Bernie Sanders Discussion Thread
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 44545
PAGE 6 of 30
Quote:
"One point you never hear about in MSM: Sanders would fare BETTER than Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head against Trump" That is a flat out fairy tale, in other words BULLSHIT
No, it isn't. I was referring to the results of OPINION POLLS. Now, I realize so early in the game that head-to-head opinion polls don't tell you who would will win ... as you have noted, the Donaldness has mis-stepped on several issues, and his unfavorables have risen even higher.
But as of TODAY'S search,
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-tru
mp-vs-clinton
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-tru
mp-vs-sanders
Sanders would beat Trump by 14 percentage points, while Clinton would beat Trump by only 8. So, yes, Sanders WOULD fare better than Clinton against Trump in head-to-head voting, if that vote were to be held today.
-----
I think what you don't understand is that a lot of people are fed up with "business as usual", which is why both Sanders and Trump are doing well. They hear all of the happy news about the economy, and they look around at their children, their parents, their neighbors and their friends and they think WTF???. Many people realize that .... to rephrase the Reagan question Are you better off than you were sixteen years ago? the answer is a resounding NO!
DC politicians - both the mainstream Repubs and the mainstream Dems, have each had their turn at restoring the American economy, and all they've managed to do is make the banksters incredibly wealthy. By now, I believe many Americans are ready to turn the tables over, and that include Hillary.
--------------
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
Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable.
Clinton's getting 'big donor' money from corporate America, and has it to throw around. Sanders isn't, and doesn't.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/faceboo
k-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/
Clinton’s top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILY’s List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288).
The data for Sanders goes back to 1989. His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500).
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:I have heard this variety of political reasoning in 2000 from Ralph Nader's voters, who said that Gore would be no better than Bush and that Gore as President would be as big a catastrophe as Bush. The entire future of America was suppose to depend on Ralph in the White House. Only Ralph could save the Nation. The Nader people are still telling themselves soothing lies about how terrible a person Gore is so they don't have to feel bad about what Bush did in the next 8 years.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clinton IS corrupt. ...
Clinton is a bought, sold, butchered, graded, and packaged politician. You don't need a jury trial to figure that out.
I know exactly what she'll do when she gets into office:
Nader had no chance of being President, no matter what 2,882,995 Nader voters say. Bernie has no chance of being President, either. Bernie is too old, too godless, too socialist, too many things to win. Tearing down Clinton as corrupt WILL NEVER GET BERNIE INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. But it will get a Republican elected.
I checked the betting sites. Bernie will not be President is a safe bet.
www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures
www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_i
ds=791149
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, Second. You could have not picked a more inappropriate example in Nader if you tried.
Nader wasn't in the primaries running as a democrat against another democrat. He was the Green Party candidate. Any point you might be trying to make about whether or not the Democratic voters should ELECT the Democratic candidate, or if the party gets to SELECT the candidate is pointless.
On top of that Gore didn't lose, and he didn't lose because of Nader. Bush won through fraud in multiple states. And then the Supremes stepping in to decide the winner.
And finally, what's been driving the Republican Party further and further to the extremes, if not the populist Tea Party, which had good control over the rest of the Republican factions through the power of the vote? (... and which lost its legitimacy through its failure to walk its talk.)
The extreme can swing a party through the vote. I think the democratic party is very much overdue for a reality check.
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:Wow, 1kiki, you think Bernie has a chance? I think Bernie has a chance of sabotaging Clinton, but no chance of being President.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wow, Second. You could have not picked a more inappropriate example in Nader if you tried.
Nader wasn't in the primaries running as a democrat against another democrat. He was the Green Party candidate. Any point you might be trying to make about whether or not the Democratic voters should ELECT the Democratic candidate, or if the party gets to SELECT the candidate is pointless.
On top of that Gore didn't lose, and he didn't lose because of Nader. Bush won through fraud in multiple states. And then the Supremes stepping in to decide the winner.
And finally, what's been driving the Republican Party further and further to the extremes, if not the populist Tea Party, which had good control over the rest of the Republican factions through the power of the vote? (... and which lost its legitimacy through its failure to walk its talk.)
The extreme can swing a party through the vote. I think the democratic party is very much overdue for a reality check.
Compare Bernie to Nader. The Nader voters in 2000 would have split 5 to 1 in favor of Democrats if Nader had not been on the ballet. Nader says that is not true; he says his voters would have stayed home if he had not run. I say Nader has a history of not knowing what he speaks of. Nader, a perfectly worthless Presidential candidate since Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965, used a lawyer's argument that it wasn't his fault (and nothing has ever been his fault) that Gore was weak. It will be on Nader's headstone: "Don't Blame Bush 43 On Me"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Presidential_campaigns
Following Nader's example, Bernie will say Clinton ran a weak campaign if she loses. On his headstone will be carved "Don't Blame (Cruz?) On Me". Bernie is ancient like Nader and neither of those senile doofuses ever had a chance of being President.
I ought to have checked sooner about Nader's opinion of Clinton. As I suspected, same as Bernie's, but less polite:
Quote:
Ralph Nader Says He Might Run in 2008 if Hillary Clinton Wins the Nomination
Published February 16, 2007 FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – Former presidential hopeful Ralph Nader might consider jumping into the 2008 race if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination.
"She's just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,'' Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco while on a book tour, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Nader has recently said he'll consider making a bid for the White House later this year.
"We're going to see what the Democrats come up with," he said.
www.foxnews.com/story/2007/02/16/ralph-nader-says-might-run-in-2008-if
-hillary-clinton-wins-nomination.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think if Bernie wins the nomination then he'll have broken the predictive power of that one odds-tracking site.
But that aside, don't you think the voters should be deciding who runs in the election, and not Debbie?
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:To be as blunt as possible, the primary system is broken. Lincoln Chafee, Lawrence Lessig, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb dropped out (you don't remember them, do you?) because the system is ridiculous.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I think if Bernie wins the nomination then he'll have broken the predictive power of that one odds-tracking site.
But that aside, don't you think the voters should be deciding who runs in the election, and not Debbie?
You would probably notice how stupid the Primary system is if the Presidential election was organized in the same fashion, with Iowa deciding who is on the ballot in California. But all the states are forced to have their elections in the same month, and even, dare I say it, ON THE SAME DAY!
And the Republicans have an equally idiotic system for picking their Presidential candidate.
I should google "Why are there no runoff elections in America?" But I don't care enough. Somebody do it for me and let me know the answer.
Then there are all the other parties with absolutely no chance. I wonder what they do?
1 Ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes
1.1 Green Party
1.2 Libertarian Party
2 Ballot access to fewer than 270, but more than 50 electoral votes
2.1 American Independent Party
2.2 Constitution Party
2.3 Peace and Freedom Party
2.4 Reform Party of the United States of America
3 Ballot access to fewer than 50 electoral votes
3.1 America's Party
3.2 American Freedom Party
3.3 Independent American Party
3.4 Nutrition Party
3.5 Party for Socialism and Liberation
3.6 Prohibition Party
3.7 Veterans Party of America
4 No ballot access
4.1 Humane Party
4.2 Socialist Party USA
4.3 Socialist Workers Party
4.4 Workers World Party
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To be as blunt as possible, the primary system is broken.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.
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:I'd like to see more choices than Bernie vs Clinton. I'd like to see some acknowledgement that an elderly Jewish socialist atheist cranky old man cannot be elected President of the United States. President Bernie is not impossible in the Constitution. President Bernie violates a law of physics, so it can't happen, kind of like Star Wars Hyperdrive, another lovely fantasy that can't happen.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
To be as blunt as possible, the primary system is broken.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME