Bernie Sanders Discussion Thread
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 44545
PAGE 21 of 30
Bernie Sanders is not going to be the nominee. (And Democrats just as conformist as their Republican brethren, and just as inclined to vote identity politics, if not more so. But that's another story.)
Still, I hope he continues to stay in the race, as he promised. If he's still running, I intend to vote for him, If he doesn't run, by CA rules, I would literally not have any else to vote for.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Polls Say Bernie Is More Electable Than Hillary. Don’t Believe Them.
What they really show is a candidate who hasn’t been attacked.
Sanders does better than Clinton in hypothetical matchups against the Republicans. Currently, Sanders outperforms Clinton by more than seven percentage points against Trump, and by nearly nine points against Ted Cruz. But that’s not because Sanders is the stronger nominee. It’s because Republicans haven’t yet trashed him the way they’ve trashed Clinton. Once they do, his advantage over her would disappear.
Say you’re a Republican running against Bernie. There are a lot of bad things you could say about him. You want to pick the message that will hurt him most and hurt you least. So you call up a bunch of people and ask them how they’re planning to vote. Then you try out the various messages you’re considering. After each message, you ask the person on the phone to what degree this statement makes her less likely to support your opponent. When you’re done, you ask her once more how she’s planning to vote, given the information you’ve provided. Congratulations: You’ve just conducted a campaign in a poll. You’ve ascertained how the election might turn out, depending on how you go after Bernie.
That’s what a general-election campaign against Sanders would look like. Republicans would rip Sanders as a big-spending, big-taxing socialist. They have plenty of ammo. They could quote the 2015 letter in which Sanders urged President Obama to “raise revenue” through “executive action.” They could dig up quotes from decades ago, in which Sanders called himself “clearly anti-capitalistic,” complained that U.S. interventions in Latin America “have been for the benefit of large corporations,” and praised communist countries as culturally superior. “Contrast what the young people in China and Cuba are doing for themselves and for their country as compared to the young people in America,” Sanders argued in 1976.
Republicans could hammer the back-seat foreign policy Sanders conducted as a mayor in Vermont: going to Cuba to seek a meeting with Fidel Castro, visiting Lenin’s tomb in the Soviet Union, and traveling to Nicaragua, where he met with Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega and praised the country’s cultural minister as a “hippie” whose government was “teaching poetry not only to peasants and to workers but in the military.” They could go after Sanders’ countercultural mockery of “respectful clerks, technicians and soldiers.” They could rehash his attacks on compulsory schooling, dairy laws, and fluoridation, or his Freudian analysis of napalm use in Vietnam, or his advocacy of public toddler nudity and genital touching as cures for porn, or the sexual quackery through which he attributed breast cancer and cervical cancer to orgasm deficiency and capitalist conformity.
Basically, if you were designing the perfect target for Republicans you’d create Bernie Sanders — a candidate who proudly links socialist economics to hippie culture, libertinism, left-wing foreign policy, new-age nonsense, and contempt for bourgeois values. Clinton could have attacked these weaknesses in the primary—her supporters had an opposition research file on Sanders’ “associations with communism”—but she didn’t. In a general election, Republicans wouldn’t hesitate.
Would a GOP assault along these lines hurt Sanders? Absolutely.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_be
rnie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bernie Sanders Has Done the Progressive Movement No Favors
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If he doesn't run, by CA rules, I would literally not have any else to vote for.
—By Kevin Drum, Fri Apr. 29, 2016 1:25 AM EDT
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie
-sanders
With the Democratic primary basically over, I want to step back a bit and explain the big-picture reason that I never warmed up to Bernie Sanders. It's not so much that he's all that far to my left, nor that he's been pretty skimpy on details about all the programs he proposes. That's hardly uncommon in presidential campaigns. Rather, it's the fact that I think he's basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.
I mean this as a provocation—but I also mean it. So if you're provoked, mission accomplished! Here's my argument.
Bernie's explanation for everything he wants to do—his theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pick—is that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington DC is paralyzed.
But as Bill Scher points out,
( www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-part
y-new-york-primary-213829 ) the revolution that Bernie called for didn't show up. In fact, it's worse than that: we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along. Think about it: has there ever been an economic revolution in the United States? Stretching things a bit, I can think of two:
. The destruction of the Southern slave economy following the Civil War.
. The New Deal.
The first of these was 50+ years in the making and, in the end, required a bloody, four-year war to bring to a conclusion. The second happened only after an utter collapse of the economy, with banks closing, businesses failing, wages plummeting, and unemployment at 25 percent. That's what it takes to bring about a revolution, or even something close to it.
We're light years away from that right now. Unemployment? Yes, two or three percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent. Wages? They've been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world. Health care? Our system is a mess, but 90 percent of the country has insurance coverage. Dissatisfaction with the system? According to Gallup, even among those with incomes under $30,000, only 27 percent are dissatisfied with their personal lives.
Like it or not, you don't build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.
Why do I care about this? Because if you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that's never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable young followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to the slow boring of hard wood? Or do they give up?
I don't know, but my fear is that some of them will do the latter. And that's a damn shame. They've been conned by a guy who should know better, the same way dieters get conned by late-night miracle diets. When it doesn't work, they throw in the towel.
Most likely Bernie will have no lasting effect, and his followers will scatter in the usual way, with some doubling down on practical politics and others leav
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What IS "the progressive cause" anyway? It's a little hard to tell, Most "progressives" that I know tend to focus on things like "how many people are in our camp?" as opposed to actually accomplishing anything.
If he doesn't run, by CA rules, I would literally not have any else to vote for.- SIGNY
Bernie Sanders Has Done the Progressive Movement No Favors
—By Kevin Drum, Fri Apr. 29, 2016 1:25 AM EDT
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie
-sanders
With the Democratic primary basically over, I want to step back a bit and explain the big-picture reason that I never warmed up to Bernie Sanders. It's not so much that he's all that far to my left, nor that he's been pretty skimpy on details about all the programs he proposes. That's hardly uncommon in presidential campaigns. Rather, it's the fact that I think he's basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.
Quote:All extremely true.
I mean this as a provocation—but I also mean it. So if you're provoked, mission accomplished! Here's my argument.
Bernie's explanation for everything he wants to do—his theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pick—is that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington DC is paralyzed.
Quote:Yanno, I've had people impute base motives of me quite a bit here, including that I'm a Russian bot (Yep, Russia implanted me on this board since 2003! That was pretty far-seeing of them don't you think?). That statement about Bernie sounds like a far stretch, especially since they don't provide any really convincing support later.
But as Bill Scher points out,
( www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-part
y-new-york-primary-213829 ) the revolution that Bernie called for didn't show up. In fact, it's worse than that: we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along.
Quote:Only if you mean violent revolution ... i.e. with guns or very close to it. Sanders wasn't looking for a "revolution" in that sense, more like a complete turnabout of policy thru political means. This author misrepresents Sanders' main goal completely to make a point.
Think about it: has there ever been an economic revolution in the United States? Stretching things a bit, I can think of two:
. The destruction of the Southern slave economy following the Civil War.
. The New Deal.
The first of these was 50+ years in the making and, in the end, required a bloody, four-year war to bring to a conclusion. The second happened only after an utter collapse of the economy, with banks closing, businesses failing, wages plummeting, and unemployment at 25 percent. That's what it takes to bring about a revolution, or even something close to it.
Quote:
We're light years away from that right now. Unemployment? Yes, two or three percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent.
Unemployment has always been a jiggered number, since it counts anyone who has even worked one hour in a month as "employed", but with the dramatic rise of the temporary workforce and the internet-fueled "gig economy" MORE people are underemployed than ever before, making the unemployment rate a fictitious number.
Quote:Ahhh, the error of averages! Twenty ballplayers are sitting on a bench. Nineteen make $20,000 a year and one makes #20 million a year. What is the "average" wage?
Wages? They've been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world.
Anyone who resorts to "average" .... especially when the distributi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is no need to give up hope so long as Bernie lives and Hillary might die at an opportune moment. Maybe Hillary dies from a plane crash or a bullet. The convention chooses Bernie, then the general election decides if Bernie is better than a Republican. It is the Heir and a Spare concept, with Bernie as the spare.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Article: dishonestly framed from beginning to end. Clearly, this person is boosting the Democratic Party as a viable pathway towards progress, instead of the influence-infested swamp that it really is.
And I just checked and found that "Americans Are Happy With Their Lives but Angry at Government, Poll Shows".
http://time.com/4296805/american-anger-poll-donald-trump/
84% of respondents said they are enthusiastic or satisfied with their personal relationships, and 77% said the same about their career. 64% said they are satisfied with their financial situation. Sorrowfully, the situation isn't bad enough to spontaneously ignite into a revolution, but Bernie can be useful by figuring out how to reach out before 2020 to that 30 percent of eligible-but-not-registered voters. He could start a real political revolution by getting their votes! Just because it looks very unlikely that Bernie will win the nomination this particular time, that doesn't mean that a different candidate won't be able to succeed with a similar platform and strategy in 2020 when all those potential new voters get registered and vote.
www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The author wasn't honest, at all. Who hires these clowns? How did that end up in Mother Jones?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Louis CK vid
Good stuff. I thought the guy in the black watch cap at the far end of the bar would chime in and dis the guy in the plaid shirt with something like, "You're no better - saying "if only..." is a bunch of horse sh*t too."
There is a kind of perfection in what kind of government we have right now - it is the creation and end result of all the effort and lack of effort, of each and every single person.
On Bernie: My 73 yr old father-in-law said, "Take it from me, he's too old. He'd be 78 by the time his term ended... way too old."
The biggest reason I knew Bernie had no chance of winning was because of something he said himself. 80% of poor people don't vote. So in a way they are somewhat responsible for there plight in life. Sad but true.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:. . . unless something dramatic happens, Americans are heading for a society in which a tiny elite controls most of the wealth, resources and decision-making power.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The biggest reason I knew Bernie had no chance of winning was because of something he said himself. 80% of poor people don't vote. So in a way they are somewhat responsible for there plight in life. Sad but true.
www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/books/review/listen-liberal-and-the-limousi
ne-liberal.html
You know what the something dramatic is? Poor people going out to vote. Getting into the details, it would be better for the poor not to vote for the multi-billionaire. I don't think he has their best interests at heart. More likely he has his own best interests at heart since that is how he became a multi-billionaire.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"unless something dramatic happens"
The Democratic Party, as embodied by Hillary, Debbie and Bill, has lost 45% support from the registered democrats who voted (to date). And then there's Hillary's 40% favorable to 55% unfavorable numbers.
If I were them, that would concern me. They seem like dramatic figures for the presumed next president.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But what can Hillary do about it? I’d say nothing she does will get your vote or change her unfavorable numbers. Well, she could nominate Bernie as her VP, then tell the world after the convention but before November election that she will be stepping down from the Presidency and Bernie will be stepping up within a month after they are both sworn in by the Chief Justice. Would that get Hillary your vote in November? Is your answer still “No!” because you don’t trust her to keep her word?
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The Democratic Party, as embodied by Hillary, Debbie and Bill, has lost 45% support from the registered democrats who voted (to date). And then there's Hillary's 40% favorable to 55% unfavorable numbers.
If I were them, that would concern me. They seem like dramatic figures for the presumed next president.
1kiki wrote: "I didn't start out thinking 'anybody but Clinton'. But I've moved in that direction as her true intentions (and arrogance, hubris and patently bad judgment) become more obvious."
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60433&mid=1010427#
1010427
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME