US Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders rallies |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sanders has zero percent chance at winning and anyone with an even casual knowledge of how America's political system works understands this, but I sure do wish he had a better chance. But my even crazier hope and dream is for one day there to be more than two goddamn viable parties.

werks said:
You forgot to log in to your new account to argue with yourself.

lol
 
Sanders has zero percent chance at winning and anyone with an even casual knowledge of how America's political system works understands this, but I sure do wish he had a better chance. But my even crazier hope and dream is for one day there to be more than two goddamn viable parties.
I would settle for more than one goddamn viable party
 
Sanders has zero percent chance at winning and anyone with an even casual knowledge of how America's political system works understands this, but I sure do wish he had a better chance. But my even crazier hope and dream is for one day there to be more than two goddamn viable parties.

I think, if anything, we'll see a weakening of parties as institutions. The rise of big-money politics has ensured that party fundraising is increasingly irrelevant, and the fringe popularity of heterodox candidates like Sanders or Huckabee harms the party's legitimacy a bit.
 
Sanders has zero percent chance at winning and anyone with an even casual knowledge of how America's political system works understands this, but I sure do wish he had a better chance. But my even crazier hope and dream is for one day there to be more than two goddamn viable parties.



lol


Presidential elections are different due to all the free press. Big money has less influence. And people actually vote.

Anything can happen. See obama.
 
Presidential elections are different due to all the free press. Big money has less influence. And people actually vote.

Anything can happen. See obama.

Anything cannot happen, and Obama - despite pontification from the press - was never an impossibility as he roared into the limelight with his DNC speech. At this point in the election cycle (July 2007), he was already polling extremely well in match ups against Republican candidates and was also helped along by the fact that any Democrat had huge odds of becoming president due to the Bush presidency. On top of that, Obama represented something very special in the world of politics, a chance at transcendent reaching across racial barriers.

Obama was essentially eviscerating Republican candidates compared to what Sanders is doing versus Republicans in electability polls. And Sanders positions from the left are oft considered infinitely more extreme than anything he was supporting.

I'm not an "expert", but I've closely followed politics since the day I could vote and it's quite easy to know when someone has a realistic chance and when someone has no chance.

Sanders has essentially a close to zero percent chance at being president. That's just the way it works within our current system. Sure, the rules technically say there's nothing that would stop him, but the electorate is not set up that way.

By all means, dream. Dream big! I hope that we live in the alternate universe where we can entertain this possibility.

It's just too bad we don't.
 
Anything cannot happen, and Obama - despite pontification from the press - was never an impossibility as he roared into the limelight with his DNC speech. At this point in the election cycle (July 2007), he was already polling extremely well in match ups against Republican candidates and was also helped along by the fact that any Democrat had huge odds of becoming president due to the Bush presidency. On top of that, Obama represented something very special in the world of politics, a chance at transcendent reaching across racial barriers.

Obama was also supported alot by the Anti-Hillary Democrats, led by Harry Reid, which does not exist now. I think Bernie is very happy being a rabbit in this race.
 
I don't even think about him winning. I'm more interested in getting people exited about the ideas he's talking about including single payer, free education, publicly financed elections, etc. Less likely to happen, but I also hope that socialist parties like Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Alternative (who refused to endorse him, but are "supporting" his run) become more popular as a result of him running as a socialist.
 
Anything cannot happen, and Obama - despite pontification from the press - was never an impossibility as he roared into the limelight with his DNC speech. At this point in the election cycle (July 2007), he was already polling extremely well in match ups against Republican candidates and was also helped along by the fact that any Democrat had huge odds of becoming president due to the Bush presidency. On top of that, Obama represented something very special in the world of politics, a chance at transcendent reaching across racial barriers.

Obama was essentially eviscerating Republican candidates compared to what Sanders is doing versus Republicans in electability polls. And Sanders positions from the left are oft considered infinitely more extreme than anything he was supporting.

I'm not an "expert", but I've closely followed politics since the day I could vote and it's quite easy to know when someone has a realistic chance and when someone has no chance.

Sanders has essentially a close to zero percent chance at being president. That's just the way it works within our current system. Sure, the rules technically say there's nothing that would stop him, but the electorate is not set up that way.

By all means, dream. Dream big! I hope that we live in the alternate universe where we can entertain this possibility.

It's just too bad we don't.

Not to mention Obama and Hillary were within single digits in a lot of polling nationally at this point in the cycle. And Obama was raisining as much and in some cases MORE money than Hillary qtr to qtr.

Absolutely none of this is true in 2016.

And not to mention the huge number of endorsements from senators and governors Hillary has compared to the virtually none Sanders has. Again, Obama was neck and neck in the endorsement race with Hillary in that primary.

Anyone who attempts to compare Bernie's situation to Obama's and claim they are even remotely similar is delusional. Plain and simple.

There is absolutely NO precedent for a candidate being this drastically far behind in the Democratic primaries in both fund raising and polling coming anywhere close to winning.

Support Bernie, love the guy, vote for him in the primary. I am a big fan of his. But claiming he will win or has a chance at winning just makes you look insane and foolish. Remember how we mocked Ron Paul supporters in 2008/2012? How they obsessively pointed to crowd sizes? And kept claiming he was going to somehow win despite the impossible odds? You guys look and act just like them.
 
Not to mention Obama and Hillary were within single digits in a lot of polling nationally at this point in the cycle. And Obama was raisining as much and in some cases MORE money than Hillary qtr to qtr.

Absolutely none of this is true in 2016.

And not to mention the huge number of endorsements from senators and governors Hillary has compared to the virtually none Sanders has. Again, Obama was neck and neck in the endorsement race with Hillay in that primary.

Anyone who attempts to compare Bernie's situation to Obama's and claim they are even remotely similar is delusional. Plain and simple.

There is absolutely NO precedent for a candidate being this drastically far behind in the Democratic primaries in both fund raising and polling coming anywhere close to winning.


Support Bernie, love the guy, vote for him in the primary. But claiming he will win or has a chance at winning just makes you look insane and foolish. Remember how we mocked Ron Paul supporters in 2008/2012? How they obsessively pointed to crowd sizes? And kept claiming he was going to somehow win despite the impossible odds? You guys look and act just like them.

I can't remember specifics, but I thought Obama really didn't start getting endorsements/equal fund raising until closer to winter of 2007/2008. I remember watching the debates in 2007, it seemed like they started in June that year and I really don't remember Obama getting tons of support.

Though, I think one thing Sanders doesn't have is a person like Edwards. Edwards really helped divide vote enough to where Obama could win in the end.

EDIT: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Edwards was somewhere in the mix close to Obama I think.
 
I can't remember specifics, but I thought Obama really didn't start getting endorsements/equal fund raising until closer to winter of 2007/2008. I remember watching the debates in 2007, it seemed like they started in June that year and I really don't remember Obama getting tons of support.

Though, I think one thing Sanders doesn't have is a person like Edwards. Edwards really helped divide vote enough to where Obama could win in the end.

April 2007. Hillary raised 26 mil. Obama raised 25 mill. Effectively tied:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/obama.fundraising/index.html?iref=newssearch


July 2007 (where we are now in 2016):
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/campaign.money.schneider/index.html?iref=nextin
Obama beat hillary with 32.5 million. Hillary had 27 million.


Obama was neck and neck and sometimes ahead with Hillary in fund raising at this point in the cycle.
 
April 2007. Hillary raised 26 mil. Obama raised 25 mill. Effectively tied:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/obama.fundraising/index.html?iref=newssearch


July 2007 (where we are now in 2016):
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/campaign.money.schneider/index.html?iref=nextin
Obama beat hillary with 32.5 million. Hillary had 27 million.


Obama was neck and neck and sometimes ahead with Hillary in fund raising at this point in the cycle.

Thanks, I kind of remember it now. Its been a while.
 
Polling indicates women and minority Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly support Hillary. Bernie has young white men and that is pretty much it.

What the fuck seriously.

One good candidate for minorities, poors, and for social justice in america and those poors and minorities'd rather vote for a pro-rich and pro-bankers candidate?

I... i can't.
 
Nah saw his fuck shit interview about slavery. So I am good with hillary, she might be late but she isn't on some bullshit.
Dude ask him would he apologize for slavery, he goes into politico "See what had happen was"

https://soundcloud.com/joemadisonth...ernie-sanders-responds-to-apology-for-slavery

Ok, so what exactly is wrong with this picture? I don't understand.

"slavery was bad, we should feel bad"

yeah, what an asshole -_-
 
What the fuck seriously.

One good candidate for minorities, poors, and for social justice in america and those poors and minorities'd rather vote for a pro-rich and pro-bankers candidate?

I... i can't.

Assuming voters will vote based on what candidates represent their best interest has never been the case nor will ever be the case any time soon. Voters in general are not well informed nor follow politics much at all.

Which is why pointing to Bernies stands on issues and the like is a fools errand. The average voters don't focus on that stuff. It's a popularity contest.
 
Sanders has zero percent chance at winning and anyone with an even casual knowledge of how America's political system works understands this, but I sure do wish he had a better chance. But my even crazier hope and dream is for one day there to be more than two goddamn viable parties.



lol

Just learned about this guy. Apparently we agree on most major issues

So yeah no chance
 
What the fuck seriously.

One good candidate for minorities, poors, and for social justice in america and those poors and minorities'd rather vote for a pro-rich and pro-bankers candidate?

I... i can't.

Bill Clinton garnered huge popularity and good will among minorities during his presidency, which translates to increased support for Hillary now. It's a difficult advantage for Sanders to overcome, despite his better record on the issues.
 
Didn't say he was racist just, he took a whole minute to go around the town for a simple yes or no question. That spoke volumes to me.

There are no simple yes or no questions. Only easily provoked people waiting to pounce unless you articulate your claims in such a way that no one bats an eyelash
 
Bill Clinton garnered huge popularity and good will among minorities during his presidency, which translates to increased support for Hillary now. It's a difficult advantage for Sanders to overcome, despite his better record on the issues.

Also, Sanders's state thus far is overwhelmingly white, and with the snafus like at Netroots this past week, I don't know how well versed he is to speak on issues of race while Hillary has been speaking about women's issues and issues of race publicly for a long time during her career as first lady and a politician. It's sort of while that issue at Netroots is an interesting microcosm to the Sanders campaign and the tricky issues that Sanders has going forward dealing with race. Talking with economic rhetoric is not enough.

In fact, I don't think any Democratic candidate at the moment are truly engaging with African-American constituents and the justifiable anger that exists over issues of police brutality and criminal justice reform. Hillary's probably given the most policy-specific speech on criminal justice reform, which goes back to her history at engaging with people of color. Obviously, this has not always been the case, but she's spoken extensively about it on the campaign trail and comes across as extremely earnest and compassionate about the issue. That, coupled with her husband's history with minorities and people of color, it shouldn't be that much of a surprise she's polling better with these constituents than Bernie.
 
Also, Sanders's state thus far is overwhelmingly white, and with the snafus like at Netroots this past week, I don't know how well versed he is to speak on issues of race while Hillary has been speaking about women's issues and issues of race publicly for a long time during her career as first lady and a politician. It's sort of while that issue at Netroots is an interesting microcosm to the Sanders campaign and the tricky issues that Sanders has going forward dealing with race. Talking with economic rhetoric is not enough.

In fact, I don't think any Democratic candidate at the moment are truly engaging with African-American constituents and the justifiable anger that exists over issues of police brutality and criminal justice reform. Hillary's probably given the most policy-specific speech on criminal justice reform, which goes back to her history at engaging with people of color. Obviously, this has not always been the case, but she's spoken extensively about it on the campaign trail and comes across as extremely earnest and compassionate about the issue. That, coupled with her husband's history with minorities and people of color, it shouldn't be that much of a surprise she's polling better with these constituents than Bernie.

Hillary Clinton got criticized for doing what O'Malley did -- saying "all lives matter" just a month ago. But she had the benefit of not being confronted by protesters at the time.
 
Anything cannot happen, and Obama - despite pontification from the press - was never an impossibility as he roared into the limelight with his DNC speech. At this point in the election cycle (July 2007), he was already polling extremely well in match ups against Republican candidates and was also helped along by the fact that any Democrat had huge odds of becoming president due to the Bush presidency. On top of that, Obama represented something very special in the world of politics, a chance at transcendent reaching across racial barriers.

Obama was essentially eviscerating Republican candidates compared to what Sanders is doing versus Republicans in electability polls. And Sanders positions from the left are oft considered infinitely more extreme than anything he was supporting.

I'm not an "expert", but I've closely followed politics since the day I could vote and it's quite easy to know when someone has a realistic chance and when someone has no chance.

Sanders has essentially a close to zero percent chance at being president. That's just the way it works within our current system. Sure, the rules technically say there's nothing that would stop him, but the electorate is not set up that way.

By all means, dream. Dream big! I hope that we live in the alternate universe where we can entertain this possibility.

It's just too bad we don't.

Your posts are always so pessimistic labeled as realist. No wonder people think Hilary will win the nomination... because people have already given up on the thought of a Sander presidency. Of course you cover your pessimism with "gosh darn it, golly jee it would be great if Bernie were President but he wont."

The fights not over and until it is, why would you want to think differently? So what.... you can be right in your predictions?
 
I am a conservative Republican, and even I enjoy hearing Bernie Sanders speak, and I even agree with a number of things that he says.

I hate how there is a hardline and to many people you can't share any of the views of an opposing party.
 
It will never happen, but a Trump vs Sanders presidential race would be one of the most entertaining things to come out of politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom