Support NeoGAF

[Inuhanyou]

What's encouraging for Sanders is that he's been able to garner donations, allowing him to spread his message to the public and to stay in the nomination race for quite a while. I'd say that the bellwether from him is whether he's able to get prominent endorsements as well.

Well he's gotten tons of celeb endorsements as well as endorsements from the Nurses Union as well. Issue being that a lot of the more concentrated 'groups' ally with the democrats and Clinton just cause she's Clinton.

Many of these groups allied with her long before Bernie entered the race. Its unfortunate.

 

[Wall]

If nothing else, I hope that Sander's campaign does two things: popularize the issues he is running on and demonstrate that a campaign financed and run through grass roots donations and grass roots efforts can be viable.

 

[Inuhanyou]

If nothing else, I hope that Sander's campaign does two things: popularize the issues he is running on and demonstrate that a campaign financed and run through grass roots donations and grass roots efforts can be viable.

If Bernie looses, the exact opposite will happen. He said himself that the race is really about whether or not someone who is not allied with corporate interests can win.

And he's also stated that if nothing else, he wants to stay in as long as possible, cause if he looses too early, it will poison those ideals for future candidates.

All its really shown is Hillary's new idea is to tack to popular issues of more honest candidates because she's just suddenly thought they were good ideas and then take the credit. That's sickening to me.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Facebook likes and random SurveyMonkey poll from websites owned by the Christian conservative Salem Media Group. Okay.

There's a new PPP poll out from IA. #clintonsurgingrunbackupthestairslana

There have been several posts on GAF suggesting that his rallies are mainly attracting the older generation, which from the videos I've seen, is not the case at all.

I haven't seen posts suggesting this. Most posts, and media reports*, on demographics suggest that his audience and/or voterbase, thus far, is largely white, more liberal, relatively affluent, younger males. This is reflected in most polling.

I mean there are probably also older more liberal hippies drawn to his firebrand septuagenarian swagger too.

*e.g. Charles Blow's Op-Ed in the NYT:

Sanders spoke Saturday to a half-empty gymnasium at Benedict College in South Carolina. The school is historically black, but the crowd appeared to be largely white.

Sanders' main issue right now is appealing to non-white voters. It's likely the reason his support has basically hit a wall around the 25-30% region i.e. the proportion of the party base that are white and more liberal.

EDIT:

Those aren't the endorsements that are important. He needs support from Representatives, Senators, and Governors. Without this kind of support Sanders has no chance of overtaking Clinton. In comparison, Obama managed to get a ton of establishment endorsements in 2008.

Endorsements from organised labour likely help, like the Nurses Union. If the AFL-CIO endorsed him, that would probably be a major boon, although unlikely to actually happen.

Realistically, he's not going to get endorsements from sitting Democrats in Congress or Governor's mansions when he's not even a registered Democrat. <1% O'Malley has some, and not-even-running Diamond Joe.

 

[4Tran]

There is difference between raising his chances and saying he has a 5% chance.

So what would you say is a reasonable number? 10%? 20? 30?

Well he's gotten tons of celeb endorsements as well as endorsements from the Nurses Union as well. Issue being that a lot of the more concentrated 'groups' ally with the democrats and Clinton just cause she's Clinton.

Many of these groups allied with her long before Bernie entered the race. Its unfortunate.

Those aren't the endorsements that are important. He needs support from Representatives, Senators, and Governors. Without this kind of support Sanders has no chance of overtaking Clinton. In comparison, Obama managed to get a ton of establishment endorsements in 2008.

 

[noshten]

So what would you say is a reasonable number? 10%? 20? 30?

I don't know but I'd certainly say I give him more than a 5% chance - the presidential primary race is a fickle process. There are certain factors you cannot predict ahead of time with a numerical figure. Considering the trends and historical precedents I would never give such an advantage to Hillary - 95% before debates or voting is actually underway is pretty high.

 

[Wall]

If Bernie looses, the exact opposite will happen. He said himself that the race is really about whether or not someone who is not allied with corporate interests can win.

And he's also stated that if nothing else, he wants to stay in as long as possible, cause if he looses too early, it will poison those ideals for future candidates.

All its really shown is Hillary's new idea is to tack to popular issues of more honest candidates because she's just suddenly thought they were good ideas and then take the credit. That's sickening to me.

Look, there are four months to go before the primaries start. That is an eternity in political time. This far out, few people outside of primary states are paying much attention, especially on the Democratic side. What Sanders has accomplished over the summer is remarkable considering he started out with little name recognition, little funding, and a set of policy proposal outside of the political mainstream in this country. Moving to a strong lead in one early primary state, becoming competitive in another, and capturing 20-30 percent support nationally is no small accomplishment. Those accomplishments are especially striking considering the he started as little more than a curiosity that the national media didn't really take seriously and largely ignored.

That being said, Sanders supporters have to face the reality that the Clinton machine is very formidable. Dating back to the moment she conceded the primary in 2008, the rest of party basically lined up behind Clinton as the "next in line". The Clinton name is well-regarded, especially among older (boomer aged) Democrats, and there are many who want the opportunity to vote for the first woman president. The party machinery is strong, especially in primaries. Compared to that, Sanders, as an independent before this Presidential run, faces an a steep, perhaps impossible task.

Still, regardless of what happens, what I hope people take away from his campaign is that, in the face of the long odds, Sanders managed to at least give himself a "puncher's chance". That isn't a good chance, but it is more than almost anyone expected. He gave himself that chance by, one, building a platform of (mostly) good policy ideas that, if you look at them issue by issue, are popular; two, using the internet and social media to mobilize supporters across the country; and three, raising money from many individual doners rather than a comparatively few wealthy ones. Perhaps now isn't the right time and Sanders isn't the right candidate for that strategy to work, but 5-10 years from now: who knows?

I'm not saying give up. Between now and the primaries there will be a million polls for people to drive themselves insane over if that is their inclination. I think everyone in the primary should work and vote for the candidate they believe best represents them. I just think that, in the case of Sanders and what he represents, focusing too much on whether Sanders wins or not risks losing what his campaign has already accomplished and what it can teach future campaigns. A way to guard against that is to be realistic regarding what the Sanders campaign is up against.

 

[Oddish1]

I imagine that even if Hillary gets the nomination that the party would still be happy with how well Sanders is doing since it implies they might be able to start moving more left on certain policies.

 

[Inuhanyou]

This is to you as well as the guy above you

I imagine that even if Hillary gets the nomination that the party would still be happy with how well Sanders is doing since it implies they might be able to start moving more left on certain policies.

The "party" doesnt want to move left. That's the issue. They have willingly followed the GOP off the train tracks and amassed their own impenetrable wall of special interests against major reform, many of these interest being the same that support the GOP members.

They are not in good faith making an effort in looking out for the people, that's why Sanders campaign is so important, to force change where nobody gives a crap otherwise.

If Bernie wasn't in the race, would Hillary really be talking about student loans, prescription drug prices?(as weak as her current solutions to these problems are) Of course not! She'd be perfectly willing to wait for her coronation like she was before Bernie entered the race, and let the GOP fight it out. O Malley is to the right of her on most issues and he's the only contender of hers besides Bernie.

We're lucky she's even talking about certain small things with all the other things she has declined to specify on. Even though these have been things he's talked about for decades, it seems like the career politicians are content to be that.

 

[Wall]

This is to you as well as the guy above you



The "party" doesnt want to move left. That's the issue. They have willingly followed the GOP off the train tracks and amassed their own impenetrable wall of special interests against major reform, many of these interest being the same that support the GOP members.

They are not in good faith making an effort in looking out for the people, that's why Sanders campaign is so important, to force change where nobody gives a crap otherwise.

If Bernie wasn't in the race, would Hillary really be talking about student loans, prescription drug prices?(as weak as her current solutions to these problems are) Of course not! She'd be perfectly willing to wait for her coronation like she was before Bernie entered the race, and let the GOP fight it out. O Malley is to the right of her on most issues and he's the only contender of hers besides Bernie.

We're lucky she's even talking about certain small things with all the other things she has declined to specify on. Even though these have been things he's talked about for decades, it seems like the career politicians are content to be that.

I think there are a couple issues the party could be more aggressive on within their current funding model. I don't think there is any reason beyond the ingrained habit of responding to the perceived need to appear moderate and pragmatic why Clinton's college "affordability" plan needs to be so vague and anemic. I don't think the University of Phoenix has that much pull. Issues like infrastructure spending and climate change I believe are similar.

Its just that I think the Democratic party is dominated by insiders and leaders who came of age during a political and media environment that was characterized by the ascendancy of right wing (in an American context) ideas, the dominance of television as a form of political communication, and, above all, the decline of civic and community organizations, which led to the weakening of grass roots political activism and political organizing in general at the community level. I think those factors rewarded a style of campaigning that favored basically selling candidates and political parties like consumer goods, which naturally led to Democratic strategists and politicians seeking to craft middle of the road campaigns based on the same logic behind the design and marketing of a mass market sedan.

That being said, I agree with you regarding other issues like single payer health care or confronting corruption in the financial services industry. Plus, I think there is an increasing disconnect between elites of both parties and voters. For example, I think there are some insiders within the Democratic party, such as the current party chair, who aren't interested in expanding the Democratic base because doing so might threaten their power within the party. Those issues need to be addressed as well. The only way to do that is through something like the Sanders campaign.

I just hope that, even if Sanders doesn't win and really even if he does - after all, laws are made in the house and senate - people take the lessons learned from his campaign regarding the potential for organizing and fundraising combined with a strong message and build on them. The only way change ever was effected in this country in the face of entrenched social or economic interests was through grass roots organization, but those efforts didn't succeed overnight.

Edit: (in response to dramatis) Democrats lost mid-term elections in states, like Arkansas, where measures like minimum wage increases passed by referendum. Few people voted in the mid-terms, and the Democrats failed to craft a coherent platform, or really any platform. If you go issue by issue, the electorate has moved left of the current political establishment. As for Hillary's response to potential or actual left-wing primary challengers, she just came out against the Keystone pipeline after earlier refusing to take a position. She also just released a stronger statement on marijuana legalization. Her entire economic platform early in her campaign was in response to the potential threat of a run by Elizabeth Warren or someone like her. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with Hillary doing that. In fact, I want her to.

 

[dramatis]

This is to you as well as the guy above you

The "party" doesnt want to move left. That's the issue. They have willingly followed the GOP off the train tracks and amassed their own impenetrable wall of special interests against major reform, many of these interest being the same that support the GOP members.

They are not in good faith making an effort in looking out for the people, that's why Sanders campaign is so important, to force change where nobody gives a crap otherwise.

If Bernie wasn't in the race, would Hillary really be talking about student loans, prescription drug prices?(as weak as her current solutions to these problems are) Of course not! She'd be perfectly willing to wait for her coronation like she was before Bernie entered the race, and let the GOP fight it out. O Malley is to the right of her on most issues and he's the only contender of hers besides Bernie.

That's incorrect.

The members of the party may want to move left. But what do they respond to? Voters. And what did voters do in 2014? They voted the Republicans in. So if the electorate wants the country to move right, who are you to accuse the Democratic party of not wanting to move left? If they think they can only win by positioning themselves where a majority of voters of diverse interests—including voters who lean conservative—then that is what the party will respond to.

The amount of planning done by the Hillary campaign is quite thorough. Her first campaign speech was about criminal justice reform—a topic Bernie didn't touch until he was forced to by BLM. That speech was given in April (May?), and reportedly in planning since previous November. If her campaign is thinking that far ahead, why be so eager to give Bernie credit for pulling the conversation to the left? I don't recall an instance of any policy proposal issued by the Hillary campaign that was a response to Bernie.

Also, since you previously adamantly stated your most important issue is campaign finance reform, shouldn't you drop your Bernie Sanders support and support Lawrence Lessig instead? In the end, you want to pick a winner too.

Republicans also use the line "looking out for the American people" rather often.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

All I see is a man who would be opposed at every step by both Republicans and some of the more centrist (relatively) democrats.

And he definitely would not be re-elected if he survives his term.

I say this as someone who rather enjoys him.

Yep.

Even if by some miracle Bernie actually won the Presidency, there's no chance in hell he's getting half the policy he's suggested past Congress.

You thought gridlock is bad now? Let Bernie Sanders be the President and see what happens.

One of two things must happen there:

A) He moves to the center and people become frustrated that he's not enacting campaign promises (like they were with Obama's first term) even though he's being fought tooth and nail by an increasingly conservative legislative branch.

B) He digs in on his positions and nothing happens. Ever.

The position of the President of the United States in 2015 has to be one of compromise, unfortunately. And I'm not sure (and this is a respectable trait btw) that Bernie is willing to do that.

It's why I've always said that people like him and Warren are much better fighting the good fight for the guys in Blue in the Senate than they are sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[Kaydan]

Yep.

Even if by some miracle Bernie actually won the Presidency, there's no chance in hell he's getting half the policy he's suggested past Congress.

You thought gridlock is bad now? Let Bernie Sanders be the President and see what happens.

One of two things must happen there:

A) He moves to the center and people become frustrated that he's not enacting campaign promises (like they were with Obama's first term) even though he's being fought tooth and nail by an increasingly conservative legislative branch.

B) He digs in on his positions and nothing happens. Ever.

The position of the President of the United States in 2015 has to be one of compromise, unfortunately. And I'm not sure (and this is a respectable trait btw) that Bernie is willing to do that.

It's why I've always said that people like him and Warren are much better fighting the good fight for the guys in Blue in the Senate than they are sitting in the Oval Office.

What if the congress has a democratic majority?

 

[reckless]

What if the congress has a democratic majority?

Even if it somehow did (it won't) many Democrats would fight his policies too.

 

[danm999]

What if the congress has a democratic majority?

The prospects of a Democratic controlled House in 2016 look very poor at the moment.

 

[benjipwns]

What if the congress has a democratic majority?

Like 2009-10?

 

[Wall]

The parties are too polarized right now for anything to get passed with a Democratic president and Republicans in control of either of the houses of congress. It doesn't matter who that Democrat is or what they propose. The problem is that the Republicans don't perceive that they have anything to gain from working with a Democratic president to pass any item on his or her agenda.

The only way out of the stalemate is for the political balance to be upset somehow.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The idea that the only reason Clinton has formulated any policies and is talking about them is the presence of Sanders and her campaign would otherwise simply sit idly is all sorts of ridiculous.

 

[benjipwns]

The idea that the only reason Clinton has formulated any policies and is talking about them is the presence of Sanders and her campaign would otherwise simply sit idly is all sorts of ridiculous.

I imagine if Sanders was still polling at 5% she'd be holding back a bit more. She's still playing it pretty safe but I imagine it'd be slightly more in the background, let the GOP simmer in their noise, fewer interviews, so on. Let the campaign infrastructure build up out of sight.

I was figuring if she was still at 60% and nobody was cracking 5%, they wouldn't even hold the debates, or she wouldn't show up.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

What if the congress has a democratic majority?

Unless the political landscape changes dramatically, I don't see a way towards the Democrats winning the house in 2016 or the 2018 midterm elections.

And even then, Obama had a Democratic Congress in 2010 and it took every ounce of political capital he had to get even a pared down health care reform passed.

You remember death panels? Tebow only knows what kinds of devious schemes Congressional lawmakers and the conservative think tanks behind them will come up with when Big Bad Bernie Hood comes to take all their money and give it to poor people.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Even if it somehow did (it won't) many Democrats would fight his policies too.

And its not for a manner of them being bad policies either, but just because a lot of these party line people follow the same interests that fight fundamental fixes to the problems we have as the other party.

Like Barney frank who personally killed that Health Care Public option himself and then sold it as 'well..yknow we can't have that, we want to pass a bill after all'

The idea that the only reason Clinton has formulated any policies and is talking about them is the presence of Sanders and her campaign would otherwise simply sit idly is all sorts of ridiculous.

She has to fight atleast in some respect now. Before she didn't have to fight. She would have been the only major democratic option in the race and that's a fact. She would not have to do nearly as much as say "i'm not a GOP crazy over there". She already has major name recognition and all sorts of benefits by default.

I don't think the majority of the voting public in this country would elect a GOP member. No matter how out of politics to not understand the intricacies of policy as a country we are. That's her benefit.

 

[Wall]

I imagine if Sanders was still polling at 5% she'd be holding back a bit more. She's still playing it pretty safe but I imagine it'd be slightly more in the background, let the GOP simmer in their noise, fewer interviews, so on. Let the campaign infrastructure build up out of sight.

I was figuring if she was still at 60% and nobody was cracking 5%, they wouldn't even hold the debates, or she wouldn't show up.

I think her campaign was initially more worried about potential Elizabeth Warren run than anything else. She came out of the gate sounding pretty left wing compared to her previous campaigns. Of course, you could also view that as addressing a part of the Democratic coalition, but in the end it amounts to the same thing. I think the decision to come out against Keystone XL was motivated in part by the Sanders campaign.

I don't think Hillary would outright refrain from taking any positions in an uncontested primary, but I agree she would play her cards even closer to her vest than she is now. I think the establishments of both parties view their primaries as gauntlets to be navigated in this political era.

 

[reckless]

And its not for a manner of them being bad policies either, but just because a lot of these party line people follow the same interests that fight fundamental fixes to the problems we have as the other party.

Like Barney frank who personally killed that Health Care Public option himself and then sold it as 'well..yknow we can't have that, we want to pass a bill after all'

It's not even that, a lot of democrats would lose their seats if they voted for half the things Sanders is proposing. America as a whole is way too conservative right now for someone like Sanders to get things passed.

You had Democrats in congress pretty much campaigning against Obama and his policies because they were too liberal during 2012 and 2014 elections and Obama is a hell of a lot more conservative than Sanders.

 

[Wall]

It's not even that, a lot of democrats would lose their seats if they voted for half the things Sanders is proposing. America as a whole is way too conservative right now for someone like Sanders to get things passed.

You had Democrats in congress pretty much campaigning against Obama and his policies because they were too liberal during 2012 and 2014 elections and Obama is a hell of a lot more conservative than Sanders.

And like I said above, those Democrats mostly lost, even as the states they were running in passed left-wing measures like minimum wage increases through ballet initiatives. If you go by people's opinions issue by issue, the country as a whole is well to the left of the current political debate.

Of course, that doesn't guarantee anything if people aren't motivated or organized enough to vote.

 

[Stumpokapow]

New poll disagrees:

omg lol this is amazing whether serious or trolling. a poll from hot air. that's amazing.

 

[ezrarh]

It's not even that, a lot of democrats would lose their seats if they voted for half the things Sanders is proposing. America as a whole is way too conservative right now for someone like Sanders to get things passed.

You had Democrats in congress pretty much campaigning against Obama and his policies because they were too liberal during 2012 and 2014 elections and Obama is a hell of a lot more conservative than Sanders.

Democrats lost their seats because democrats didn't come out to vote not because the country is too conservative for Obama and his policies. Can't say with certainty how the country would react to Sanders but Democrats have an issue with turnout in midterms and I don't think being more conservative than Obama is the right path.

 

[ElTopo]

Honestly, if it gets down to Trump and Hilary then I'm voting Trump. Lesser evil with that.

But I'm hoping that Bernie pulls through.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Democrats lost their seats because democrats didn't come out to vote not because the country is too conservative for Obama and his policies. Can't say with certainty how the country would react to Sanders but Democrats have an issue with turnout in midterms and I don't think being more conservative than Obama is the right path.

Yes although some of the states would have probably been the same result even in a Presidential Year . Time caught up to most of the Democrats who lost in the South and Plains. SD. WV, LA, AR, MT, AK.

 

[ezrarh]

Yes although some of the states would have probably been the same result even in a Presidential Year . Time caught up to most of the Democrats who lost in the South and Plains. SD. WV, LA, AR, MT, AK.

Yeah, Democrats are done in those states for some time. I was thinking of here in Colorado and battleground state - Mark Udall ran a terrible campaign and lost even though the Democratic governor managed to squeak out a win.

 

[EnthronedReaper]

You can argue that Bernie doesent have a chance in hell in winning the nominee, but i think the fact a thread meant to be about keystone and Clinton became about Bernie v Clinton, atleast proves he can't simply be dismissed as a valuable candidate

EDIT: Apologies, I was reading this thread and the keystone thread at the same time. Lol my mind must have fused the 2 together
My argument still stands though, I believe He has a shot.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Yeah, Democrats are done in those states for some time. I was thinking of here in Colorado and battleground state - Mark Udall ran a terrible campaign and lost even though the Democratic governor managed to squeak out a win.

well, they aren't necessarily done in Alaska (demographics are actually becoming more favorable there, and Begich might win if he runs again in 2020), but pretty accurate on the rest

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

You can argue that Bernie doesent have a chance in hell in winning the nominee, but i think the fact a thread meant to be about keystone and Clinton became about Bernie v Clinton, atleast proves he can't simply be dismissed as a valuable candidate

EDIT: Apologies, I was reading this thread and the keystone thread at the same time. Lol my mind must have fused the 2 together
My argument still stands though, I believe He has a shot.

So, you just made up an argument by mistake but you'll still ride with it.

 

[nelsonroyale]

I don't think Hillary's lead over Sanders is growing. It is that the politica picture is beginning to solidify. Obama had his surge from being excellent at handling the media/public and being the first president from a minority. Hillary would be the first woman president, but aside from that, I suppose she is for people who want the 'status quo' or minimum progress on issues such as equity and climate change...

 

[benjipwns]

JOEMENTIUM

Which one of the following Democrats would be your first choice for president? (Read list and rotate.)
33 Hillary Clinton
25 Joe Biden
24 Bernie Sanders
2 Jim Webb
1 Martin O’Malley
- Lincoln Chafee

 

[Amir0x]

I do genuinely empathize with Bernie Sanders supporters. They're idealistic, and genuinely want things to change. I do too. And Bernie's policies of any of those running are the most likely to cure what ails much of America.

Unfortunately in the modern climate, not a single one of Bernie's initiatives would ever get through congress, and I'm not going to risk prolonging the Democratic Primary process over a nonsense hope. In 20 years, the country will be ready for a true socialist.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

I do genuinely empathize with Bernie Sanders supporters. They're idealistic, and genuinely want things to change. I do too. And Bernie's policies of any of those running are the most likely to cure what ails much of America.

Unfortunately in the modern climate, not a single one of Bernie's initiatives would ever get through congress, and I'm not going to risk prolonging the Democratic Primary process over a nonsense hope. In 20 years, the country will be ready for a true socialist.

That's exactly how I feel too. Republicans are not gonna suddenly get nice just because a non-Obama president is in the White House. Nothing's gonna get made when you have an actual socialist in the White House. It doesn't matter Bernie's actual socialism is not the demonized version that Reps have been hating on for a while.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Honestly, if it gets down to Trump and Hilary then I'm voting Trump. Lesser evil with that.

But I'm hoping that Bernie pulls through.

And people wonder why I have a hard time taking Bernie supports seriously.

"I support this guy, but if he can't make it I'm going to vote for the guy who has zero policy in common with the guy I support. It makes perfect sense!"

Hell, why not, Sander/Trump 2016! You've made it obvious you don't care at all about Sander's actually policies.

 

[And_Gignac]

And people wonder why I have a hard time taking Bernie supports seriously.

"I support this guy, but if he can't make it I'm going to vote for the guy who has zero policy in common with the guy I support. It makes perfect sense!"

Hell, why not, Sander/Trump 2016!

Oh yeah sure, generalize all of Sanders supporters because of ONE PERSON. Most polls shows Clinton is Sanders supporters second option.

JOEMENTIUM

It seems the Clinton surge has been DENIED.

I do genuinely empathize with Bernie Sanders supporters. They're idealistic, and genuinely want things to change. I do too. And Bernie's policies of any of those running are the most likely to cure what ails much of America.

Unfortunately in the modern climate, not a single one of Bernie's initiatives would ever get through congress, and I'm not going to risk prolonging the Democratic Primary process over a nonsense hope. In 20 years, the country will be ready for a true socialist.

Sterile moderation is just as bad.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Oh yeah sure, generalize all of Sanders supporters because of ONE PERSON. Most polls shows Clinton is Sanders supporters second option.



It seems the Clinton surge has been DENIED.



Sterile moderation is just as bad.

I'm not generalizing all of them, but he isn't the only person on this forum who has displayed the same sentiment. It's mind boggling.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm not generalizing all of them, but he isn't the only person on this forum who has displayed the same sentiment. It's mind boggling.

Yes. A better wording could have been "some Sanders supporters".

 

[Veritigo_X]

I'm not generalizing all of them, but he isn't the only person on this forum who has displayed the same sentiment. It's mind boggling.

I think a lot of people are joking when they say it. Huelen seems genuine though.

 

[Amir0x]

Sterile moderation is just as bad.

I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't arguing that the alternatives are better - quite the contrary, Bernie would be my first choice of the current candidates in an ideal world. But it's not an ideal world.

I'm acknowledging this by stating two facts:

1. That in the comically tiny percent chance Bernie Sanders were to become president, not a single one of his socialist ideals will ever pass the house. Ever. So effectively we get a president who can do nothing of what he wants. On top of that, because of that gridlock, anything bad that happens will be blamed on Bernie's ineffectual leadership, perhaps setting back the cause of socialism in this country decades. Because we need to be sure when we pick our first real socialist, he can be so in a climate where his/her policies have a shot at becoming law.

2. That if I were to wholeheartedly support Bernie, all that would do is prolong the Democratic Primary process, when we need to do everything to win the White House for one very essential purpose: Supreme Court. I am not willing to play with my idealism when such a thing is on the line.

 

[noshten]

Politicians and specifically Democratic politicians have left the system rot, people in this very thread are talking about the fact that there is no consensus, no bipartisan effort and that a lot of progressive policies cannot make it through the process we have in place.
The reason for that is very simple Democrats allowed the huge amount of private interest money into the electoral system. And it's not presidential campaigns that are the most effective by the influx of Super PAC money - it's local elections where fear mongering, negative ads and media buyouts assure their interests are elected into office. This is why campaign finance needs to change and why there needs to be grassroots organization that's on going by any president if he wants to be able to lobby his platforms into law. Without applying pressure to the system there will be no change made in the long run.

 

[Valhelm]

Hah, what a hilariously biased cartoon. I like how Trump has a Tiny following while Bernie has a huge one even though more of the country supports Trump than Bernie.

The Trump and Bernie share of the vote are pretty similar, actually. The problem is equating Hillary's massive lead with Jeb's dismal performance.

 

[boiled goose]

Politicians and specifically Democratic politicians have left the system rot, people in this very thread are talking about the fact that there is no consensus, no bipartisan effort and that a lot of progressive policies cannot make it through the process we have in place.
The reason for that is very simple Democrats allowed the huge amount of private interest money into the electoral system. And it's not presidential campaigns that are the most effective by the influx of Super PAC money - it's local elections where fear mongering, negative ads and media buyouts assure their interests are elected into office. This is why campaign finance needs to change and why there needs to be grassroots organization that's on going by any president if he wants to be able to lobby his platforms into law. Without applying pressure to the system there will be no change made in the long run.

Yup

 

[Polip Fawn]

Probably because the flash polls after the debate were done via phone calls, which you can scale, and this was literally posted in SurveyMonkey for random people to notice, decide to take, and take.

But, I mean, I don't even know where to start with this. If you genuinely think that this poll is meaningful to the same degree as the CNN poll, then good on you, keep being you.

I didn't say anything about anything being meanifull, I said that it's not a flash poll and the results for both Republicans and Democrats, aren't far off from other recent polls. The CNN poll was literally all flash.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

I just hope that if Sanders does lose he doesn't go after the Green Party nom like Nader did. Look what happened then.

 

[watershed]

I just hope that if Sanders does lose he doesn't go after the Green Party nom like Nader did. Look what happened then.

Sanders has already said very clearly that he will support the dem nominee no matter who that person is. He has also ruled out a 3rd party run.

 

[Prototype]

I haven't voted for anything since I turned 18 4 years ago but after how I strongly I want to feel the bern, I will be voting this upcoming election. There is hope somewhere.

This is exactly it.

We need people who don't gently turn up, to turn up and vote this election.

Now more then ever. A lot of important things are going to take place the next few years (like supreme Court nominations) so getting out the vote is huge this time. We need someone with foresight and a balanced outlook, like Berine Sanders to make those appointments.

You can make a difference just by voting this time around* and* talking with your friends and family or others you know if who don't vote. Word will spread.

 

[reckless]

This is exactly it.

We need people who don't gently turn up, to turn up and vote this election.

Now more then ever. A lot of important things are going to take place the next few years (like supreme Court nominations) so getting out the vote is huge this time. We need someone with foresight and a balanced outlook, like Berine Sanders to make those appointments.

You can make a difference just by voting this time around* and* talking with your friends and family or others you know if who don't vote. Word will spread.

It's more about just needing a Democrat for those appointments, and Hilary has a lot better chance than Sanders in winning the general.

Risking so much for Sanders makes no sense, he won't get any of his policies through congress.