No, he's far left regardless - he's very much not in line with the mainstream left on economics.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bernie can win in 2016
- Thread starter Dark_AnNiaLatOr
- Start date
- Status
On the contrary, i think if Bernie loses now, we are truly fucked.
Hillary will have been vindicated in her mind and in the eyes of her supporters, and the GOP for that matter that people don't want socialists who advocate for things like tuition free schools or free healthcare as President, and we will have been right back where we started:
With the left devoid of any energy or enthusiasm for another 8 years, allowing the GOP to do to Hillary what they have been doing to Obama, while Hillary herself has no issue with this as she can run behind and push things like "The Gold Standard in trade agreements" even further along.
We don't have 8 years to fix this country, i don't think we do. I really don't think that we do.
He said, by himself. He has always said that he needs a groundswell of populist sentiment and enthusiasm on from his supporters to get things done, implying the need to stay engaged in the off season during midterms and such.
I don't think that has anything to do with putting someone who actually has an honest sentiment about fixing this country in charge, regardless of what one wants to say he can accomplish with the adversity faced.
I'd take that then someone who really won't try to accomplish anything just to say they were pragmatic about giving tons of goodies to special interests.
Even if Hillary were an actual progressive which she isn't, she would be in the same boat. So what are we arguing against Bernie and for her for? What is she going to do besides just give away more favors for special interest groups under the guise of being 'pragmatic'?
Elizabeth Warren agrees with everything on the assumption that its said in good faith. Unfortunately, she's had to criticize Hillary more than a few times herself as well.
As for the rhetoric Hillary is saying in your link there, i'm sure with all the money she's taking from them, she'll tell them to 'stop that', or 'cut it out' like she apparently did during the crash like she said during the debate right?
She can say whatever she wants when she's running for office but the problem is, its just another speech to a voting bloc for her. She tried this already with universal healthcare against Obama years ago. It means nothing if she doesn't really care about it.
He's saying that Bernie is not "far left" everywhere that isn't America. We're just crazy is all, and have moved to the right to the point where what was once the left is now apparently outside of the political spectrum.
bunch of fucking horse shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
the ACA originated from this draft.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
We all know it'll be President Trump or Cruz or Rubio. So get used to it.
God I hope not.
Horse shit? She went from "since when do Democrats attack each other on universal health care? Shame on you, Barack Obama" in 2008 to snidely attacking Bernie Sanders on universal health care today (quoting bullshit wsj articles, muddying the waters by saying he wants just wants to repeal the ACA, Medicare and whatnot like he's Ted Cruz or something).
On second thought... "Horse shit" is an apt description of her 'stance' on health care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXvRe49qces
She even quoted the debunked WSJ article which a lot of GOP were actually touting as well. Its a shame.
She does not want universal healthcare to begin with, she just want the private insurers to stay in power, and she will do whatever it takes to make sure she deludes people into thinking that is what they want as well.
That's all fine and dandy, but when we're talking about how she's since flip flopped to being on the wrong side on every issue multiple times including this one, bringing that up is somewhat meaningless now.
MetalGearZed
Member
I thinks it's finally time for all those people saying "I won't vote Sanders cuz he won't win" to start voting. Or is their a new excuse now?
that is pure rhetoric.
QFT
I'm not a fan of Hillary, but she is leagues better than the offerings of the Republican party. If she gets the nomination and someone who leans left (or moderate even) abstains from voting because of it... smh. That's a vote for the party you are least in support of. Accept the two party system and play the game. Don't try to get on some high horse and refuse to vote for Hillary out of principle.
Can you explain how that makes it valid to abstain from voting if it were Hillary vs Trump in the general election?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I have my concerns over Sanders. I would support whoever the Dem is with full support but there are some red signs with a candidate like Sanders that would make this a very worrying election.
1. His age
2. His adherence to no outside money means he's either going to be outspent by insane margins by a typical GOP candidate or by a self funding billionaire.
3. No negative campaigning is a noble effort but the 6 month onslaught he would receive will be unlike anything he has ever faced before.
4. He often acts like a single issue candidate. The fact is that terrorism and foreign policy is the hot issue right now and he just doesn't like talking about. Only 1 out of 3 GE debates is going to be about the economy. How will he able to deal with that?
5. His perceived weakness compared to people like Trump and other GOP candidates. However you feel about Clinton or Biden, they are not seen as pushovers.
6. Campaigning on raising taxes and increasing government debt is something a Democrat would usually consider a death sentence. At least not openly advocating for it.
7. Socialism label
8. He often talks about not voting for the Iraq War. That works against Clinton but I don't think any of the GOP candidates other than Bush can be hurt by that since they have no vote on the matter. Against Trump even more so.
Basically, if the big issue of 2016 is ISIS and terrorism. It's EXTREMELY difficult to imagine polls showing Sanders being more trusted to handle the issue than a tough guy character like Trump or a generic hawk GOP candidate. Now I'm sure his supporters will respond to all of these concerns but they're still very valid and swing voters in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, etc rely on it.
1. His age
2. His adherence to no outside money means he's either going to be outspent by insane margins by a typical GOP candidate or by a self funding billionaire.
3. No negative campaigning is a noble effort but the 6 month onslaught he would receive will be unlike anything he has ever faced before.
4. He often acts like a single issue candidate. The fact is that terrorism and foreign policy is the hot issue right now and he just doesn't like talking about. Only 1 out of 3 GE debates is going to be about the economy. How will he able to deal with that?
5. His perceived weakness compared to people like Trump and other GOP candidates. However you feel about Clinton or Biden, they are not seen as pushovers.
6. Campaigning on raising taxes and increasing government debt is something a Democrat would usually consider a death sentence. At least not openly advocating for it.
7. Socialism label
8. He often talks about not voting for the Iraq War. That works against Clinton but I don't think any of the GOP candidates other than Bush can be hurt by that since they have no vote on the matter. Against Trump even more so.
Basically, if the big issue of 2016 is ISIS and terrorism. It's EXTREMELY difficult to imagine polls showing Sanders being more trusted to handle the issue than a tough guy character like Trump or a generic hawk GOP candidate. Now I'm sure his supporters will respond to all of these concerns but they're still very valid and swing voters in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, etc rely on it.
Maybe this was posted already, but 538 updated their forecasts this afternoon.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/
These are very good concerns
The Abominable Snowman
Member
I really like Sanders, I do, and I want him to be a part of Hillary's administration. I would love to see him on Hillary's campaign and Hill-dawg to push many of his greater ideas.
The Lamonster
Member
Great post and basically my thoughts as well.
theignoramus
Member
I dont give a fuck about what pundits and self declared Gaf experts say about Sanders chances to win after months of these same people telling me Trumps polling numbers would dissipate come the primaries.
Anti establishment fervor is throwing a wrench in everything this election cycle.
Anti establishment fervor is throwing a wrench in everything this election cycle.
Hillary is more of a risk in that regard
Hillary has no appeal outside of establishment Democrats. Independents and young voters won't bother with her. She's got a tough road ahead of her in the GE, depending on who the Republicans put forward.
ElectricThunder
Member
At the current rate, Sanders absolutely has more actionable resources to work with to at least get through the Primaries than his 2008 equivalents of Kucinich and, especially, Gravel. I don't want to presume about Inuhanyou, but there's been no other chance at the national stage since 2008 falling through to advance the sorts of ideals where Sanders is on a similar page to the above 2---if that bombs out twice in succession, definitively, you can't be at all surprised if folks genuinely in those camps reckon especially bad times indeed ahead as it isn't such a simple matter as popping back round next election fit as a fiddle which is the general benefit that establishment candidates enjoy. There's perhaps an endless font of modern Moderate Democrats content with the Status Quo + a few nudges that will automagically somehow win out versus the scorching and salting of the earth over on the other side that have led to Things Happening Immediately like Bush and Reagan.
I'm maybe the only person around here that ever seems to draw the lines time and again to connect the dots on this somehow---but seriously, it makes all the sense in the world to view Sanders and his bid through the prism of what went down in 2008 and since with Kucinich and Gravel....that's the only way to probably fully understand where those folks are coming from and the historical/cultural context.
That said, whether those resources are actually able to prevail over the very considerable and varied resources of Clinton is highly dicey outside of some crazy happenings down the line.
Sanders making it through would be perhaps a historical equivalent to, I don't know, something like Henry Wallace making it prior/instead of his various missteps.
I'm maybe the only person around here that ever seems to draw the lines time and again to connect the dots on this somehow---but seriously, it makes all the sense in the world to view Sanders and his bid through the prism of what went down in 2008 and since with Kucinich and Gravel....that's the only way to probably fully understand where those folks are coming from and the historical/cultural context.
That said, whether those resources are actually able to prevail over the very considerable and varied resources of Clinton is highly dicey outside of some crazy happenings down the line.
Sanders making it through would be perhaps a historical equivalent to, I don't know, something like Henry Wallace making it prior/instead of his various missteps.
EatinOlives
Member
You bring up good points.
The two biggest issues for me with Sanders is his observable discomfort in talking about foreign policy (his answers are very hands-off and doesn't really offer convincing proposals on this), and his wishy-washiness over gun control. I'd still choose him over Hillary but he's not a perfect candidate.
Clinton is 68, they are all old as hell
You mean like how he is keeping up with Clinton despite only raising individual contributions that can be refilled? He has enough money to run political ads smartly and targeted without blowing his own bank
He doesn't slander, he tells the truth. There's a difference between attacking someone's policies and attacking them personally. He's attacked Hillary many times in recent months over her faults, but not in regards to her personally, there is a difference.[/QUOTE]
Foreign policy is not Bernie's strong suit, but that's only because he is usually opposed to unilateral intervention and not in favor of attacking all sides at the same time like its a valid strategy. Just because one isn't a hawk willing to sign a patriot act like bill doesn't mean they are 'soft' on "foreign policy" aka, war.
He has supported many international agreements in regards to trade, and global UN outreach initiatives, and if your talking about war, he would be the one to go with caution and with the full agreement of the UN and support of the allies in the region.
And Bernie Sanders is not a push over either. Incase you want to make the case that he is a push over because two women ran at him and stole his microphone at an event, that would be the wrong thing to do in regards to his strength on talking about the issues.
Taxes getting raised is the opposite of increasing government debt, what is this argument?
And the main beneficiaries of this few dollars increase from wealthy people, and the middle class is a boost in everyone's standard of living, especially when campaigning on raising minimum wages so that wages also go up at the same time.
And yet we have arguments here about "taxes bad, don't talk about spending!"
Most people do want their taxes to go up, if they don't have to pay for even more expensive shit they are right now like horrible healthcare with abysmal cost to care ratio.
And yet we're supposed to consider the GOP strategy some kind of sane platform going forward? The deficit goes up and nobody pays for anything?
In general, people are going to have to take long and hard choices about how they want to continue forward with their quality of life, and Bernie Sanders is the one who would have to deliver those hard lessons regardless.
Which most millennials don't even care about, and most other people don't care about when the term is actually explained in context. Obama never got hurt from socialism except by the base who already hated his guts and needed a new term.
And that matters a lot more against Trump, where you have an idiot like him going around saying he's gonna kill ISIS by throwing Muslims out of America. Do you really think there is any contest when put under a direct contrast?
You say foreign policy is the big issue of 2016, but that's a mere distraction from what's going on in this country right now. There's more to the Presidency than military arming up and obsessing over war every second.
We have problems we need to address just as much as ISIS needs defeating
Are you really trying to take the 'moral highground' in defense of a corporate puppet against worse corporate puppets? What kind of message does that literally send to anyone to say "suck it up cause otherwise the other guys are gonna win!" There is no plan behind that, no strategy besides backing establishment and forcing others to 'fall in line'. That only means that when it comes time for it to happen again, the same shit happens again and again and again until nobody cares anymore.
I was on the side your taking 4 years ago too, so i know what the mindset is. But we have a finite amount of time with the shit piling up we have to deal with, and electing someone just because they wear a suit and have name recognition and belong to a particular party is completely ridiculous.
It all still leads to corruption, and until we deal with that specific issue of money in politics, this is going to go around in a circle of status quo.
Hillary doesn't want Bernie to be apart of her campaign. She's not a progressive. I wish people would stop acting like they are two sides of the same coin. Just cause your affiliated with the same party doesn't mean you stand for the same things, most importantly the role of money in establishment politics or fundamentally fixing the system, or even setting things in place to lead to that.
This has already been debunked. Bernie is more competitive than she in the general! What is with this "clinton is more electable" BS narrative. The enthusiasm for Clinton is way lower than Bernie's is.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Doesn't really matter if you can answer each and every point like this. What matters is convincing those who actually decide elections these things and I just find that very hard to believe. If we had just had 8 years of a bad GOP Presidency maybe.
I truly believe some of you are out of touch with the overall American electorate in terms of how they feel about liberals. 80+ percent think Clinton is liberal. Obama's approval rating has been middling for a long time now primarily by people who respond that he is too liberal, not that he's not liberal enough. This is not a center-left country. People despise taxes and they despise the government, how can you have a candidate that advocates for more of both?
Polls show support for ground troops against ISIS too so the country is turning more and more hawkish.
I truly believe some of you are out of touch with the overall American electorate in terms of how they feel about liberals. 80+ percent think Clinton is liberal. Obama's approval rating has been middling for a long time now primarily by people who respond that he is too liberal, not that he's not liberal enough. This is not a center-left country. People despise taxes and they despise the government, how can you have a candidate that advocates for more of both?
Polls show support for ground troops against ISIS too so the country is turning more and more hawkish.
Why the hell does Hillary get so much damn credit for foreign policy? What was remarkable about her tenure as SoS? Trump has already attacked her on that. Congrats on the experience, but where's the success?
SolicitorPirate
Member
For all the rightful criticism GAF throws at Republicans and their stupid RINO fantasy, a lot of Sanders supporters are displaying very similar behaviour.
wild wild rice
Member
This is the biggie for me. If we had more presidents like Bernie in the past, we may not be in the volatile situation we are in now w/r/t terrorism. And we need to change eventually if we're to continue as a country, but now is now and unless Bernie can respond to these issues confidently he'll lose a lot of votes.
Yeah, granted - which is why Democrat tax proposals only touch above $250k or whatever. If I remember correctly, an overwhelming majority is in favor of raising taxes on very high incomes. A lot more palatable when you are not affected.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/...rs-win-the-2016-US-presidential-election#data
Anyone gonna put money on it?
Anyone gonna put money on it?
Wow, that seems a little high.
It's like the reverse of FreeRepublic, honestly. Minus the b-word.
Rubio and Jeb are "too moderate" for that crowd, but they don't want to admit in their delusional fever that they'd likely get 80-90% of what they want from either candidate should he win. The difference between Rubio and Cruz is startlingly small.
Very similar dynamic here - although, to be clear, it's a very vocal minority. A Hillary term and a Bernie term would largely overlap in aim and policy - especially given the structural limitations of the ofifce - but if we went by the remarkable rhetoric/rationalization on display here, you'd never guess it.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I was going to say that. I reckon Sanders' chances of winning the Dem nom are at best about 25%, never mind the presidency. At 18 I might take a flutter, but 26? There are some confident people on the betting market.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I'm starting to think predictit has too many people who skew liberal/dem and that throws off the numbers a bit. Sanders being higher than any GOP candidate seems kind of ridiculous and then you got the generic Dem vs GOP market being more favorable to Dems.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Eh. I think that's much too low for the Dems. I'll take a punt and say Clinton 58, Sanders 18, Trump 9, Cruz 7, Rubio 7, the rest other.
So much can happen in a year that the odds necessarily need to hover around 50/50.
BearFlexington
Member
Hahaha was that a Clemson joke?
Jelly Rajah
Banned
I would say the chances of Bernie getting the nomination over Hilary are closer to 3-5%.
It's a political aphorism.
If he does, the oligarchy lose and democracy is real. Since people agree with him on most/all major issues according to polling.
If Sanders gets the nomination, he wins a general election. The reason corporate America has to shit on Bernie's kind of socialism so hard, is because it's really very popular with the public. The public agree with him in polls on pretty much every issue. Trump won't do well in a GE.
If Sanders gets the nomination, he wins a general election. The reason corporate America has to shit on Bernie's kind of socialism so hard, is because it's really very popular with the public. The public agree with him in polls on pretty much every issue. Trump won't do well in a GE.
JesseEwiak
Member
Wait until $500 million dollars of SuperPAC spending from the Koch Brothers starts talking about "trillions of dollars in government handouts" while showing pictures of African American men with gold teeth and Hispanic dudes hanging outside of Home Depot. Or talking about Bernie spending his honeymoon in Soviet Union while showing victims of the USSR gulag.
AngryNapkin
Banned
Define "the public"
Aaronology
Member
cj_iwakura
Member
The main problem I have with the 'Clinton is the more pragmatic choice' argument is that it only seems to be true in the short term. Even if she is more likely to prevent a Republican presidency, there are going to be more elections. Every election going forward is going to be important and the Democrats can't keep winning forever. That's why you can't treat this election as too important to lose. Eventually the Republicans will win the presidency and all of the compromise done to keep them out will have been wasted.
Socialism isn't going to just become more politically palatable on its own. Voters need to assert themselves and prove they are willing to support candidates they believe in. Otherwise, you're never going to make progress. Even if you lose, it's better to be as loud as possible. If you want socialism to be taken seriously, then you have to take it seriously yourself.
Socialism isn't going to just become more politically palatable on its own. Voters need to assert themselves and prove they are willing to support candidates they believe in. Otherwise, you're never going to make progress. Even if you lose, it's better to be as loud as possible. If you want socialism to be taken seriously, then you have to take it seriously yourself.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
My concern is the opposite. That Sanders won't have the money, experience, or perceived strength to go up against Trump for 6 months.
Unless shitloads of superPACs come out of the woodwork and run the ads themselves...
- Status