Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter jadeezra
- Start date
If the Democrats nominate him,and the Donald is the Gop nominee all I can say ,is UGH!
Yes because establishment politicians have been doing us so many favors. Hey I see what you mean , I think it would make for a very very interesting election though. Perhaps the most entertaining ever
I like his family leave plan. Pretty much everything else is total nonsense. I'd take him over hillary. I'm still hoping we get a decent third party candidate.
1. He struggles immensely with people of color, so until that changes, he's limited by demographics. It may change, I don't know, but he can't win the Dem Primary simply by appealing to white liberals. He can win Iowa and NH that way, but few of the rest.
2. He's too one-note. I agree with him in general on economic principles, but he's woefully short on specifics and his supporters think there is a "silent majority" out there that will rise up if he's nominated. Just like the conservative silliness of a "silent majority," the liberal version is no less silly.
3. I like the guy. He is honest, he's clear about who he is and what he's about. But he has a history of single-mindedness and not being able to work with folks, even in his own (nominally) party.
Maybe wins in Iowa and NH, assuming that happens, creates a new dynamic...maybe something with Hillary (a gaffe, email, what have you) creates more of an opening...too wild to predict anything in this election cycle...but as things stand now, I don't see him winning the nomination. He's long on vision, short on details, and too tightly focused on one problem.
That's a pretty good critique there! He's got my vote, however exactly what you said about him being fixated on one issue is my concern also.
Everybody keeps saying the minority thing though and I'm not sure I'm buying it. Im a fairly well known classic car guy. I've got Hispanics and African Americans alike spread out in a variety of areas nationally on my facebook. I'd say 15 or so in total from Florida, to Georgia and California. Every single one of them is a Bernie supporter but that may be more of car person thing.
I will say this I'm not doubting trumps appeal(I hate him) but my entire family loves him as do my car loving while friends for whatever reason that is. I don't get the appeal of that guy.
Polls are pretty consistent that he is barely registering among minorities to this point. That doesn't mean the polls are right, or that wins won't change that, but the Clintons have a long, long presence in the AA community, and Sanders is to the right of Clinton on immigration...one of the maybe two areas he is, the other being gun control. That right there explains his problem with people of color, and minorities make up almost half of Dem primaries or even majorities in many states.
As long as she's in the 60s and higher with those folks, he has no shot.
I also think people always overestimate domestic issues and underestimate foreign policy. To date, his foreign policy creds are "I don't vote for Iraq." OK, great, but what else you got? I think as the primaries go on, folks will look at his lack of even talking much foreign policy more critically and I wonder if he will be able to show he cares about that half as much as he does about wall street, big banks, and corporations. That cannot be the answer to every question, but right now, it literally is.
I agree with everything qaz has said in this thread. I like Bernie, but I don't think he stands a chance. And let's be honest, he'd probably be a nightmare when it comes to foreign policy.
All fair statements the guy is just so dang likeable. One thing that no poll can predict though is first time voter turn out. It's hard to get those numbers out in volume though. That generation is lazy Facebook is easy. We will see I hate to say it but I can't vote Clinton. If she gets the nomination I'm voting Trump but then again I'm an independent
Here is one opinion on the appeal of Trump that I find interesting.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533
Well it's just my opinion but I'm a believer in that the establishment politicians are corrupt. How else can you explain these ridiculous trade deals. Clinton flip flops with everything she was against gay marriage, for universal health care I could go on and on. Voted for Iraq war...how many times did she endorse the tpp? Then when convienent say not to the gold standard she thought? Yeah right
No I do not think Bernie is corrupt. I do see where Donald could benefit from these trade deals so not sure if he could be trusted either
No I do not think Bernie is corrupt. I do see where Donald could benefit from these trade deals so not sure if he could be trusted either
Last edited:
Thanks that article nailed it, I just can't go there but I have family members who's main concerns are just what that article references
I also think people always overestimate domestic issues and underestimate foreign policy.
That statement may be true but I think it is probably a result of the way our national media frames issues and the exposure they give to groups like ISIL. IMO, the reality is that they are not an existential threat by any measure. In fact Americans are more likely to be killed by some deranged gunman than they are any foreign terrorist. However, the networks pound ISIL related stories into our national conscience every day resulting in unwarranted fears. And, most Americans do not realize that most of our foreign policy concerns have resulted from our own poorly thought out actions. If this trend could be reversed like it really should be, foreign policy would fall behind domestic issues in a great majority of Americans' lives.
I tend to agree with that assessment also. However, this GOP strategist seems to have a different point of view on Trump supporters. vbg
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/gop-strategist-calls-trump-supporters
I guess what needs to be looked at is ISIS a domestic issue, foreign policy, or both?
Issue is, with globalism(international trade deals, dealing with foreign cultures, different religions, banking system all tied together, mass conflict) not going anywhere, foreign policy needs to be at the forefront of what a candidate can bring to the table. The idea of being an isolationist is long gone.
I think it'll be interesting to watch, but it's also a much different situation than the GOP field.
Iowa is obviously a very unique state - let's keep in mind a guy like Mike Huckabee won it before. It is not a "mainstream" candidate type of place. NH is also an interesting place and obviously Bernie is basically a local to them.
That being said, Hillary still leads considerably nationwide - and in the states after the first 2 primaries. Obviously this could change as time goes on.
But on the GOP side, Trump is making a push for Iowa, looks solid in NH - but unlike Bernie, he DOES have a considerable lead nationwide and in the states after the first 2 primaries.
So Trump winning Iowa and NH would probably seal the deal for him. Bernie winning the first 2 would not. And even outside of Trump, Cruz is the same boat. The more "mainstream" candidates in the GOP are not sniffing the lead.
I'm not defending Clinton, but if flip-flopping on major issues is a deal-breaker for you, then I can't imagine how Trump is your candidate.
Well I'm a Berniebot so crucify me! I have the upmost respect for you as a poster but you have to give him credit for standing his ground on guns.
They are shoving that down his throat trying to use it against him. Sorta goes against a communists thought process. Sorry tonight he sold me.
They count on us agreeing on everything it's pathetic
Oh, I must have misinterpreted your post to say those were the reasons why you were supporting Trump. My bad.
On Bernie, I have a lot of respect for his consistency and the way he has run his campaign. I just fundamentally disagree with him on almost every economic issue. He's certainly made this a tighter race than I ever imagined on the left.
I do disagree with some of his stuff , especially the minimum wage and free college. There should be more programs in place to help kids get loans at a better interest rates. But to say any kid that slides through school getting b and c averages is appalling. They aren't trying, they are slacking imo
Trust me when I say this I'd never thought I'd consider voting. If he can allure me at hello then he can anybody. But same can be said for Trump virtually all my family and friends support him.
I'm confused by your argument. You think a B average by definition means a kid is slacking? Everyone can't get an A average. If they could, either the grading curve is non-existent, the material too easy, or you've got a room full of geniuses. A B average is not somehow an indication that someone is slacking nor is appalling to want to give those folks additional education so that they can compete in the workplace (and by the way give us better educated workers which helps business, the economy, and the country as a whole).
I am not pro-Sanders as much as Clinton, but when he says that a high school degree isn't enough anymore, he's absolutely right. There's no reason why we can't or shouldn't stop this whole loan silliness for an education level of at LEAST an associates degree OR a technical degree in a trade which is more or less required for anything other than a minimum wage job (which you apparently are also against?) without having kids start life out deeply in debt JUST to get the education they would need to make something of themselves.
What you are basically saying is: if you are really rich, or really smart you can start off life more or less with no impediments...everyone else, life's gonna be a hard slog. Now, no one is suggesting that each of them have to have the exact same start to life. But they should have similar opportunities at educational attainment and competing for something more than low-level jobs, which is all a high school education is going to get most people.
I'm just really curious how you think a B average is by definition is slacking. Or how a C average is even necessarily slacking, and not indicative of someone who simply struggles with academics despite trying hard.
I don't know what Sanders stance is exactly on the minimum wage ,but I think 7.25 an hour is too low.It was 3.35 an hour in 1980.How much has the cost of living gone up since then?
While it's "surprising", if you dig down to the details, it's not really. The Iowa caucuses are not typically "mainstream" friendly.
Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum won the last 2 GOP caucuses - not exactly mainstream guys who went on to have much success.
So you usually have the more extremes of the party dominating a caucus because it is a time commitment and the overall participation is very low. The overall number of people you need to get out the vote is not that high to have a big impact.
Obviously New Hampshire is also a friendly territory for Sanders (basically from there given the proximity of NH/Vermont).
But the states after that is what is going to make a difference. Obviously momentum helps, but the last poll from South Carolina has Sanders losing 64-27. He's going to do well among the very liberals - but the question is whether he can do well with the more mainstream states with primaries.
That being said, it also does not make it a shoe-in for Clinton. Obama was more mainstream than Sanders, but he lost a lot of the big states still. However, he still won states like Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. - which are not looking friendly for Sanders.
Sanders' only hope is a sea change among people of color towards him and away from Hillary. Without that, he can't win...with it, it's probably going to be another close one like 2008.
I think I'd add that he has some ideas that I like - and he has a lot of really good "sound bite" plans - like free college, health care for all, anti-Wall Street, etc. that sound great, especially to a more liberal Democrat - but to me, a lot of it is just totally unrealistic.
Yea, even if I agreed with his policies on a philosophical level, the reality is they're not financially feasible.
One interesting thing to watch in Iowa is the younger voters. In 2008, they obviously helped Obama win Iowa big time and are Sanders' strongest support.
However, 2008 and 2016 differ significantly in the timing of the caucuses. In 2008, it was held just after new year's - when college students were home. So all of Obama's support from college students was spread across the state. However, this year it is happening while school is in session. The way the caucus works, he could have all of these college kids go caucus in Ames, Iowa City, etc. - but that will put a lot of his support in a limited number of districts vs. in 2008 when they were spread across the state, giving a boost to Obama all over the state.
On the reverse side, out of state students in theory can register as Iowa voters and caucus. But again, it goes back to all of those would be in the same pockets.
The Seltzer poll seems to indicate only average turnout which hurts Trump and Sanders if true. It is a gold standard poll, but turnout is not something it really does well to measure.
Sounds like a good young turnout (still not the turnout Obama got), and Sanders still lost (though it's razor thin). I don't think there's a lot of actual substance or reality in what he's been saying . . but the younger crowd is on the bandwagon because they think it's cool or whatever. Anyway, without a dominating victory in Iowa, Sanders can kiss this campaign goodbye.
Yeah Bernie is claiming moral victory, but Iowa seemed like a good opportunity for him to get a win with how white and liberal the state is. I think Hillary weathering that storm is a great thing for her campaign.
yeah I'm thinking this too.
Also think last night was big for Rubio. Personally guessing Cruz fades a bit and we see a Trump-Rubio battle. Rubio scares me the most in a general election.
Depends...SC is pretty conservative so if Cruz can get a first or second place finish there it might be a threeway race. Rubio has to eventually win somewhere though...being the third place candidate overall but first place for establishment folks only gets you so far.
It's pretty sad that I'm rooting for Trump on the GOP side out of the realistic candidates (anyone decent is not realistic). Cruz would be a nightmare as a president. I think Rubio fades after failing to actually come in first in any races. Ultimately, I think Clinton should clean up, but even the hint of a Cruz presidency is terrifying. I don't trust Trump at all . . so I also don't trust that he believes half the nuttery coming out of his mouth.
I read a quote about Cruz from a republican: Why does everyone have an instant dislike of Ted Cruz? Because it saves time.
I watched the town hall and the Democratic debate last night and it got me thinking... of the two candidates, clearly I would be more closely aligned ideologically with Hillary than Bernie on most issues, the two notable exceptions being campaign finance reform and gun control. Though I'm more left-leaning or at least centrist than most right wingers on gun control in that I think more needs to be done, I am not convinced that a whole slew of bans and tougher/more laws are always the answer, instead better/more thorough enforcement of current laws would probably work. In fact I think Bernie's summary of gun control describes me perfectly: "I will take the following concrete steps to reduce gun violence: strengthen and better enforce the instant background check system; close the gun-show loophole; make 'straw man' purchases a federal crime; ban semi-automatic assault weapons which are designed strictly for killing human beings; and work to fix our broken mental health system."
There was an interesting exchange which highlighted why Bernie might not be the nightmare some folks of my ilk think. When the moderator mentioned that the first priority you tackle is usually the one thing you really get done in a four-year presidency (or eight years for Obama and PPACA, largely due to Congress, which I'm fine with... balance of power works), he asked what it would be for each candidate.
Hillary mentioned like nine things, and never really answered the question. In fact, I'd say she made pains to dodge it entirely. But, if I had to nail down the thing she seemed most concerned or passionate about, I'd say it was green energy and making the US the leader in developing green energy into the future. Either that or path to citizenship and immigration reform. But again, too hard to nail down one thing.
Bernie, on the other hand, said he would fix the political system and reform campaign financing in an effort to get politicians out of the pockets of the "billionaire class".
I admit, I'm feeling the Bern on that one. If he were elected, I'd be much happier pushing that agenda than, really, anything Hillary mentioned. Hillary is becoming more demagogic as Bernie gains on her, and I think Bernie says what he thinks.
There was an interesting exchange which highlighted why Bernie might not be the nightmare some folks of my ilk think. When the moderator mentioned that the first priority you tackle is usually the one thing you really get done in a four-year presidency (or eight years for Obama and PPACA, largely due to Congress, which I'm fine with... balance of power works), he asked what it would be for each candidate.
Hillary mentioned like nine things, and never really answered the question. In fact, I'd say she made pains to dodge it entirely. But, if I had to nail down the thing she seemed most concerned or passionate about, I'd say it was green energy and making the US the leader in developing green energy into the future. Either that or path to citizenship and immigration reform. But again, too hard to nail down one thing.
Bernie, on the other hand, said he would fix the political system and reform campaign financing in an effort to get politicians out of the pockets of the "billionaire class".
I admit, I'm feeling the Bern on that one. If he were elected, I'd be much happier pushing that agenda than, really, anything Hillary mentioned. Hillary is becoming more demagogic as Bernie gains on her, and I think Bernie says what he thinks.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
To our liberal, progressive friends on here...
- Latest: BCfanatic2020
-
-
-
