Support NeoGAF

[GnawtyDog]

This gives the GOP far too much credit. They've spent the last four years dead certain Hillary would be the nominee (and I don't blame them; everyone has felt this way) and have rightly put their efforts towards torpedoing her campaign. Sanders doesn't have any dirt because nobody thought to dig up dirt on him. They are actually terrified of a Sanders nomination, because his message is extremely populist and they have no way to fight back on policy. Sanders would have them caught with their pants down.

In fact the *only* ammunition they have against Sanders is calling him an extremist socialist over and over (while he calmly explains that his ideas aren't very different from what we've done in the past...). The only voters that's going to convince is their right-wing constituency who would never vote for a Democrat anyway, even if Ronald Reagan himself rose from the grave. It's the undecided they have to convince, and his voting record has him on the right side of nearly every unpopular decision over the last 20 years.

Ummm... attack ads, the media establishment and TV debates that are shaped by personality and strong held convictions determine presidents. The socialist label reeks and it's being underestimated greatly. 15 minimum wage? socialist. Universal healthcare - socialist. "Shouldn't surprise anyone "Bernie is a self-proclaimed socialist"". His whole record will be characterized as that of a commie-socialist. "The communist win if you elect Bernie" - lmao...I can see that being an ad.

The attacks will not stop, they will be vicious and he will have to confront them on a debate stage, not a rally stage of liberal followers who don't put as much weight on that word, nor challenge it. Any moderate republican will be seen as a godsend even with the baggage...namely, Jeb.

You know what they'll do to Hillary: Benghazi 24/7, not fit to be president. Private server 24/7 - untrustworthy. The general populace is already aware of it more or less. Will it come as a shock on election day? More like tired vitriol.

Every politician has dirt. Just a matter of digging, twisting and lying the right way (aka negative attack ads). I don't know, I just don't think the country is ready given the current environment. I do think as the country leans more blue in the next 10 years or so candidates proclaimed socialist with socialist leaning policies will become more and more electable. Today, for president, not so sure. And Bernie is NOT Obama 2.0 - not as good of a speaker, not as young or energetic etc etc etc. He's an old white senator from Vermont with progressive/socialist leaning policies that appeal to the far left and also happens to NOT be Hillary (for the Dems that want their message carried by anyone not named Hillary).

 

[Zophar]

Ummm... attack ads, the media establishment and TV debates that are shaped by personality and strong held convictions determine presidents. The socialist label reeks and it's being underestimated greatly. 15 minimum wage? socialist. Universal healthcare - socialist. "Shouldn't surprise anyone "Bernie is a self-proclaimed socialist"". His whole record will be characterized as that of a commie-socialist. "The communist win if you elect Bernie" - lmao...I can see that being an ad.

The attacks will not stop, they will be vicious and he will have to confront them on a debate stage, not a rally stage of liberal followers who don't put as much weight on that word, nor challenge it. Any moderate republican will be seen as a godsend even with the baggage...namely, Jeb.

You know what they'll do to Hillary: Benghazi 24/7, not fit to be president. Private server 24/7 - untrustworthy. The general populace is already aware of it more or less. Will it come as a shock on election day? More like tired vitriol.

Every politician has dirt. Just a matter of digging, twisting and lying the right way (aka negative attack ads). I don't know, I just don't think the country is ready given the current environment. I do think as the country leans more blue in the next 10 years or so candidates with socialist leaning policies will become more and more electable. Today, for president, not so sure. And Bernie is NOT Obama 2.0 - not as good of a speaker, not as young or energetic etc etc etc. He's an old white senator from Vermont with progressive/socialist leaning policies that appeal to the far left and also happens to NOT be Hillary (for the Dems that want their message carried by anyone not named Hillary).

I think you're sorely overestimating how much this stuff sticks. Benghazi didn't hurt Obama a flick and so far the emails haven't hurt Clinton either. They've tried to paint Obama as a socialist dictator from day one and here we are, 7 years later, with him handing the Ds the next election.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I think you're sorely overestimating how much this stuff sticks. Benghazi didn't hurt Obama a flick and so far the emails haven't hurt Clinton either. They've tried to paint Obama as a socialist dictator from day one and here we are, 7 years later, with him handing the Ds the next election.

Isn't that a bit different though?

There was nothing there concerning Benghazi and nothing really there with the email. Bernie is a self identified socialist, that isn't going to fly with a great deal of Americans.

 

[RustyNails]

Poligaf is probably one of the few legitimate bastions of consistently high quality info on this site. It isn't what it once was but there was a time Poligaf was better then any news feed you could find and had some posters that were pretty incredible at their forecasting and grasp of election politics.

There are still few folks here that can pick apart a poll and give a correct analysis. Legit give news organizations a run for their money.

Things have never been the same after ev left though

 

[Skelter]

She isn't.

The election is over a year away and anything could happen.

She was heavily favored to win in 2008.

Yeah but she lost to Obama which is understandable. A black president is a big fucking deal. A female president next? That is also a big fucking deal. You can say whatever it is you want but there was no way Obama would've lost because he owned the black vote and other minority groups. I voted for him and I didn't even care about politics at the time. Obama being black is all that mattered to me then. I see the same happening with a lot of the women I work with and I'm all for universal health care.

I'm probably voting for Bernie but Hilary definitely is going to make him work for it. I can't imagine her not having the female vote locked.

 

[Zophar]

Isn't that a bit different though?

There was nothing there concerning Benghazi and nothing really there with the email. Bernie is a self identified socialist, that isn't going to fly with a great deal of Americans.

Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the voters spooked by someone calling themselves a socialist aren't likely to be voting for Democrats to begin with. I honestly think it's a non issue at a time of such stark partisanal politics.

 

[Konka]

Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the voters spooked by someone calling themselves a socialist aren't likely to be voting for Democrats to begin with. I honestly think it's a non issue at a time of such stark partisanal politics.

That's entirely untrue, there is still a large blue collar block of the democratic party that doesn't want anything to do with a self described socialist. The same kinds of people that delivered Ohio and Pennsylvania in big numbers to Hillary over Obama in the 2008 primary. It also happens to be the part of the party with zero representation on a place like NeoGAF.

 

[Amir0x]

Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the voters spooked by someone calling themselves a socialist aren't likely to be voting for Democrats to begin with. I honestly think it's a non issue at a time of such stark partisanal politics.

But it definitely does matter to independents, who are an important voting bloc. And it certainly matters in many states that would suddenly be considered battleground if Bernie Sanders was nominated. And it absolutely matters in all the polling. We can't choose to disregard the polling because it's inconvenient for our wide-eyed aspirants.

Bernie Sanders is simply not electable in current modern day America. Anyone with an even casual understanding of American politics knows this. Maybe in 20 years, maybe with a more charismatic guy leading the charge.

 

[shadowfall]

She has couple billion dollars for campaigning and usually money talks. Ideal scenario we would be seeing President Bernie Sanders.

 

[GnawtyDog]

I think you're sorely overestimating how much this stuff sticks. Benghazi didn't hurt Obama a flick and so far the emails haven't hurt Clinton either. They've tried to paint Obama as a socialist dictator from day one and here we are, 7 years later, with him handing the Ds the next election.

Perhaps. We'll see. I'll vote for party so - if Bernie turns out to be the nominee he'll have my vote. Definitely much better that any of the GOP candidates on the ballot - even the moderate ones - Kasich and Jeb. My state primary doesn't really matter much for the Dem nomination so. Still, I like Dems chances with Hillary much more.

 

[ApharmdX]

This sentiment has been bandied about a lot on this board - that it is a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Why? Why is she guaranteed to win?

Please explain to this layman why her winning is an inevitability.

There's a weak Republican field and she has the Clinton Machine behind her- she'll likely outspend any prospective Republican candidate. Hillary also has a lot of intangibles, she's centrist but ostensibly pro-middle class. Voter turnout will be high for traditionally-liberal voting blocs because here we have another historic election. The media loves her. I'll be shocked if she loses.

You have to remember that in 2008 she was only unseated by Obama. He's embattled now but the guy has a gigawatt charisma factor, it's easy to forget that. Obama is like an A-list Hollywood star more than a politician, when he's on his game. The GOP's most charismatic candidate is Donald Trump, but his negatives make it tough for him to succeed in the general election.

 

[PantherLotus]

She'd have to be caught giving ISIS the fucking launch codes, live, on film, by Bill Clinton himself to lose this thing.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the voters spooked by someone calling themselves a socialist aren't likely to be voting for Democrats to begin with. I honestly think it's a non issue at a time of such stark partisanal politics.

Not trying to dogpile ya, was in other threads.

Not everyone is X/Y, hell my parents who are batshit tea party now (it seems) voted for Obama. If Obama had identified as a socialist and not denied it when asked they would have ran far away. Socialism still scares off a very large sector of that middle America voter that both sides need. Bernie's socialism isn't some misnomer either, he has embraced it far to often to simply sweep it under the rug. Basically, what I'm saying is that it would bury him in a general.

 

[ApharmdX]

It also amazes me how the black community, and the gay community, let the Clinton family off the hook for so many things

We in the black community have always been taken for granted by the Clintons. Why? Well, our leadership, such as it is, is happy enough to milk their gifts and the Clintons are happy enough to pose for the occasional photo with a black person.

Still, considering that Obama has done almost nothing for us, I doubt Hillary will be any worse.

 

[Wads]

Nobody really believes that a Clinton (or another Bush) really is going to make any major changes in the country.

I heard this same garbage in 2000 about Gore vs Bush. I would say that we would be in a significantly better place had Gore won in 2000...

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

That's the only thing that bothers me about her. She never seems sincere.

That unnatural head nod she does in response to the audience or in between her points has always rubbed me the wrong way. Must work for her, though, because people love her.

 

[Amir0x]

I heard this same garbage in 2000 about Gore vs Bush. I would say that we would be in a significantly better place had Gore won in 2000...

Really despite the deadlocked Congress, Obama also made a bunch of very important changes to the country.

And this upcoming election will be important for Supreme Court justices alone if for nothing else. Think about this: there are at least three justices that could retire next 8 years. If a conservative gets to them, everything from abortion rights to LGBT rights could be on the table again.

 

[DOWN]

Haven't seen people say that OP. Have seen them say she'll get the dem nomination though,

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Why do you keep posting this map? New Hampshire and Virginia are far from sure things, and Iowa/Colorado have consistently been more blue than either one for a while.

270/268 is more or less a tossup. If even one of those states goes Red then Democrats lose. I don't understand how that map is supposed to inspire confidence? More reason to vote Hillary.

 

[Konka]

270/268 is more or less a tossup. If even one of those states goes Red then Democrats lose. I don't understand how that map is supposed to inspire confidence? More reason to vote Hillary.

Because the chance of Hillary losing Iowa, Florida, Ohio and Colorado isn't very good, especially Colorado and to a lesser extent Iowa. She is very likely to win all the states included in that map, it's meant to display how difficulty it actually is for the dems to lose the electoral college.

 

[Tabris]

Hillary is so bought out it's insane. She has so many corporate obligations at this point. Obama was bad because he couldn't get anything done due to lack of partisan politics (and was unwilling to rock the boat in the first half of his first term). Hillary will be bad because she won't get those things done without it benefiting corporations that bought her.

Sanders is the hero you guys need.

Every other modern country is adopting a hybrid-socialism. The era of hardcore extremes to the economic and political spectrum are dieing. From China adopting specific free market policies to western world adopting socialistic policies. A balanced approach is the key to survive in this global market.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

And this "grassroots movement" is going to do what, precisely, to get over the insane hurdles in Congress? Fix the currently obscenely gerrymandered system, by maybe participating in the Census this time? Burn Congress to the ground?

By what measure is this "grassroots" movement going to actually affect change? By what measure is Bernie "not taking it [from the people]" once he magically becomes president would actually change even the tiniest element of what is actually preventing that change from occurring?

I support many of Bernie's policies. But I actually understand how the political system functions, and I don't think he has remotely made the leap yet to actually figuring out how he would transport that grassroots movement into practical political change.

As you know, only around 50-60% of the country voted in the last ten presidential elections, only around 40% voted in the last ten midterm elections, and statewide participation in the last ten primary elections ranged from around 20-30%, but meanwhile, as of this month, only "14% of U.S. adults approve of the job Congress is doing". In short, people are mostly unhappy with the status quo but aren't motivated enough to do anything about it (that is, vote against the politicians that impede progress). This is one of the primary problems that Sanders would engage his network of supporters (which, if he wins the primary and general elections, will be powerful) to attack in order for his progressive policies to be realized during his presidency. Precisely how can Sanders utilize a "grassroots movement" to affect such change? Truthfully, I don't think that his campaign has figured that out yet. But I think that said movement has a much better chance at doing it than anything that Hillary Clinton alone can or would do, and I don't think that she's better equipped to handle the hurdles of Congress than Sanders is.

 

[Chariot]

Hillary is so bought out it's insane. She has so many corporate obligations at this point. Obama was bad because he couldn't get anything done due to lack of partisan politics (and was unwilling to rock the boat in the first half of his first term). Hillary will be bad because she won't get those things done without it benefiting corporations that bought her.

Sanders is the hero you guys need.

That's the thing that makes Sanders and Trump so attractive. It's difficult to impossible to buy them like other politicans. Sanders made clear even to his supporters that he need their votes, but has care for everyone due his ideals and Trump really just don't need more money.

 

[...Scatter...]

This gives the GOP far too much credit. They've spent the last four years dead certain Hillary would be the nominee (and I don't blame them; everyone has felt this way) and have rightly put their efforts towards torpedoing her campaign. Sanders doesn't have any dirt because nobody thought to dig up dirt on him. They are actually terrified of a Sanders nomination, because his message is extremely populist and they have no way to fight back on policy. Sanders would have them caught with their pants down.

In fact the *only* ammunition they have against Sanders is calling him an extremist socialist over and over (while he calmly explains that his ideas aren't very different from what we've done in the past...). The only voters that's going to convince is their right-wing constituency who would never vote for a Democrat anyway, even if Ronald Reagan himself rose from the grave. It's the undecided they have to convince, and his voting record has him on the right side of nearly every unpopular decision over the last 20 years.

He's too nice. They would swiftboat his ass like Kerry. He should run on the ticket with Hillary.

 

[Amir0x]

As you know, only around 50-60% of the country voted in the last ten presidential elections, only around 40% voted in the last ten midterm elections, and statewide participation in the last ten primary elections ranged from around 20-30%, but meanwhile, as of this month, only "14% of U.S. adults approve of the job Congress is doing". In short, people are mostly unhappy with the status quo but aren't motivated enough to do anything about it (that is, vote against the politicians that impede progress). This is one of the primary problems that Sanders would engage his network of supporters (which, if he wins the primary and general elections, will be powerful) to attack in order for his progressive policies to be realized during his presidency. Precisely how can Sanders utilize a "grassroots movement" to affect such change? Truthfully, I don't think that his campaign has figured that out yet. But I think that said movement has a much better chance at doing it than anything that Hillary Clinton alone can or would do, and I don't think that she's better equipped to handle the hurdles of Congress than Sanders is.

Yes, people are unhappy. Not only is Bernie uniquely not in a position to leverage that unhappiness due to America's blind, reflexive hatred of socialists (lower than Muslims and atheists, for christ's sake), but as you acknowledge he has no clue how to.

The Clinton Machine at the very least has some history in the "how", and Hillary Clinton has proven to be quite shrewd when required. She'd probably get things done by compromising far more often and taking the smaller victories she can get, but at least that means some things will actually get done.

I wish we lived in a world where a Bernie Sanders was possible and any of his policies had a shot, but we don't. At least not for the next 20 years. And when we are ready, we'll require someone far more charismatic than Bernie Sanders to feed the country its medicine. That's just the way politics works in America.

 

[Jonm1010]

Hillary is so bought out it's insane. She has so many corporate obligations at this point. Obama was bad because he couldn't get anything done due to lack of partisan politics (and was unwilling to rock the boat in the first half of his first term). Hillary will be bad because she won't get those things done without it benefiting corporations that bought her.

Sanders is the hero you guys need.

Every other modern country is adopting a hybrid-socialism. The era of hardcore extremes to the economic and political spectrum are dieing. From China adopting specific free market policies to western world adopting socialistic policies. A balanced approach is the key to survive in this global market.

Hillary is being funded by the same interests Obama was. Why is Hillary the only one incapable of independent governance in this comparison?

Fact is the only way America begins to move toward our European cousins is by continual successful Democratic governance. When Bernie inevitably concedes anyone who has an inkling of interest in longterm socialistic goals should be rallying behind Hillary. Because the alternative and those consequences will set back liberalism possibly for decades. America can not afford another generation of a conservative court and a gerrymandered house.

 

[Tabris]

Sanders needs a "Change" campaign. While Obama was a pretty weak president until his lame duck period (I still don't understand that term, as the lame duck period seems to be when a lot of presidents are most active), but his campaigning was amazing.

He also didn't have as many corporate obligations as he was able to galvanize non-agenda seeking donors (normal citizens, celebrities, etc). The "first black president" thing helped that considerably, so I'm not sure what angle Sanders could go at that. He also doesn't have the charisma you guys need.

 

[Tabris]

Hillary is being funded by the same interests Obama was. Why is Hillary the only one incapable of independent governance in this comparison?

She's not. Just look at the history of the Clinton health care plan of 1993 to see how she can be bought out.

An example: In 2005-2006, she was the 2nd largest recipient of health industry contributions, only beat out by Rick Santorum, to the tune of $854k. Only 30% of the contributions go to Democrats and Hillary has been the leading one for a while. You think she's going to further the work of Obamacare? Please, she's bought out much worse.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Hillary isn't guaranteed to win anything and she might want to consider actually trying if she actually wants the nomination. Both Sanders and Biden are more credible candidates right now than Hillary TBH.

 

[120v]

An example: In 2005-2006, she was the 2nd largest recipient of health industry contributions, only beat out by Rick Santorum, to the tune of $854k. Only 30% of the contributions go to Democrats and Hillary has been the leading one for a while. You think she's going to further the work of Obamacare? Please, she's bought out much worse.

because they thought she would be the next president. likely winners get the big bucks, doesn't matter who they are

the corporations something something corporations bought and sold corporations

 

[Jonm1010]

She's not. Just look at the history of the Clinton health care plan of 1993 to see how she can be bought out.

Yes she is. Just like Obama she is receiving large donations from investment firms and Wall Street money and the same corporations that play both sides of the aisle. The same health care interests and the same special interests.

Yes she continues the policy of 08 in accepting lobbyist and PAC money Obama didn't but when it comes to corporate donors they are sharing many of the same bedfellows.

And just like Obama she has shown in her voting record that she isn't some Manchurian candidate for their interests like some like to frame her.

As for healthcare Hillary, like Obama, bowed to certain special interests in order to try and gain favor with others. In fact one could argue Hillary was actually more bold then Obama because she and Bill mistakingly tried to take on not only the insurance companies but the pharm companies as well. A lesson Obama's team openly said they learned from and made sure not to challenge too many ingrained interests for fear of their attempt being destroyed. Hence why the ACC does nothing in terms of pharm reforms and is so favorable to private insurers.

If we are strictly comparing Obama vs Hillary on healthcare, Hillary and Bill were actually much more bold in terms of going against ingrained corporate interests.

 

[Tabris]

because they thought she would be the next president. likely winners get the big bucks, doesn't matter who they are

the corporations something something corporations bought and sold corporations

I understand the reason why they would, who wouldn't understand that reason? If I was them and I was in America's system, of course I would do it.

The difference is she accepts it and has a proven track record of changing stances based on her contributions. Like most politicians in America of course, thus why I am saying Sanders is the best option.

 

[Tabris]

The Lobbyist and PAC difference is the big thing there though. Health care industry works via lobbyists for their overall self interest.

Either way though, from an outsider perspective, Obama wasn't that great either. And with Hillary, you're getting something that's a bit worse off.

Sanders should be the only answer for you.

EDIT - By the way, Obama's main contributors for 2012 ( https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638 ) weren't big banks / wall street like Hillary ( http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...illion-in-campaign-contributions-so-far-video ). It was a lot more silicon valley then anything.

 

[GeorgioCostanzaX]

Trump getting the nomination could go either way; Americans have proven time and time again they'll vote for style over substance and Hillary has severe likability issues . The only way she's a shoe in is if Santorum or Cruz get the nod.


http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249156

 

[Dice]

Because she's the one who will continue our imperialism.

 

[Jonm1010]

The Lobbyist and PAC difference is the big thing there though. Health care industry works via lobbyists for their overall self interest.

Either way though, from an outsider perspective, Obama wasn't that great either. And with Hillary, you're getting something that's a bit worse off.

Sanders should be the only answer for you.

It's only big if it translates to a difference in governance. And again, based on Hillary care and her voting record which included campaign finance reform, it is not the bogeyman people are making it out to be.


Quit looking at things as either/or and black/white.

Hillary is a monumentally better choice then any republican. Is she perfect? No. But neither is sanders. While sanders sounds better on paper what would he actually accomplish? He would be Jimmy Carter to his own party and be a punching bag to the likely split or republican controlled congress. Stonewalling any and everything.

So that leaves Sanders as what? A lame duck with some scary trade ideas, not much infrastructure coming into office to fill out his cabinet and not a whole deal of experience with foreign policy.

In practice that doesn't sound like a recipe for a successful 4 years. I'd be 100% behind sanders if he wins the nomination but 1) it's not happening and 2) even if he wins he isn't getting any of his major platforms passed.

The key to this election is securing Supreme Court nominations, upholding Obama's executive policies and expanding on them and hopefully positioning to take advantage of re-districting in 2020 and maybe get a 2 year window to pass meaningful legislation. And frankly in that window I would have more trust in Hillary with her experience then I would in Sanders who has made a career being the fringe guy with the freedom to do his own thing who hasn't really ever been the guy gritting it out to get something passed and maneuvering the complexity of inner-congressional politics.

 

[Big Green Anus]

Blacks and Hispanics are going crazy for Hillary? I'm not seeing it.

I can't speak for Hispanics, but a lot of my Black friends prefer Biden over Hillary, which is surprising since I thought the Clintons were popular with some Blacks, particularly Bill Clinton.

 

[Tabris]

Quit looking at things as either/or and black/white.

You have to understand from an outsider perspective, everything in your grey area looks like black or white to me (whichever is supposed to be the negative end of your spectrum).

The only answer to healthcare is Universal healthcare, anything else isn't acceptable.

 

[Jobbs]

Always? Why do we keep using 2012 as the rule? Seems to me a frontrunner quickly emerges like Dole, Dubya or McCain and they rally around him.

McCain's rise to secure the 2008 nomination was actually the result of a miraculous comeback. He was completely down and out for a while earlier in the season.

 

[Basileus777]

You're being very generous with NJ and Penn. A republican candidate hasn't won those two states in a Presidential election since 1988. At this point in time, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Anyone that thinks NJ is going R in a Presidential election should look at its demographics and how they've changed since the 80s. NJ isn't going Republican in anything but a Republican wave event. We're talking about a state where non Hispanic white people went from well over 80% of the population to a slight majority in the last 30 years and is going to be majority non-white in the future.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

Yes, people are unhappy. Not only is Bernie uniquely not in a position to leverage that unhappiness due to America's blind, reflexive hatred of socialists (lower than Muslims and atheists, for christ's sake), but as you acknowledge he has no clue how to.

The Clinton Machine at the very least has some history in the "how", and Hillary Clinton has proven to be quite shrewd when required. She'd probably get things done by compromising far more often and taking the smaller victories she can get, but at least that means some things will actually get done.

I wish we lived in a world where a Bernie Sanders was possible and any of his policies had a shot, but we don't. At least not for the next 20 years. And when we are ready, we'll require someone far more charismatic than Bernie Sanders to feed the country its medicine. That's just the way politics works in America.

The people that hate "socialists" are going to hate Hillary Clinton for the same reason that they hate Obama: they're registered Republicans. I really think that's an overblown concern. 8 years of "Obama is a socialist!" has somewhat lessened the impact of the word, and the irrational people who still carry that banner simply are not voting for any Democratic candidate.

I think that Bernie Sanders is already leveraging the unhappiness/disillusionment of Americans to great success, as is Trump, but whereas Trump's motives are cloudy at best, Sanders' are clearly backed by a lifetime of unwavering convictions that have consistently put him on the right side of history. "The way politics works in America" isn't working for the majority of Americans, and now that there are actually viable alternative candidates they have the opportunity to do something about it. Sanders' biggest weakness isn't the word "socialism", it's that most Americans don't know who he is, but that's going to change on October 13th.

 

[FStop7]

Nothing is guaranteed but it would take nothing less than health issue or a criminal scandal to stop her. The GOP can't beat her head-to-head and neither can her rivals within the Dem. Party.

She'll have near universal support from moderate to liberal women and a lot of women who are registered as "Republican" but lean moderate will cross lines to vote for her.

 

[airmangataosenai]

As you know, only around 50-60% of the country voted in the last ten presidential elections, only around 40% voted in the last ten midterm elections, and statewide participation in the last ten primary elections ranged from around 20-30%, but meanwhile, as of this month, only "14% of U.S. adults approve of the job Congress is doing". In short, people are mostly unhappy with the status quo but aren't motivated enough to do anything about it (that is, vote against the politicians that impede progress). This is one of the primary problems that Sanders would engage his network of supporters (which, if he wins the primary and general elections, will be powerful) to attack in order for his progressive policies to be realized during his presidency. Precisely how can Sanders utilize a "grassroots movement" to affect such change? Truthfully, I don't think that his campaign has figured that out yet. But I think that said movement has a much better chance at doing it than anything that Hillary Clinton alone can or would do, and I don't think that she's better equipped to handle the hurdles of Congress than Sanders is.

Sanders wouldn't do shit. If somehow he won, he can't fix the main problem progressives face, which is that voter's are unable to become motivated into voting in mid-term elections and he will not change that. The average Democrat voter does not understand basic civics and believes the president has far greater power than he actually does. I have no question that the base would turn on him the way they did Obama the second he fails to deliver their perfect socialist paradise and/or sign a compromised budget in order to prevent the tea party from transforming America into a third world economy through constant shutdowns.

 

[Amir0x]

The people that hate "socialists" are going to hate Hillary Clinton for the same reason that they hate Obama: they're registered Republicans. I really think that's an overblown concern. 8 years of "Obama is a socialist!" has somewhat lessened the impact of the word, and the irrational people who still carry that banner simply are not voting for any Democratic candidate.

This is simply not true and the polls back up it's not true. Blue Dog Democrats also don't like "socialists", nor do a large number of Independents - both groups a Bernie Sanders would need to win.

This is just wishful thinkful backed up by not even accurate assessments of the electorate.

I think that Bernie Sanders is already leveraging the unhappiness/disillusionment of Americans to great success, as is Trump, but whereas Trump's motives are cloudy at best, Sanders' are clearly backed by a lifetime of unwavering convictions that have consistently put him on the right side of history. "The way politics works in America" isn't working for the majority of Americans, and now that there are actually viable alternative candidates they have the opportunity to do something about it. Sanders' biggest weakness isn't the word "socialism", it's that most Americans don't know who he is, but that's going to change on October 13th.

Again, this is just wide-eyed aspirations with nothing substantive backing it up. Your link demonstrating how "succesful" Bernie is in leveraging America's unhappiness is literally an article about how he is having house parties across the country. This shows what exactly? It's emptiness and more emptiness. Rhetoric without reality. In no modern America can Bernie Sanders accomplish absolutely any of his far-left ideals with our congress. There is literally nothing he can get through Congress in the next 4-8 years that will change the gerrymandering situation that keeps Congress the way it is. Nothing that will get corporations or money out of politics. Nothing at all. There is nothing that is ever going to get him over the fact that Americans, as a whole electorate, view socialists less favorably than Muslims and Atheists.

It's done, dude. You can dream. Dream big. But he has no chance. And that's as close to a hard fact as you're going to get in American politics. Waste your dreams on him if you like. I'll bide my time and wait for an actually viable socialist candidate in 20+ years or so.

 

[soleil]

because they thought she would be the next president. likely winners get the big bucks, doesn't matter who they are

the corporations something something corporations bought and sold corporations

And the question is WHY do they donate to the one they think will win? What do they gain? If the likely winner claims they will stand up against insurance companies and you're an insurance company, why donate to them?

 

[thepotatoman]

Bernie doesn't need congress to make a difference. For instance, one of the goals he has stated is to limit corporate buybacks. Buybacks were greatly increased by a Reagan executive order to exempt buybacks from certain insider trading regulations. Bernie could easily undo that with an executive order of his own, and that is something that's extremely unlikely for Hillary to do.

 

[soleil]

Bernie doesn't need congress to make a difference. For instance, one of the goals he has stated is to limit corporate buybacks. Buybacks were greatly increased by a Reagan executive order to exempt buybacks from certain insider trading regulations. Bernie could easily undo that with an executive order of his own, and that is something that's extremely unlikely for Hillary to do.

Not to mention he displayed better judgment than Hillary on going to war. Last I checked, you don't need approval from Congress to NOT go to war.

 

[Chariot]

The stronger Bernie gets he better. He doesn't even need to win to win. The whooping amount of approval he got after starting in the single digits just by campaigning without smoke and mirrors is enough to show everyone the direction the people want. It will show yhe one who will actually be president even if Bernie won't and it will give him a pretty heavy political punch in the future since by then people know him and know how much people were ready to bend their knees to him instead to Hillary.

And in the best case he takes the throne himself and can - even in the worst case - keep the USA from doing a lot of stupid stuff. And in the best case he is going to argue. I assume a lot of repuplicans have enough of the political childish shit and want things to get done already. I feel that he could get a lot of people to cooperate because he is following his own ideals instead of petty party agendas.

 

[wildfire]

Everyone who doesn't see Trump as a republican version of a populist is underplaying his appeal. He still shouldn't win but he ,from what little we know, has populist policies and that will have some appeal to a marginal minority of Democrats as well as a lot of the independents.

To answer the OP. There are no guaranties. I'm hoping for Bernie to win the nom.

 

[teruterubozu]

Everyone who doesn't see Trump as a republican version of a populist is underplaying his appeal. He still shouldn't win but he ,from what little we know, has populist policies and that will have some appeal to a marginal minority of Democrats as well as a lot of the independents.

To answer the OP. There are no guaranties. I'm hoping for Bernie to win the nom.

eh, he's just popul-ar, a celebrity, which is why he can say such outrageous things. A normal politician would have been shut down from within their ranks.