Berning down the house!

[bruto]

For those interested in either Senator Sanders and/or the message and character of him and his campaign here is a link to the streamed rally so that you can judge for yourselves and compare to the rallies and information that his opponents hold, if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yg9MfgdbRg

Bernie, the Activist pretending to be a politician. Not me, Us!

I haven't bothered to listen to another youtube entry here, but without making any judgment on Bernie or his policies or whether or not he should be running for the presidency, I think it's kind of silly to say he's "pretending to be a politician." He's been nothing but a politician for well over thirty years. It's how he makes his living, like it or not.

 

[The_Animus]

Too bad that wasn't a winning political strategy in the last US election.

Most popular politician in the US, just not the democratic party and as a result we got Trump. Too bad we'll never know if the general election would have turned out differently.

But if you want to attack candidates because they show integrity and consistency that's certainly your choice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Most popular politician in the US, just not the democratic party and as a result we got Trump. Too bad we'll never know if the general election would have turned out differently.

But if you want to attack candidates because they show integrity and consistency that's certainly your choice.

Is that BS supposed to upset me?

Your straw man might be easy to debate but it's still nothing but straw.

As for 'we'll never know', we know Sanders failed to win the primary.

 

[Trakar]

I haven't bothered to listen to another youtube entry here, but without making any judgment on Bernie or his policies or whether or not he should be running for the presidency, I think it's kind of silly to say he's "pretending to be a politician." He's been nothing but a politician for well over thirty years. It's how he makes his living, like it or not.

It's a rhetorical comment made in one of the introductions to Senator Sanders personal history, his life of dedication to the people of America and their right to equal opportunities, justice and respect, This began in the early part of his life and has grown and became sharpened throughout his long and varied political career. Another way of saying that he is, and always has been an activist for workers their families and their communities, first and foremost, that's his style, and his political focus. Refreshingly and compellingly, difficulty and street level activism is where he started, politics later became the tool of his activism, not the other way around.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

As for 'we'll never know', we know Sanders failed to win the primary.

And Hillary failed to win the general. And here we are.

Honestly, the Democrats can't come after the Greens (or anybody else) and say that we're wrong for supporting a losing candidate based upon ideology when they do the same thing. They knew that Hillary was unpopular, and it would have been pragmatic and sensible to abandon her, but they wouldn't do it.

Probably my favorite story about the 2016 election was one of the DNC emails exposed by WikiLeaks.

In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.

It seems that Hillary was such a bad candidate, she couldn't even win when she got to pick her opponent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And Hillary failed to win the general. And here we are.

And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate. And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.

Honestly, the Democrats can't come after the Greens (or anybody else) and say that we're wrong for supporting a losing candidate based upon ideology when they do the same thing. They knew that Hillary was unpopular, and it would have been pragmatic and sensible to abandon her, but they wouldn't do it.

Probably my favorite story about the 2016 election was one of the DNC emails exposed by WikiLeaks.

It seems that Hillary was such a bad candidate, she couldn't even win when she got to pick her opponent.

Round and around the mulberry bush.

Clinton won by 3 million votes! There is no sense going over the reasons she lost except to say that claim she was a bad candidate is bull crap.

 

[Lambchops]

And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate. And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.

Round and around the mulberry bush.

Clinton won by 3 million votes! There is no sense going over the reasons she lost except to say that claim she was a bad candidate is bull crap.

Why are you so opposed to Sanders? Can you lay out what actual policies of his you disagree with?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate.

So the best candidate always wins the nomination?

And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.

I could've said the same thing about Hillary in 2016. She lost to Obama in 2008! Why doesn't she just let it go?

I have to wonder how popular Bernie's issues have to become before it's okay for him to run. Does he have to have 80% support? 90%? 95%? His issues are both popular and supported by a majority of the US. The idea that he shouldn't run is silly.

This is the kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" situation that progressive candidates get.

If Bernie runs as an independent or Green, they'll say, "You can't do that! You'll split the vote and help Trump win!"

If Bernie runs as a Democrat, they say, "You can't do that! You'll split the party and help Trump win!"

Centrists are only happy when the progressives sit down and shut up.

The other day, I heard somebody say, "The Democrats have forgiven George W. Bush, but they haven't forgiven Ralph Nader." When I talk to Democrats, this seems to be true. What does that say about the party?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why are you so opposed to Sanders? Can you lay out what actual policies of his you disagree with?

This is just going to lead to round and round the same old ****.

As popular as Sanders is, as big as his rallies and as good as his fundraising, he's not going to win a general election. Neither is Warren and the Green New Deal is going to be used against the Democrats.

You can't change society that fast in one big move to socialism.

We need a candidate that can sell a shift from corporate welfare to a safety net and that can sell why promoting college education benefits everyone, not someone promoting why the rich should pay for everyone's college education.

Sanders' message is wrong. His goals are fine but his message framing isn't. Sorry to break it to you.


And Axiom, seriously it's time to stop your Hillary hating, it's over, move along.

 

[Lambchops]

This is just going to lead to round and round the same old ****.

As popular as Sanders is, as big as his rallies and as good as his fundraising, he's not going to win a general election. Neither is Warren and the Green New Deal is going to be used against the Democrats.

You can't change society that fast in one big move to socialism.

We need a candidate that can sell a shift from corporate welfare to a safety net and that can sell why promoting college education benefits everyone, not someone promoting why the rich should pay for everyone's college education.

Sanders' message is wrong. His goals are fine but his message framing isn't. Sorry to break it to you.


And Axiom, seriously it's time to stop your Hillary hating, it's over, move along.

This really isn't an answer to my question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This really isn't an answer to my question.

Yes it is. It's just not the answer you want to hear.

 

[Lambchops]

Yes it is.

No, it is not.

If I wanted to know what platform you think is not viable for a potential democratic candidate in the next US presidential election, I would have asked you that.

I specifically asked you which policies of his you personally disagree with. You did not answer that.

 

[The_Animus]

Is that BS supposed to upset me?

No. It's pointing out that for some insane reason you're complaining that a politician is consistent in their policy and message from one election to the next.

As for 'we'll never know', we know Sanders failed to win the primary.

Yes, which is why we'll never know if he would have won the general election. That's literally what I said, thanks.

 

[The_Animus]

And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate. And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.

Round and around the mulberry bush.

Clinton won by 3 million votes! There is no sense going over the reasons she lost except to say that claim she was a bad candidate is bull crap.

There is a difference between the voting electorate in a democratic primary vs the voting electorate of the American population in general. This is why Sanders can be the most popular politician, why he can have better polling in a matchup against Trump, but still lose the democratic primary. Trump won because of a specific demographic of voters who faced economic hardship and job loss in key states. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with them or not, Clinton did not resonate with these voters so they stayed home or voted third party or Trump. Third party candidates received twice as many votes in 2016 as they did in 2012.

 

[Delvo]

2020 is the first Presidential election I've ever heard of where people pretended that someone who comes in #2 in a primary one time thus proves that he can't possibly ever win a later round when all of the contributing factors in the primaries will be different. It's usually been seen the opposite way: that placing relatively well in a primary once was a good sign for likelihood of success next time.

The "logic" is just dizzying, especially after a primary in which it had taken so much to stop the "loser" from overtaking the "winner". The corporatists' Republican-like desperation to keep progressives down is truly a sight to behold.

 

[wareyin]

There is a difference between the voting electorate in a democratic primary vs the voting electorate of the American population in general. This is why Sanders can be the most popular politician, why he can have better polling in a matchup against Trump, but still lose the democratic primary. Trump won because of a specific demographic of voters who faced economic hardship and job loss in key states. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with them or not, Clinton did not resonate with these voters so they stayed home or voted third party or Trump. Third party candidates received twice as many votes in 2016 as they did in 2012.

You appear to be claiming that Sanders would have been more popular in a general election than he was in the primaries? Walk me through that, please. I'm pretty sure he would not have won over any Republicans, and the independents tend claim to be independent while consistently voting R or D. So if he wasn't able to win among his own party, including the independents who lean D, and he certainly wasn't popular with Republicans or the independents who lean R, how could Sanders have fared better?

 

[wareyin]

It's almost as if he is a man of integrity with a consistent message. What voter could possibly like that in a politician?

Too bad that wasn't a winning political strategy in the last US election.

Well, to be fair Clinton was not a man...

 

[varwoche]

And Hillary failed to win the general. And here we are.

Honestly, the Democrats can't come after the Greens (or anybody else) and say that we're wrong for supporting a losing candidate based upon ideology when they do the same thing. They knew that Hillary was unpopular, and it would have been pragmatic and sensible to abandon her, but they wouldn't do it.

You say this as if there's a monolithic entity making these decisions. So far as I was concerned, we had two lousy candidates to choose from.

Probably my favorite story about the 2016 election was one of the DNC emails exposed by WikiLeaks.

It seems that Hillary was such a bad candidate, she couldn't even win when she got to pick her opponent.

20/20 hindsight. Just because it backfired doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

 

[Delvo]

You appear to be claiming that Sanders would have been more popular in a general election than he was in the primaries?

Or that his problem in the 2016 primaries wasn't a lack of popularity.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

And Axiom, seriously it's time to stop your Hillary hating, it's over, move along.

Interesting that you chose to focus on that and ignore the rest of my comments. I wonder why?

2020 is the first Presidential election I've ever heard of where people pretended that someone who comes in #2 in a primary one time thus proves that he can't possibly ever win a later round when all of the contributing factors in the primaries will be different. It's usually been seen the opposite way: that placing relatively well in a primary once was a good sign for likelihood of success next time.

The "logic" is just dizzying, especially after a primary in which it had taken so much to stop the "loser" from overtaking the "winner". The corporatists' Republican-like desperation to keep progressives down is truly a sight to behold.

Yes, the mask is really starting to slip and I'm LOVING it.