Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[wareyin]

Erm, no, that is a terrible candidate. When your primary purpose for voting for a candidate comes down to "I agree with Bernie, but don't want to risk a Trump presidency, so I'm voting for the establishment candidate instead, even though she is less likely to have my best interests at heart," that does not say good things about the candidate you're voting for. Lesser evil is still evil.

Why are you under the impression that the majority of Dem voters agree with Sanders?

And it completely ignores the fact that Sanders has been consistently polling stronger against Trump than Clinton has.

? The part you cut out directly addressed this. It's a little dishonest to cut it out then claim I ignored what I clearly addressed.

 

[luchog]

But they blast Clinton at the debates and in interviews every chance they get. She really is the GOP boogeyman(woman). Bernie is seen as a protest candidate with no real chance.

Clinton has been a GOP boogeyman longer than Sanders has been on the scene. The GOP doesn't attack Sanders, because they're already heavily invested in attacking Clinton; and because they badly underestimate Sanders, just like they badly underestimated Trump.

The GOP is mired in establishment politics, even more than the Dems are. They simply don't understand how to deal with a populist candidate; and that's why they're failing to deal with Sanders. They screwed up big time with Trump, and still cannot find a way to get him under control (Cruz particularly is ending up sinking to Trump's level, and not only failing to pick up Trump voters, but alienating his own), and are making the same mistake with Sanders. The only way the GOP are not going to end up with Trump is if he continues to sabotage himself, the GOP has no real weapons to use against him. And Trump's self-sabotage is the only reason Cruz is doing as well as he has been.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Lesser evil is still evil.

btw, with this "lesser of two evil" meme, why not choose the synergy of two evils?

 

[angrysoba]

Clinton has been a GOP boogeyman longer than Sanders has been on the scene. The GOP doesn't attack Sanders, because they're already heavily invested in attacking Clinton; and because they badly underestimate Sanders, just like they badly underestimated Trump.

The GOP is mired in establishment politics, even more than the Dems are. They simply don't understand how to deal with a populist candidate; and that's why they're failing to deal with Sanders. They screwed up big time with Trump, and still cannot find a way to get him under control (Cruz particularly is ending up sinking to Trump's level, and not only failing to pick up Trump voters, but alienating his own), and are making the same mistake with Sanders. The only way the GOP are not going to end up with Trump is if he continues to sabotage himself, the GOP has no real weapons to use against him. And Trump's self-sabotage is the only reason Cruz is doing as well as he has been.

Yeah, I also think that the argument that Sanders will lose when the GOP finally attacks him, is a dead herring. As I have said before, they tried the whole Muslim-Socialist-Atheistic-Commie-Anti-Christ thing with Obama, and it didn't work.

Now, Sanders undeniably refers to himself as a socialist, but I think - as Dog Town said before - the GOP has watered down its own booze with that one. Those put off by the label probably would never vote for him anyway and would not have voted for Obama, so it is probably irrelevant.

That said, what does remain important is that people are still voting for Clinton in larger numbers than they are for Sanders, and they likely will until the end of the primary season, so Sanders can't win the nomination on those grounds alone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I also think that the argument that Sanders will lose when the GOP finally attacks him, is a dead herring. As I have said before, they tried the whole Muslim-Socialist-Atheistic-Commie-Anti-Christ thing with Obama, and it didn't work....

Those are not attacks that were based on how Obama described himself and they were false charges.

The Sanders attacks will be true: he's a socialist and he wants to raise taxes in a way some people will view as wanting to create a welfare state.

 

[Belz...]

And if she were a good candidate, she'd be clobbering him, not six points ahead.

That makes little sense. Are you saying that Sanders is an even more terrible candidate?

I guess it says the Dems don't care about honesty and trustworthiness, because Bernie wins those people by 50+ points.

You seem unduly focused on a small subset of the electorate. Isn't the whole population more important than a subset of it when it comes to voting?

Democrats look likely to nominate a person even they think isn't honest and trustworthy.

I think you just defeated your own argument, now.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, I also think that the argument that Sanders will lose when the GOP finally attacks him, is a dead herring. As I have said before, they tried the whole Muslim-Socialist-Atheistic-Commie-Anti-Christ thing with Obama, and it didn't work.

Now, Sanders undeniably refers to himself as a socialist, but I think - as Dog Town said before - the GOP has watered down its own booze with that one. Those put off by the label probably would never vote for him anyway and would not have voted for Obama, so it is probably irrelevant.

That said, what does remain important is that people are still voting for Clinton in larger numbers than they are for Sanders, and they likely will until the end of the primary season, so Sanders can't win the nomination on those grounds alone.

Why would you think they would be limited to that line of attack? They were able to swiftboat Kerry. The point is that Sanders is the only candidate running that has experienced no attack ads, and they are bound to push his ratings lower.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That makes little sense. Are you saying that Sanders is an even more terrible candidate?
....

Touché.

 

[Manopolus]

To make sure I'm understanding you, you are claiming that Clinton is a terrible candidate because people are voting for her because they expect that she will do better than Sanders in the national? If so, that's pretty much the opposite of a terrible candidate. Further, Sanders may look better 6 months out when there have been no negative ads run about him, but clearly that would not be the case down the line.

Sorry, but claiming that "she will do better than Sanders in the national" does not make it a true statement. Every bit of evidence available suggests that it is false, despite the constant unbased rhetoric we hear saying otherwise. All we get for support material with this claim is that conservatives hate socialism (well, duh). I'm actually pretty sure that they hate Hillary much worse than they do socialism though.

My argument isn't that "voting for the most viable" is a bad thing. My argument is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever which supports the idea that she is the more viable candidate. Even Republicans view Sanders more favorably than Clinton.

How the hell do you explain that Sanders beats Clinton by huge margins among independent voters if she's somehow (magically?) going to do better among independents in the general? All the polls are saying that Sanders will do better, as well -- not that I'm suddenly listening to polls, but they're about all we've got in terms of real data.

 

[angrysoba]

Those are not attacks that were based on how Obama described himself and they were false charges.

The Sanders attacks will be true: he's a socialist and he wants to raise taxes in a way some people will view as wanting to create a welfare state.

Why would you think they would be limited to that line of attack? They were able to swiftboat Kerry. The point is that Sanders is the only candidate running that has experienced no attack ads, and they are bound to push his ratings lower.

Admittedly the taxes thing could be a problem. But I think Kerry was more vulnerable to the GOP in the same way that their establishment candidates were vulnerable to Trump. They were dull, stand-for-nothing candidates. John Kerry offered nothing, he was unexciting, ponderous, dull and boring. Sanders, while he is risky in a similar way to how Trump is, does offer alternatives to the mainstream, so we may see a similar response by voters to the types of attacks that are supposed to hurt mainstream candidates. Attacks on Trump didn't make his ratings go down; they made his ratings go up! When Sanders gets attacked for his plans for a welfare state, we may indeed see people realize that that's actually what they want.

That's why it is a red herring to assume the effects of attacks on Sanders.

That said, while I would like Sanders to win, it is extremely likely that Clinton will win.

 

[angrysoba]

Sorry, but claiming that "she will do better than Sanders in the national" does not make it a true statement. Every bit of evidence available suggests that it is false, despite the constant unbased rhetoric we hear saying otherwise. All we get for support material with this claim is that conservatives hate socialism (well, duh). I'm actually pretty sure that they hate Hillary much worse than they do socialism though.

My argument isn't that "voting for the most viable" is a bad thing. My argument is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever which supports the idea that she is the more viable candidate. Even Republicans view Sanders more favorably than Clinton.

How the hell do you explain that Sanders beats Clinton by huge margins among independent voters if she's somehow (magically?) going to do better among independents in the general? All the polls are saying that Sanders will do better, as well -- not that I'm suddenly listening to polls, but they're about all we've got in terms of real data.

Not that you're listening to the polls, but you are surprisingly attentive to them when they make your case given that you have spent a lot of energy arguing that they are useless.

 

[Dog Town]

Man, Stephen Colbert feels the Bern! Had him on AGAIN last night.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sorry, but claiming that "she will do better than Sanders in the national" does not make it a true statement. Every bit of evidence available suggests that it is false, despite the constant unbased rhetoric we hear saying otherwise. All we get for support material with this claim is that conservatives hate socialism (well, duh). I'm actually pretty sure that they hate Hillary much worse than they do socialism though.

My argument isn't that "voting for the most viable" is a bad thing. My argument is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever which supports the idea that she is the more viable candidate. Even Republicans view Sanders more favorably than Clinton.

How the hell do you explain that Sanders beats Clinton by huge margins among independent voters if she's somehow (magically?) going to do better among independents in the general? All the polls are saying that Sanders will do better, as well -- not that I'm suddenly listening to polls, but they're about all we've got in terms of real data.

And yet when rubber meets the road, Sanders is losing to Clinton. To borrow some terms from MMA, styles make fights, but what matters s who did you beat, and how did you beat them.

 

[Manopolus]

Not that you're listening to the polls, but you are surprisingly attentive to them when they make your case given that you have spent a lot of energy arguing that they are useless.

They are effectively useless with regards to attempting prescience. My estimation of that hasn't changed.

 

[Manopolus]

And yet when rubber meets the road, Sanders is losing to Clinton. To borrow some terms from MMA, styles make fights, but what matters s who did you beat, and how did you beat them.

The "fight" is still in progress. Neither submission nor KO has been achieved, although some people have suggested that one of the fighters should quit because.... umm.... I don't know why.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The "fight" is still in progress.

I hope he wins.

 

[wareyin]

Sorry, but claiming that "she will do better than Sanders in the national" does not make it a true statement. Every bit of evidence available suggests that it is false, despite the constant unbased rhetoric we hear saying otherwise. All we get for support material with this claim is that conservatives hate socialism (well, duh). I'm actually pretty sure that they hate Hillary much worse than they do socialism though.

My argument isn't that "voting for the most viable" is a bad thing. My argument is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever which supports the idea that she is the more viable candidate. Even Republicans view Sanders more favorably than Clinton.

How the hell do you explain that Sanders beats Clinton by huge margins among independent voters if she's somehow (magically?) going to do better among independents in the general? All the polls are saying that Sanders will do better, as well -- not that I'm suddenly listening to polls, but they're about all we've got in terms of real data.

You misunderstand. You claimed that people are voting for her because they think she will do better than Sanders in the national. If the majority think she will get more votes, this becomes a self-fulfilling way of thinking.

 

[Trakar]

btw, with this "lesser of two evil" meme, why not choose the synergy of two evils?

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/Le6Imsl.png?1[/qimg]

There goes another keyboard,...it's okay, I buy in bulk!

 

[Trakar]

...That said, what does remain important is that people are still voting for Clinton in larger numbers than they are for Sanders, and they likely will until the end of the primary season, so Sanders can't win the nomination on those grounds alone.

"Electability" is a self-reinforcing meme that is difficult to fight when you start out with 100+ super delegates endorsing your opponent before the first state chose a single delegate. Not that I blame anything untoward about that situation, she earned the right to make use of that support to sway democratic voters. Difficult, but not impossible,...at the least, not yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"people are voting for her because they think she will do better than Sanders in the national [as POTUS]"

Fixed that for everyone.