and Hillary, the next.
Obama will be 55 years old when he leaves office. That's remarkably young. He can spend the next 15-20 years championing Progressive causes. Plus, when the long term effects of his Presidency are fully maturing he'll grow even more popular.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Sanders is up 50 EVs on Republicans from the start. All he has to do is win Florida and all the other battleground states don't matter.
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bLIv
Which of those Blue States in that map will Bernie lose? None.
BertramCooper
Banned
People really need to stop saying this. Democrats can't nominate just anyone and win the election. That's just downright reckless and arrogant.
Nominating Bernie Sanders would be an incredibly stupid risk for the party to take, and he could absolutely lose the election, especially if the GOP nominates someone like Jeb! or Marco Rubio.
Sanders is ultimately a true believer and you can't nominate a true believer. Bernie Sanders doesn't give a damn about helping the Democratic Party win 2016, his prime directive is advancing the cause of socialism. If given the choice between laying the groundwork for future socialist candidates and winning the 2016 election Bernie will forsake the Democrats every time. He won't tailor his nomination speech for the general election, he won't try to win the middle. He'll be like Barry Goldwater and hope he lays the groundwork for those who come after him 30 years from now. To Sanders the Democratic Party is a convenience to be used when it helps the cause.
The blue wall isnt impenetrable and we saw with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis how nominating someone like Bernie is a mistake. You are putting too much stock in the recent events to simply conclude that any Democrat will beat any Republican. Generic Democrat and generic Republican will always have the Democrat win but we dont work like that. Candidates matter.
Walker, Rubio and Bush should not be underestimated by our liberal friends like Diablos mentioned. We should all come out and vote for the nominee(Hillary) ensuring Obama's legacy is intact. The right will come out in droves like never before if Walker was the nominee against a "Socialist" Sanders.
Hillary has the money, the infrastructure, the whole Democratic Party publicly and privately behind her as well as offering the best chance to recreate the Obama Coalition and they(and we should) will do everything in their (our)power to win for her.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Riiiiiighhttt....he's not going to help the Democratic cause because he wants to work with Republican majorities. If the Democratic cause is NOT overturning Citizens United via Constitutional Amendment, making the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes, getting the rest of Americans health coverage who aren't, a livable $15/wage, maternity leave, paid vacation and so on...they're in for a heap of trouble. Those issues do resonate with everyday Americans and will get them to show up to the polls.
Bernie running on those issues could turn out more people for Democrats than Hillary being the status quo. Bernie definitely has crossover appeal(he's not out to get people's guns which is one third of the guns, gods and gays that the Republicans are obsessed with) and as the other guy said, isn't as polarizing as Hillary. Bernie's stances arise from the facts. You can't argue with facts. He hasn't flip-flopped on much of anything in his long career where Clinton has and thus becomes looking weak with no backbone. Bernie is the safe choice to win. He's really on his toes mentally for his age....sharp even.
That, and I'm noticing in these early polls that she's absolutely killing it among female voters. The fact that this holds even after months of scandal-shreiking from the media and the GOP probably keeps GOP strategists up at night; how the hell do you break such an iron grip?
Even if turnout levels and margins among certain demographics are down slightly from 2012, her increased share of the female vote - particularly among white females, who went for Romney by a not-unsubstantial margin - is going to make her incredibly difficult to beat.
In a perfect world, I'd be backing Bernie with all of my might. But the currently-underreported story of this election looks like it's going to be the might of the female voter. I'm not willing to take a chance, especially if female voters bring coattails (pants suit-tails?) along with them.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Who is more popular among females Warren or Clinton? I'm quite certain Warren is if facebook likes means anything(Warren about 1.5 million, Clinton, 1 million). I'm 95% sure that is who Bernie is taking with him to the White House. Will women not come out to support Warren as VP? Isn't that making some more dents in the glass ceiling? For Warren to take over, perhaps even in 2020 if Sanders' health falls off a cliff....or later at 2024....Id rather have Warren than Castro as VP and imagine a brighter future with her as President than him down the road.
If you put Warren on the ticket...you are going to win the presidency.
I will be accepting my accolades a year from now when Hillary is the nominee and Castro is the Vice-Presidential nominee.
Book it.
Retromelon
Member
People want to believe, like goldwater in 64. Too many democrat voting middle americans to lose, give it 16 years. (Goldwater->Reagan)
Warren as VP would be fantastic; base turnout/enthusiasm would be helped. She's probably my second-favorite senator, right after Al Franken. But I'm not sure what Warren thinks about being VP..
Hillary's team is going to pick based on who the GOP ticket picks before her. They have some decent VP options that she might have to counter when she follows them.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
So, y'know how Republicans are always like "we need a true conservative, we need a true conservative" when that would be the worst tactical approach they could take? Well, that's what you're advocating here - we need a true liberal. That's what kept Dems out of the White House from Reagan to Clinton. America in aggregate is very much still center-right/center-left, Sanders is not going to pull enough Independents to guarantee the general.
Those issues certainly could be good to run on in the general election, if they're framed the right way with the right messengers. The problem as I see it is the politicians usually pushing those issues are the inner city Congressional Black Caucus or New England Senators and Congressmen from the left coast. A lot of America thus interprets those causes as being handouts to sorry minorities and the lazy, or a push to redistribute wealth to them. If that agenda was framed in a pro-growth way by someone with 'heartland' credentials it could be a powerful message. Sanders is really the wrong messenger for that type of agenda, he'll just seen as another New England Senator pushing his values on red America. I'm not saying Clinton is the right messenger, just don't hold out hope that there's this large majority of Americans who will see the light when Bernie speaks the truth. He comes across as a crazy old codger with a Brooklyn accent and a brusque NYC style, a lot of America that would be receptive to the message will see him as someone who doesn't hold their values.
Dont forget that Bill Clinton to his credit was the first Democrat to win since Carter 16 years prior and be the first to win two terms since FDR. Before Clinton saved the party in 92', the Democrats lost the previous 5 out of 6 presidential elections between 68'-88' with the execution of 76' with Carter(which mind you was a very close election that could have gone to Ford if certain states voted within 10,000 votes the other way). 20 years out of 24 with a Republican in the White House among 2 massive electoral college landslides. Republicans got to appoint many Supreme Court nominees in that time along with 2 Chief Justices. To put that into perspective, Truman was the last Democrat to appoint a Chief Justice.
Coriolanus
Banned
At which point, as usual, one points out that the black guy running on hope and change beat the moderate.
And we also point out that the moderate centrists Gore and Kerry got beat.
So, y'know. Ain't that simple.
One should defend hillary because her numbers are amazing, and that's about it.
Yes. I really would much prefer Sanders to Hillary but not at the possibility of losing to the republican. I don't see how he would win against any given Republican candidate, let alone Hillary. It's nice to want things, though.
Yellowtail
Member
But any Democrat would have won in November 2008; Obama ran as an ideological moderate not as a true leftist, and polls showed that Hillary would have likely had a larger electoral college victory than Obama (although the states she would have won in 2008 are far gone for any Democrat now).
And both Kerry and Gore would have won with 2016's demographics.
ErasureAcer
Banned
So Sanders doesnt have a guaranteed 241 electoral votes? Map I posted. Florida would give him 270.
I think he'd struggle to win Pennsylvania, for starters.
I love Sanders but his appeal is limited.
Coriolanus
Banned
First: there's no such thing as a true leftist, that's no true scotsman territory. Dude was a black guy running on hope and change, that puts him way the fuck left of Status Quoton and you know it, so don't play coy. Which doesn't change the fact that you took someone to the left of Hillary and you still won. Twice. And cockslapped quite the moderate candidate (for republican standards) in the second go.
As for kerry and gore... i don't quite get your point. They ran as moderates and failed not just to win, but to win against one of the worst presidencies in recent history. One even managed that while following a president with 60+% aproval. Their being moderates did sweet fuckall for them. Which is why we have that line "any democrat coulda won in 2004. Sadly, the democrats ran Kerry.".
To be perfectly fair, aside from Walker and (maybe) Jebba the Jeb, right now it looks like any democrat could very well take '16
Third Strike
Member
I don't see Sanders winning Florida, especially if he is up against Rubio or Bush. Winning the West Coast and Northeast is a given, though Pennsylvania because questionable. Virginia would likely go red. NC is no longer in play. Ohio would easily tilt to the right. Same with Colorado, and maybe Nevada.
Bernie's map, at best, would look like Kerry's in 2004, except with PA and WI being red.
Yellowtail
Member
No he doesn't. Read this by Nate Silver on why "the blue wall" is a myth.
All the blue wall means is that the Democrats have a slight advantage in the electoral college. All swings being equal nationally if Democrats get 49% in the Popular Vote they'll win the EC and the election. But Sanders would still have to get 49% of the PV to win, and there's no evidence so far that he's able to do that.
Right now he's tying with Walker in Washington. The only states he's guaranteed (or anyone with a D next to their name is guaranteed) are California, New York, Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, and D.C. 104 votes.
All the Republicans have to do to win is pick up four states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Iowa. That's far from an insurmountable task. And instantly make that three if Rubio or Jeb is their nominee and Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee. Hillary is a crazy good fit for Florida, Sanders... isn't.
Coriolanus
Banned
Kinda why Hill should pick up someone that locks her appeal with hispanic voters as VP. Take florida from them and done deal.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
People also need to watch Michigan as a potential red state. If it doesn't happen in 2016, it will soon.
Retromelon
Member
This guy knows what he's talking about. The states inside the coasts are where presidencies are won and jeb/rubio/paul will eat bernie's lunch there. Don't take blue leaning states for granted bros
CrimzonSamurai
Member
I think there were mitigating circumstances in those particular elections. In Gore, well, that's not really a good example of the voting process given the SCOTUS interference, and Kerry lost purely on swiftboating and the fact that Bush had made himself a war president. McCain, despite his moderate social and economic stances, was a hawk by any measure, and the electorate was decidedly not looking for someone who was open to more military intervention. Obama was also socially to the left but economically did not represent a tremendous departure from mid-line American economic beliefs. Sanders is way further to left of Obama economically, and America has always tended to be slightly more socially left than economically left. I mean, the "socialism" narrative worked almost well against Obama, imagine how well it's going to work when it's actually accurate.
Yes. I really would much prefer Sanders to Hillary but not at the possibility of losing to the republican. I don't see how he would win against any given Republican candidate, let alone Hillary. It's nice to want things, though.
I mean, there are certain scenarios where Sanders could pull through. Well, maybe not plural, because the only one I can think of where Sanders could win is probably Sanders/Jindal. Maybe Sanders/Cruz because Cruz doesn't pull a lot of independent support. At that point, though, I think so many independents would just stay home and it would be a battle of the bases.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Agreed.
The worst thing to me is the new "We don't like the decisions so let's abolish the Supreme Court" mantra. This is frightening to me.
BertramCooper
Banned
Dude is a self-described socialist and you don't think he'd be as polarizing as Hillary? lolwut?
Sanders supporters - the ones who actually want him to win and don't just admire him like most of us already do - really need a reality check.
PhoenixDark
Banned
This Bernie nonsense further confirms that there really isn't much of a difference between the electoral delusions of the far right and far left. Bernie is as unelectable as Ron Paul. Both have supporters who harp on how many people "agree" with their candidate's views, point to isolated instances of large crowds at public events, post videos of their guy confronting various corporatists x years ago, and can't point to any concrete achievements outside of "well he warned us about [insert issue]!"
Could Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump? Sure. But that's about it. I didn't click on it, but there's a diary on Daily Kos now about how/why Bernie will beat Hillary and win the general election. These people are delusional. And they're fucking idiots if they stay home in November because their guy didn't win. If this week has taught us anything it's that the SC is going to be very important in the future, with so many seats likely up for replacement in a few years. It's of paramount importance that a democrat nominates the next judges.
Could Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump? Sure. But that's about it. I didn't click on it, but there's a diary on Daily Kos now about how/why Bernie will beat Hillary and win the general election. These people are delusional. And they're fucking idiots if they stay home in November because their guy didn't win. If this week has taught us anything it's that the SC is going to be very important in the future, with so many seats likely up for replacement in a few years. It's of paramount importance that a democrat nominates the next judges.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
It's a non-starter. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United has larger bipartisan support than a marriage amendment has single-party support and neither of those even get seriously proposed. An amendment to abolish SCOTUS is going to have even less support than either There's no way an amendment to abolish the supreme court could ever get through.
No one outside of candidates firing up their bases is going to take that idea seriously. Even the GOP in congress has no concerted movement toward anything like that. Nobody is seriously going to make an attempt to abolish one of the three branches of government.
It's frightening that people are dumb enough to say that stuff, for sure, but there's no reason to fear anything coming of it
BertramCooper
Banned
The let's-abolish-SCOTUS bluster is precisely that: bluster.
The Roberts Court has, overall, been more than generous to the GOP, and they know it.
The Roberts Court has, overall, been more than generous to the GOP, and they know it.
Yup, but it has the same problem as Ohio -- as its population dwindles, its electoral importance wanes.
And it's sort of counterbalanced by other states like North Carolina trending blue. Michigan will probably follow a similar trajectory of Arizona or Georgia.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Michigan will remain blue in 2016 and 2020. After that all bets are off.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
I'm wondering if NC will swing blue for the presidency now that they know they're stuck with McRory.
BertramCooper
Banned
Well, to be technical, our populations aren't dwindling - they're just not growing as fast as other regions. But yes, the point stands.
At least organized labor hasn't been completely marginalized here in Ohio yet. Right-to-work ain't happening here any time soon.
ErasureAcer
Banned
I supported Kucinich in 2004. I supported Kucinich in 2008....but he had dropped out before super Tuesday that go around. Fun fact: Kucinich got 17% of the vote in Minnesota in 2004. I did vote for Kerry in the general...that's like the only way I've backed Edwards in anything or if I did in some way...I've erased it from my memory. haha.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
It's a non-starter. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United has larger bipartisan support than a marriage amendment has single-party support and neither of those even get seriously proposed. An amendment to abolish SCOTUS is going to have even less support than either There's no way an amendment to abolish the supreme court could ever get through.
No one outside of candidates firing up their bases is going to take that idea seriously. Even the GOP in congress has no concerted movement toward anything like that. Nobody is seriously going to make an attempt to abolish one of the three branches of government.
It's frightening that people are dumb enough to say that stuff, for sure, but there's no reason to fear anything coming of it
Maybe so, but that doesn't address the "We'll just ignore the Supreme Court rulings" attitude. If you let these people in power, how do you enforce it, especially with a GOP House?
I've always thought the idea of a "blue wall" as a little silly. It's not as if Iowa, Virginia, Minnesota, etc all have D+7 PVIs.
These things shift. We're already seeing that. Montana, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina have seen a left ward tilt. Missouri, Michigan and Wisconsin have seen the opposite. These things will always be in flux.
That being said, Republicans remain at an electoral disadvantage because their base is made up by states who shouldn't be seeing double digit population growth. Yes, North Carolina's growth is astounding, but it's concentrated in the more liberal urban centers of the state versus rural growth. That's the same story in many other states except maybe Arizona, whose cities are more conservative than average.
That's part of the price Texas will pay for all of its new congressmen and women, eventually.
These things shift. We're already seeing that. Montana, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina have seen a left ward tilt. Missouri, Michigan and Wisconsin have seen the opposite. These things will always be in flux.
That being said, Republicans remain at an electoral disadvantage because their base is made up by states who shouldn't be seeing double digit population growth. Yes, North Carolina's growth is astounding, but it's concentrated in the more liberal urban centers of the state versus rural growth. That's the same story in many other states except maybe Arizona, whose cities are more conservative than average.
That's part of the price Texas will pay for all of its new congressmen and women, eventually.
I found it: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/28/1397368/-Bernie-Sanders-will-beat-Hillary-and-become-the-45th-President-of-the-United-States
Just delusional. If you want to really motivate the conservative base, its Sanders. Does Hillary have to beat your candidate 90-10 in order for you to see she is the preferred candidate of over 75% of the base and 90% overall of "could support". How many statistics do I have to throw at you?
Third Strike
Member
McCrory has been slightly ahead of Cooper in the polls, until recently. He's been trying to reposition himself as a moderate, but he has already burnt his bridges with the left in the state, and the right is becoming polarized by his recent opposition to extreme conservative legislative bills. Mecklenburg (Charlotte) and Wake (Raleigh) voted for him last time, but without their support this go round, he's done. As for the presidential election, I really don't know. I like to believe Hillary will do better than Obama in 2012, but I'm not sure if she'll outdo Obama in 2008. I do think that by the 2024 election, NC will be where Virginia's at, and hopefully Virginia will be as blue as Maryland at that point. Maybe Georgia will finally be at play, too.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
With the National Guard, the same way we've always done it, lol. Public opinion is already majority supportive of SSM and climbing. In another two cycles it will cease to be a wedge issue at all. Maybe in the very most conservative sections of the Bayou, but never with enough momentum to actually undue or ignore the SCOTUS ruling. I mean, when Brown v. Board came down governors were saying "I will resist this ruling forever" and we've seen nothing like that. Nothing that would even necessitate the National Guard, anyway. Even Jindal in Louisiana's best attempt is "we will resist this ruling for the maximum legally tenable amount of time and then we will be forced to comply because I don't want an M4 Carbine shoved up my ass."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked