-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bernie Sanders, 31 years ago, talking about today's issues in 2017
- Thread starter Mengy
- Start date
- Status
TheTylerRob
Member
-attained internet meme status
Doctor Ironic
Member
You heard it here first folks, senators pass laws all on their own and don't need help from anyone else to do it.
makingmusic476
Member
30+ years of being ignored by people like you.
TheTylerRob
Member
When did he become relevant? I never heard of him until this election....
I would've preferred that as that would've been the obvious solution. Maybe then if people still decided not to show up we could actually move on and get something done.
Franken yes, bernie no.
PdotMichael
Banned
By people who are just "realistic".
why would she ever have picked Sanders? as much as she claims they agree on so much, they fundamentally disagree on the place of big money and the revolving door in the democratic party. Therefore she never would have picked sanders to be her right hand man and he never would have accepted.
Instead she picked a typical establishment guy who's about as stale as dishwater and generally speaking was only there as a fundraiser for monied interests, that's all he did during his time as a politician generally, raise tons of money from wealthy contributors.
I am baffled as to what sanders having 3 houses even really means to you, or why people use that as a 'gotcha'. he has one when he's in washington, one in his home state and one he was left.
but of course, because he has 3 houses and barely cracked 1 million dollars in personal wealth because of his book sales and congressional salary, he has no right to talk about class warfare because some people decreed it
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
True, even though he was the on the right side of the issues he wasn't able to stop the radical and destructive agenda of Bill Clinton.
Hillary was already arguably too old, and picking somebody body older seemed nuts at the time. They also didn't expect so many bitter Sanders fans to stay home or vote Green party and spite their causes for a generation.
Kaine helped deliver Virginia, which is a vital swing state.
Hillary lost on the electoral college, and Sanders generally didn't do all that well in battleground states. Pick him, maybe possibly get a boost large enough to take WI/MI (but it is arguable whether VP picks are generally that large of an effect, in general), while still losing PA, and possibly Virginia? That's still a loss.
You seem bitter yourself when the turnout was low even among Obama voters, and far more people in 08 in Hillary's camp threw a tantrum than anyone in Sanders camp this time statistically. The only people who blame voters and not the politicians themselves for what happens are the ones who generally have a backwards view of the role of government
Phoenix RISING
Banned
You know how the klan pines for the South to Rise Again?
These kinds of topics remind me of that sentiment.
As Cage says, "Always Forward, Never Backward."
These kinds of topics remind me of that sentiment.
As Cage says, "Always Forward, Never Backward."
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
Bernie should run with Obama as VP. If Bernie can't live to 2028 we get back Prez Obama.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
I'm sure there is some law against this. Besides, the Obamas want to live their own lives now.
we should have nina turner and sanders ticket personally
QuantumZebra
Member
This.
I disagree. We're a Democracy. The voters decide. We're talking elections, and you're conflating with actual operation of government.
Okay, you must be trolling, and I just didn't pick up on it until now.
excelsiorlef
Member
No.
Sanders is acceptable but come on Turner has zero meaningful experience, among other issues
Isn't that on you and your own political awareness/ignorance? I knew who Sanders was many years ago after I started paying attention politically, probably in the later years of high school.
He would be too old... heck, I consider he was too old when he ran for the 2016 election.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
I feel like 2020 is probably the Democratic party's best chance to run someone like Bernie. Gonna be a lot of "anyone but Trump" votes. Doesn't necessarily need to be Bernie, but I'd hope to see a more socialist leaning candidate.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Lol. Tons of presidents and front running presidential candidates have previously lost primaries.
Not on the Dem side. When we run prior losers, we lose.
That's bad statistics, IMO. The primary systems don't go far enough back for good statistics. n=2 for that conclusion isn't a very meaningful discussion.
Lost in a previous primary and was later candidate:
- Gore (L)
- Clinton (L)
Never in previous primary:
- Bill Clinton (W)
- Obama (W)
- Kerry (L)
- Dukakis (L)
- Mondale (L)
- Carter (W)
Sitting Presidents:
- Bill Clinton (W)
- Obama (W)
- Carter (L)
So you're technically right, if N=2 is enough to decide who Democrats should and shouldn't run. Ironically, both were lost on the Electoral College, which makes the arguments especially hard to parse. "Candidates that lost a previous Democratic primary will win the popular vote but lose the electoral college" is a really weird argument to make.
Yea...there is no convincing Bernie supporters that, although he did far better than anyone expected, he got obliterated by people simply voting for the other candidate.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
I guess this is close to around when Ross Perot tried to run, but was the original Trump in his approach
legacyzero
Banned
This... Is AMAZING. Bravo.
Goof'd. Didn't you read?
The receipts are in the loss, IMO. Hillary and the DNC were pretty condescending to the Bernie base, even after she won the primary, and Bernie submitted without challenge. He even swallowed his pride and campaigned for her. Yet, even now, Hillary cant stop pointing the finger at him for highlighting the Queen's flaws.
Furthermore- picking a dumbass like TIM KAINE of all people, a TPP supporting centrist whom nobody knows or gives a fuck about, was just plain stupid. She could have easily picked Bernie as VP, Bernie would have has to put out a few fires for it, but I think it would have worked out. Hell, she could have at the VERY least, picked Warren. But a Centrist picked a Centrist.
Being the most popular politician in America, even to conservatives.
Single Payer has had the most traction that it's had in a long time.
Dude is doing town halls in Republicans states, while those states' ACTUAL representatives hide from their constituents.
Bernie is the one who got away.
As a Sanders supporter, I agree. Not a big fan of Turner. I dont dislike her, but I dont think she's right for it on an experience level. She'd serve great IN an administration. Just not at the top of it.
Aaronology
Member
Ah. So blaming the voter in this scenario is ok? Is it not on the American people, then, that Donald Trump is currently our 45th President?
This topic is replete with people who argued earnestly last year on this very forum that Clinton would be worse than Trump, who bought into the both sides rhetoric and who very proudly voted third party. I really hope by the time 2020 rolls around we're done talking about Bernard Sanders or Hillary Rodham Clinton in any context outside of learning from their mistakes.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Funny this objection wasn't brought up last time around. Funny.
legacyzero
Banned
Calling bullshit on the bolded. I literally have no memory of anyone claiming that Hillary was worse than Trump. I saw a lot of "lesser of two evils" debate, of course of which I also participated in. But for the most part, this board was in agreement that Hillary was clearly better. Also- stop shaming people for voting 3rd party. It's bullshit, it further alienates voters to the cause, and it undermines the election process. I agree that we're under a bullshit duopoly, and I think 3rd parties should be allowed to participate in debates of their chosing. But people voted their conscience, and I respect that.
I fail to see why it's wrong to blame the voters I know who stayed home for no other reason than lack of care. To then turn around be outraged at anything that's resulted from it. There's no excuse to not vote. If such a massive chunk of the population is sitting their asses home that's a problem.
Aaronology
Member
Fam, you can call bullshit all you want. The only reason I haven't posted a garbage bag of receipts is that it's frowned on now and I'd very much like not to be banned. The people in question know who the fuck they are, and they've been called out before. You very clearly have a poor memory of political conversations on NeoGAF, LZ, or you weren't paying attention at all.
Fair rebuttal.
And_Gignac
Member
This is magical thinking. There's nothing particular about running and ex loser that would predict such candidate to lose. I mean, no one saw that as a problem with Clinton, right?
Hell, Clinton could be the candidate again and she would totally have a shot at defeating Trump.
The Greek Freak
Member
Given a shit unlike most of the worthless centrist cowards who give issues lip service and nothing more.
fredrancour
Member
Reagan happened and his party fled rightward. Keeping leftist economics from being totally removed from the party is something.
legacyzero
Banned
Oh man, that's frowned upon? That's interesting, I get post-mined all the time LOL
As for my memory of the Election threads, I was in nearly every one of them. Of course, there was a shit-poster here and there. But for my 'memory' of those discussions, I can't for-the-life-of-me, remember any regulars that said that Hillary was worse than Trump. I do know of a few that voted Indie though. I'm not sure that's directly saying she's worse, so much as it's saying "yeah, I can't in good conscious vote for either."
Do I think their decision sucks? Abso-fuckin-lutely. But I respect it.
But yeah, even I'll call out people saying that Hillary was worse. Even to me, that's just plain dumb.
Because N=1 is even worse than N=2 for drawing general rules from low sample sizes?
And_Gignac
Member
What's the general rule behind running an ex primary loser? What are the actual variables at play that make your hypothesis affirmative? Whats the evidence for your claim other than "it happened once it will happen again!"?
I don't get people like you at all. Is it really so outrageous that a man who's still working in his late 70's is doing moderately financially well? I hope and imagine I'll be in similar circumstances at that age and I'm no high profile politician.
This. And:
Do you really think that many Clinton backers wouldn't have jumped ship if they saw a viable alternative? (simpler version: Do you realize just how many of us Clinton '16 backers voted against her in '08?)
Run people that are actually good at winning elections. Clinton was always not great at actually running for office, and campaign management was one of the many factors that played into the loss.
Amendment XXII seems to be a little vague on this, because it says that a person can be President for up to 10 years if they start as a VP and move to President and then serve two full terms, but it doesn't really say anything about going the other way around.
TurnipFritters
Member
Given that his whole shtick is about economic inequality you should probably listen to him talk more because most Americans who are still working in their late 70s are doing so because they would literally starve to death if they did not.
I do think it's silly to act like a dude whose personal wealth "barely cracks a million dollars" is some kind of champion of the underclass.
PdotMichael
Banned
Yeah, his ideas for tax reforms and stuff would totally benefit him as well!
- Status