Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[luchog]

I understand some of the people who wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is insufficiently ideologically pure would stay home. Republicans would love that too. Their only real hope of winning the election is if lots of people on the left don't vote for Hillary. Does not matter to them whether those people stay home or vote third party.

I disagree; as I don't think the far-left alone is sufficient to swing a general election. What will swing the general election is if Hillary fails to motivate both the far left and the Independent/Unaligned voters; both of which are skewing overwhelmingly toward Bernie at this time.

She'll most likely lose the far-left to third-party protest votes. Whether she can motivate the middle voters will depend greatly on how she manages her campaign, and whether she's up against Trump or Cruz. Against an establishment politician like Cruz, there's a chance that she's conservative enough to pull some of the middle aware from him, due to his strong Religious-Right position. Against Trump's populism, the diddle will be too much of a wild card, and will likely split, with the more conservative-leaning likely to vote for anti-establishment Trump against an establishment candidate like Clinton. Without the support of the far-left, this is likely to give the presidency to Trump.

Bernie's support among the far-left and middle would give him an advantage over any of the establishment Republicans; and his populist, anti-establishment politician would be much stronger against Trump than Clinton will be. Add to that, a Trump candidacy will see a significant percentage of the moderate Republicans switching sides to Sanders (a number having already announced they would vote for Sanders over Trump), which they seem to be less likely to do with Clinton.

I think the key motivator in this election is going to be less the Right/Left, Liberal/Conservative split; and more the populist/establishment split. That's certainly how the trends have been going in both parties, GOP especially.

 

[The_Animus]

Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Bernie Stories In 16 Hours

I saw a thread about this on Reddit. The next day there was another thread showing 16 positive Sanders stories in 16 hours from Wash PO.

There is plenty of media bias, but there is also plenty false claims of bias. Just last night I had to eat crow on a different claim of bias I made.

 

[lobosrul]

I disagree; as I don't think the far-left alone is sufficient to swing a general election. What will swing the general election is if Hillary fails to motivate both the far left and the Independent/Unaligned voters; both of which are skewing overwhelmingly toward Bernie at this time.

She'll most likely lose the far-left to third-party protest votes. Whether she can motivate the middle voters will depend greatly on how she manages her campaign, and whether she's up against Trump or Cruz. Against an establishment politician like Cruz, there's a chance that she's conservative enough to pull some of the middle aware from him, due to his strong Religious-Right position. Against Trump's populism, the diddle will be too much of a wild card, and will likely split, with the more conservative-leaning likely to vote for anti-establishment Trump against an establishment candidate like Clinton. Without the support of the far-left, this is likely to give the presidency to Trump.

Bernie's support among the far-left and middle would give him an advantage over any of the establishment Republicans; and his populist, anti-establishment politician would be much stronger against Trump than Clinton will be. Add to that, a Trump candidacy will see a significant percentage of the moderate Republicans switching sides to Sanders (a number having already announced they would vote for Sanders over Trump), which they seem to be less likely to do with Clinton.

I think the key motivator in this election is going to be less the Right/Left, Liberal/Conservative split; and more the populist/establishment split. That's certainly how the trends have been going in both parties, GOP especially.

I can't see Trump doing well enough with minority voters, especially Hispanics, or with women, to defeat HRC. I can't see him taking Florida for example. Cruz on the other hand could take Florida* making his road to the White House more plausible.

*I mean in the general, not next week.

 

[dudalb]

On another note, why are Karl Rove and the Koch brothers supporting Sanders' campaign?

Why an arm of the Koch empire is praising Bernie Sanders
The article goes on to say it's not exactly as Clinton made it sound. But one thing is clear, the Kochs and Rove (links posted earlier) would rather fight Sanders than Clinton in the general election.

This kind of mischief happens all the time,and both sides indulge in it;Try to make sure that your opponent nominates the weakerst candidate possible.

Problem is that the Koch brs and Rove are way too obvious about it.

 

[dudalb]

What will be interesting to watch is when Bernie begins to make his inevitable spin toward the center,and tries to "Clarify" some of his previous positions.Guaranteed, his tax plan is going to be modified to get rid of that 15% tax on the Middle Class,that is political suicide.
If Bernie ceases to be 100% ideologically pure...and if he wants to win he will have too....how will his hard core supporters act.

 

[dudalb]

Okay, I watched the Bernie on Castro video.

What's so bad about it?

Come on now!

So oppressive left wing dicatorships are less objectionable then oppressive right wing dictatorships?

 

[jhunter1163]

3rd party is a pipe-dream. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. I don't think a 3rd party has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in recent history. It best I think a 3rd party might capture a small state (Wyoming or Vermont) or a couple congressional district voets from the two 'split' states (NE & ME) and have a couple electoral votes total. The cards are stacke against any 3rd party (matching funds is another hurdle) but they can have an influence.

I think the last time was in 1948 when the Dixiecrats almost threw the election into the House. The Electoral College is unnecessary; we should just have direct popular election of the President. That would facilitate third parties (or people running as independents).

 

[luchog]

I can't see Trump doing well enough with minority voters, especially Hispanics, or with women, to defeat HRC. I can't see him taking Florida for example. Cruz on the other hand could take Florida* making his road to the White House more plausible.

I agree on the issue with Hispanics, but his showing so far indicates that he's doing well enough with women voters to have a good shot at defeating Clinton.

As for Florida, it's plausible that Cruz could take it, since it has been predominantly red in the past, but it has gone blue in the last two elections, so it's a bit of a tossup. Bible Belt and Midwest is where Cruz's support is going to be strongest.

 

[luchog]

So oppressive left wing dicatorships are less objectionable then oppressive right wing dictatorships?

A lot of people supported Castro before everyone realized just how bad things in Cuba had gotten.

 

[lobosrul]

I agree on the issue with Hispanics, but his showing so far indicates that he's doing well enough with women voters to have a good shot at defeating Clinton.

As for Florida, it's plausible that Cruz could take it, since it has been predominantly red in the past, but it has gone blue in the last two elections, so it's a bit of a tossup. Bible Belt and Midwest is where Cruz's support is going to be strongest.

In looking at the 2012 election results, its clear to me that without Florida its pretty tough for a Republican to get elected president. Without it Trump would need to pickup Ohio, Virginia, Penn, NH, Iowa and either Minnesota or Wisconsin. Trump carrying Colorado, Nevada, or N Mexico is far-fetched IMO. And that is IF he keeps N Carolina.

Actually Florida was the state where Obama won by the slimmest percentage. Its the most "battlegroundy" state.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I expect that they will do everything they can to make this happen. Including trying to convince liberals she may as well be a Republican and so there is no point in voting for her.

So, why make it easier for them by making her the nominee?? As I heard one fellow put it, "Why nominate the candidate with all that baggage?" The Republicans have decades of stuff to attack her on. Even if you do accept the idea that it's nothing but propaganda, that's still a lot of propaganda... which they don't have against Sanders.

Bernie is part of the Democratic Establishment, he has been for a long time, he's just refused to join the Party officially until now because of appearances,

How does NOT joining the Democratic Party help Sanders? In fact, I've heard some Democrats use that as part of the reason why they don't like him. "He's not one of us." That doesn't make sense to me.

The article goes on to say it's not exactly as Clinton made it sound. But one thing is clear, the Kochs and Rove (links posted earlier) would rather fight Sanders than Clinton in the general election.

I haven't really ran into anybody that hates Sanders. I've heard some say that he's naive, that's true. Or even dangerously foolish. But I have yet to hear anybody, anywhere, actually spit bile at Sanders. The same cannot be said about Clinton. Finding people who hate her is very, very easy. As you yourself are so fond of pointing out, the Republicans have spent decades attacking her, so they have vast resources of propaganda to draw upon. The same cannot be said for Sanders.

And yet, somehow, they would rather fight Sanders than Clinton? Why? Which would you rather go against: the candidate who you have fought for decades, whose moves you already know, who you already have decades of attacks you can draw from, who is already despised by many...AND, let's not forget, is even currently under criminal investigation!....or the candidate who, until fairly recently, was virtually unknown? You don't have to be Sun Tzu to figure that one out.

 

[Belz...]

How does NOT joining the Democratic Party help Sanders? In fact, I've heard some Democrats use that as part of the reason why they don't like him. "He's not one of us." That doesn't make sense to me.

Serves to show how ideological people can be.

 

[Dog Town]

So, why make it easier for them by making her the nominee?? As I heard one fellow put it, "Why nominate the candidate with all that baggage?" The Republicans have decades of stuff to attack her on. Even if you do accept the idea that it's nothing but propaganda, that's still a lot of propaganda... which they don't have against Sanders.

The Shillaries remain clueless to this FACT! By voting in HRC they give the Dems a weaker chance to win. No one to blame but themselves in the end,
for President Trump!

 

[wareyin]

So, why make it easier for them by making her the nominee?? As I heard one fellow put it, "Why nominate the candidate with all that baggage?" The Republicans have decades of stuff to attack her on. Even if you do accept the idea that it's nothing but propaganda, that's still a lot of propaganda... which they don't have against Sanders.



How does NOT joining the Democratic Party help Sanders? In fact, I've heard some Democrats use that as part of the reason why they don't like him. "He's not one of us." That doesn't make sense to me.



I haven't really ran into anybody that hates Sanders. I've heard some say that he's naive, that's true. Or even dangerously foolish. But I have yet to hear anybody, anywhere, actually spit bile at Sanders. The same cannot be said about Clinton. Finding people who hate her is very, very easy. As you yourself are so fond of pointing out, the Republicans have spent decades attacking her, so they have vast resources of propaganda to draw upon. The same cannot be said for Sanders.

And yet, somehow, they would rather fight Sanders than Clinton? Why? Which would you rather go against: the candidate who you have fought for decades, whose moves you already know, who you already have decades of attacks you can draw from, who is already despised by many...AND, let's not forget, is even currently under criminal investigation!....or the candidate who, until fairly recently, was virtually unknown? You don't have to be Sun Tzu to figure that one out.

The Republicans have spent decades attacking Clinton, and what do they have to show for it?

Also, what makes you think they don't have a deep wellspring of things to attack Sanders with?

 

[Tony Stark]

I think the last time was in 1948 when the Dixiecrats almost threw the election into the House. The Electoral College is unnecessary; we should just have direct popular election of the President. That would facilitate third parties (or people running as independents).

The last time a third party got any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968.

 

[Tony Stark]

In looking at the 2012 election results, its clear to me that without Florida its pretty tough for a Republican to get elected president. Without it Trump would need to pickup Ohio, Virginia, Penn, NH, Iowa and either Minnesota or Wisconsin. Trump carrying Colorado, Nevada, or N Mexico is far-fetched IMO. And that is IF he keeps N Carolina.

Actually Florida was the state where Obama won by the slimmest percentage. Its the most "battlegroundy" state.

On the other hand, a Democrat could lose Florida, Virginia, and Ohio (states Obama won twice) and still win.

 

[Tony Stark]

So, why make it easier for them by making her the nominee?? As I heard one fellow put it, "Why nominate the candidate with all that baggage?" The Republicans have decades of stuff to attack her on. Even if you do accept the idea that it's nothing but propaganda, that's still a lot of propaganda... which they don't have against Sanders.

They could easily come up with propaganda about him. It simply isn't in their interests to do it now. But if he wins the nomination, there would be Republican SuperPACs that do nothing but spread anti-Bernie propaganda.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

They could easily come up with propaganda about him. It simply isn't in their interests to do it now. But if he wins the nomination, there would be Republican SuperPACs that do nothing but spread anti-Bernie propaganda.

Well, of course. I didn't feel like that needed to be said, because it's obvious. The point is that they have a lot more experience and material with Clinton that they don't have with Sanders.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, of course. I didn't feel like that needed to be said, because it's obvious. The point is that they have a lot more experience and material with Clinton that they don't have with Sanders.

Pretty sure you're underestimating how many skeletons are in Sanders' closet.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I saw a thread about this on Reddit. The next day there was another thread showing 16 positive Sanders stories in 16 hours from Wash PO.

Pix or it didn't happen.