There was a great meeting today at the Zodiac bar and grill in downtown to kick off the presidential campaign for Bernie Sanders here in Jax! There were well over 100 very excited people that want to start building the grassroots movement. If you are interested in getting involved or just want to keep up with info and events follow the Facebook page here. https://www.facebook.com/jaxforbernie?fref=ts (https://www.facebook.com/jaxforbernie?fref=ts)
UNF students follow here: https://www.facebook.com/ospreysforbernie?fref=ts (https://www.facebook.com/ospreysforbernie?fref=ts)
(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11219713_1009379775740364_5470383759069888142_n.jpg?oh=58db0829099b79f8b51f8ae789e53a73&oe=5613C050)
The next event will be on the 29th back at Zodiac to catch a live stream of Bernie who will be sending a message out to all of his local campaigns across the country in a call to action and kick off party. Hope to see some new faces out there! #JaxisBerning
PS: For those just interested in learning more about Bernie Sanders check out his site. https://berniesanders.com (https://berniesanders.com)
Here and there. I'll probably be more involved with the UNF club getting college kids to the polls, at least to begin with. Either way, I'll definitely be at rallies and such.
Looks like Bernie has a lot in common with mountain time zone Democrats when it comes to gun control.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html)
^sounds like he's pro-gun. If that's the case, his support of PLCAA is not surprising.
From Wikipedia:
He voted against a 2005 law to allow gun violence victims the right to sue gun manufacturers. Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union", Sanders said, "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer." Sanders has said, "we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country -- 99.9% of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders)
Aside from that - anyone who considers Sanders a "far-left socialist" hasn't the slightest clue what a "far-left socialist" looks like or stands for. Sanders is a social democrat.
If you want to waste your Vote please do vote for the people that don't have a chance in Hell in winning. Look I don't care for Hilliary but she will get my vote. In November 2016 "stephendare I forgot to add my date earlier I was busy" I don't see any Republican's at this time getting my vote. But then again this could change? But it won't be Mr Bridge Gate, Mr Bad Hair, and the other Assclown's that have stepped up to the plate.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2015, 08:44:10 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 19, 2015, 05:49:15 PM
If you want to waste your Vote please do vote for the people that don't have a chance in Hell in winning. Look I don't care for Hilliary but she will get my vote. I don't see any republican's at this time getting my vote. But then again this could change? But it won't be Mr Bridge Gate, Mr Bad Hair, and the other Assclown's that have stepped up to the plate.
um. not sure if you realize this, but that is exactly what the primary season is designed for.
vote for whoever you like.
If you want to waste your Vote please do vote for the people that don't have a chance in Hell in winning. Look I don't care for Hilliary but she will get my vote. In November 2016 "stephendare I forgot to add my date earlier I was busy" I don't see any Republican's at this time getting my vote. But then again this could change? But it won't be Mr Bridge Gate, Mr Bad Hair, and the other Assclown's that have stepped up to the plate. Here you go Stephendare i added this just for you. ::)
I hate the "throwing your vote away" argument. Like there's a prize for saying "hey, the guy I voted for won, look at me!"
Vote for whomever you like, as Stephen said.
I don't agree with much of what Bernie stands for, and I don't think he has a great shot. I think of him as the dems Ron Paul. Lots of hype, but no where near the money of his competition.
Quote from: coredumped on July 20, 2015, 01:30:34 AM
I hate the "throwing your vote away" argument. Like there's a prize for saying "hey, the guy I voted for won, look at me!"
Vote for whomever you like, as Stephen said.
I don't agree with much of what Bernie stands for, and I don't think he has a great shot. I think of him as the dems Ron Paul. Lots of hype, but no where near the money of his competition.
I think Sanders is this year's Howard Dean. He's the option for the centre-left and will likely fall early in the primary season. Of course, I could be wrong.
There has never been such a thing as "a wasted vote" in the history of the United States.
The "waste" if it exists, is not voting at all.
Quote from: spuwho on July 20, 2015, 08:23:48 AM
There has never been such a thing as "a wasted vote" in the history of the United States.
The "waste" if it exists, is not voting at all.
This is very true I have voted and have NEVER missed a vote since 1980 when I turned 18 years old. I have voted in every election for City, State and Federal elections. :)
Quote from: spuwho on July 20, 2015, 08:23:48 AM
There has never been such a thing as "a wasted vote" in the history of the United States.
The "waste" if it exists, is not voting at all.
I completely disagree. Choosing between Bush and Gore, Bush and Kerry, McCain and Obama, Obama and Romney, etc is a waste of a vote - or at the very least a waste of time. You can go out and vote for one of the so-called "third party" candidates, but it won't make any difference. And most of them are idiots anyway.
Quote from: Adam White on July 20, 2015, 10:48:12 AM
Quote from: spuwho on July 20, 2015, 08:23:48 AM
There has never been such a thing as "a wasted vote" in the history of the United States.
The "waste" if it exists, is not voting at all.
I completely disagree. Choosing between Bush and Gore, Bush and Kerry, McCain and Obama, Obama and Romney, etc is a waste of a vote - or at the very least a waste of time. You can go out and vote for one of the so-called "third party" candidates, but it won't make any difference. And most of them are idiots anyway.
It's silly to think that Gore would have governed the same way as Bush, or that McCain or Romney would have governed the same way as Obama. And while it's somewhat controversial, it seems clear on the face of it that third-party candidates have swung a number of elections (usually to the detriment of the candidate closest to them). Without Nader in the 2000 race, it seems likely Gore would have won (he did win the popular vote). Same thing with Perot in 1992 - without him there, would Clinton have gotten over GHW Bush?
And of course in local and state elections it matters even more. Lenny Curry just won the Jax mayoral election by only 5k votes. Four years ago, Alvin Brown won by less than *2k* votes. In last year's governor's race, the main 3rd-party candidate received more than twice as many votes as Rick Scott won by.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 20, 2015, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 20, 2015, 10:48:12 AM
Quote from: spuwho on July 20, 2015, 08:23:48 AM
There has never been such a thing as "a wasted vote" in the history of the United States.
The "waste" if it exists, is not voting at all.
I completely disagree. Choosing between Bush and Gore, Bush and Kerry, McCain and Obama, Obama and Romney, etc is a waste of a vote - or at the very least a waste of time. You can go out and vote for one of the so-called "third party" candidates, but it won't make any difference. And most of them are idiots anyway.
It's silly to think that Gore would have governed the same way as Bush, or that McCain or Romney would have governed the same way as Obama. And while it's somewhat controversial, it seems clear on the face of it that third-party candidates have swung a number of elections (usually to the detriment of the candidate closest to them). Without Nader in the 2000 race, it seems likely Gore would have won (he did win the popular vote). Same thing with Perot in 1992 - without him there, would Clinton have gotten over GHW Bush?
And of course in local and state elections it matters even more. Lenny Curry just won the Jax mayoral election by only 5k votes. Four years ago, Alvin Brown won by less than *2k* votes. In last year's governor's race, the main 3rd-party candidate received more than twice as many votes as Rick Scott won by.
Sorry - on re-reading my post, I think I should've perhaps been a bit clearer. I agree that Obama hasn't governed the same way that McCain or Romney likely would've - and I think he's done quite a bit in certain areas, to say the least.
But I
do think that if one were, say, a socialist, he might not see much difference between the two (or three). They're all candidates representing capitalist parties and follow the same general neoliberal policies. The two main parties tend to define themselves on wedge issues while remaining functionally similar on overall philosophy. It's more an issue of degree.
In such cases, it's basically an issue of choosing between a terrible candidate and a slightly less terrible candidate. And that's not really a worthwhile choice. Similarly, if you were a civil libertarian or stridently anti-war, you'd get no real choice.
Yes, you can vote for a third party. But as a former member of the Socialist Party USA, I can attest to the fact that a vote for the SPUSA won't make a difference one way or another. And that's assuming you actually like the candidate they put forward - which isn't always the case.
I'm not arguing that voting never makes a difference - but I am arguing with the sentiment that there has never been a wasted vote. And I speak from personal experience - I feel I've wasted a few.
For me the biggest concern is the Supreme Court. Gore might have been viewed as centrist, but you can damn well bet the current makeup of the court would be far different if he had won. Imagine what the country might look without the right-wing reactionaries such as Roberts and Alito legislating from the bench. How much different would things be if the 5-4 split fell the other way?
It's why I'll most likely support Hillary over Sanders. While I agree with many of Bernie's positions, I truly do not believe he is electable on the national level. I want him to stay in the race to pull Hillary further to the left, but I cannot support a candidate as weak as Sanders. Once the general election rolls around, Citizens United has guaranteed that it will be a blood bath. And even with the current crop of underwhelming Republican presidential hopefuls, the election will be far closer than it should. Another Republican in the White House with Republicans holding congress would be disaster. Terrible foreign and domestic policy is one thing, but above all I worry about a vacancy appearing on the court. I truly believe a conservative, corporatist majority on the Supreme Court that actively pushes back on our hard won progress will set America back for at least another generation.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2015, 11:09:30 PM
hmm. maybe you should crack open a civics book, and lay off the daytime television.
Stephendare your not a person I look up to. And I don't need civic lessons from you. But Thanks ::)
Quote from: spuwho on July 20, 2015, 08:23:48 AM
There has never been such a thing as "a wasted vote" in the history of the United States.
The "waste" if it exists, is not voting at all.
Since when did our vote count in a presidential election anyhow?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 20, 2015, 06:35:06 PM
Quote from: spuwho on July 20, 2015, 08:23:48 AM
There has never been such a thing as "a wasted vote" in the history of the United States.
The "waste" if it exists, is not voting at all.
Since when did our vote count in a presidential election anyhow?
Obama won in 2008 and 2012?
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2015, 06:36:36 PM
hello......democratic process. primaries, popular vote, electoral college.
Any idea why its set up that way?
Pretty sure it's set up that way so that the one's in charge can stay there.
I'm not going to argue politics or democratic process with anyone because it's pointless. The system was set up in an era when it was unfeasible for the general public to have enough information in a timely manner to be able to make an informed choice. That's completely not the case today and makes the electoral college a complete non-sensical entity, yet still remains the decision making body of who becomes the next president.
The popular vote is nothing more than a wasteful exercise since the vote of the EC doesn't even have to consider what the 'majority' wants. You have to go back to 1968 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html) to find a 3rd party candidate who even registered a vote from the EC. You guys debate on, I'll follow along, but unless you're proposing a change to the system itself, you're wasting time with the discussion.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 20, 2015, 07:00:25 PM
The system was set up in an era when it was unfeasible for the general public to have enough information in a timely manner to be able to make an informed choice. That's completely not the case today ...
That's a debatable point.
Since the revolution, states with small populations have feared (rightly so IMO) being an afterthought on the national stage. Is the U.S. one nation or a federation of 50 states? The trend has been away from B and towards A. Government power has been slowly flowing towards Washington and away from state governments and the people.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on July 21, 2015, 09:53:46 AM
Government power has been slowly flowing towards Washington and away from state governments and the people.
I think you're making a logical leap there. Power has been moving from the States to the Federal government, yes. But to equate the States and "the people" is inaccurate.
Edit: it's also worth pointing out that as power has moved to Washington, it has oftentimes resulted in more power/rights for the "people" as discriminatory State laws have been overturned.
^I agree. Almost no one even bothers to turn out in state elections it seems. National elections however get much "larger turn out" at around 60%.
Quote from: Adam White on July 21, 2015, 09:57:19 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on July 21, 2015, 09:53:46 AM
Government power has been slowly flowing towards Washington and away from state governments and the people.
I think you're making a logical leap there. Power has been moving from the States to the Federal government, yes. But to equate the States and "the people" is inaccurate.
Edit: it's also worth pointing out that as power has moved to Washington, it has oftentimes resulted in more power/rights for the "people" as discriminatory State laws have been overturned.
This has definitely been true in many cases, particularly in the South where state power has frequently been used to deny rights of large segments of the population. Or at least, federal power has allowed us to channel a national consensus regarding civil rights over the power of localized majorities.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 21, 2015, 10:50:54 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 21, 2015, 09:57:19 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on July 21, 2015, 09:53:46 AM
Government power has been slowly flowing towards Washington and away from state governments and the people.
I think you're making a logical leap there. Power has been moving from the States to the Federal government, yes. But to equate the States and "the people" is inaccurate.
Edit: it's also worth pointing out that as power has moved to Washington, it has oftentimes resulted in more power/rights for the "people" as discriminatory State laws have been overturned.
This has definitely been true in many cases, particularly in the South where state power has frequently been used to deny rights of large segments of the population. Or at least, federal power has allowed us to channel a national consensus regarding civil rights over the power of localized majorities.
I often find the arguments in favor of States' rights to be more about denying rights to people than extending them. I think it's fair to say that the Federal government has done a lot to protect rights and enfranchise people. And that States aren't necessarily more benevolent.
Bernie Sanders Continues to Draw the Biggest Crowds of Any 2016 Candidate
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is still drawing some of largest crowds on the campaign trail, as evidenced by the 11,000 people who turned up to hear the Vermont senator and self-described independent socialist speak at the Phoenix Convention Center on Saturday, according to reports. He had appeared there earlier that day as part of the progressive Netroots Nation convention. The turnout broke Sanders's previous record, some 10,000 at an rally in Madison earlier this month, which was heralded as the largest crowd any 2016 candidate had attracted yet.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke at the very same venue on Saturday, and drew roughly half as many attendees as Sanders did.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-19/bernie-sanders-continues-to-draw-the-biggest-crowds-of-any-2016-candidate
We're talking about party primaries. Why is anyone even discussing Electoral College?
Thanks for the discussion. Apparently 98 people showing up 8 months before the primaries isn't news to the institutional media.
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2015, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 20, 2015, 05:23:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2015, 11:09:30 PM
hmm. maybe you should crack open a civics book, and lay off the daytime television.
Stephendare your not a person I look up to. And I don't need civic lessons from you. But Thanks ::)
It doesn't matter who you look up. You can still be looked down on.
The recommendation still stands. Try reading a civics book before you pontificate on 'wasted' votes during a primary process. You might sound less....welll....less.
I got a chuckle in.
I am voting for Bernie. Hillary will secure a vote from me only if she wins the Democratic primary. :P I'm pretty sure that come debate season, she will only sound more and more like a typical politician and less and less like a real person. Follow the money. On the issues that matter to me, Bernie, in his old, wisened, and experienced age, has pretty much unwavered. Hillary, meanwhile, has dropped on her knees it seems like so many times to "win" so many popular votes as of late. I can't vote for for a seasoned Democrat politician who came out in favor of gay marriage years after I did in my young age raised in the closet in a Republican Christian household in Jacksonville. I need someone who's been there all along and has had no real excuses not to be in favor of it for at least a couple decades. And is Hillary really for it, or does she frankly not care two shits but it makes her popular with an en vogue demographic/topic du jour? I'm not buying what she's selling. I actually know of the guy who create the I Bottom for Hillary meme/tanks/t-shirts. She really secured that vote and it definitely helps her that she is a woman, but damn, she's fake as hell!
Nevermind her atrocious stance on TPP and free trade in general (along with Obama and the Republicans). And those who think her "experience" and White House connections will allow her to handle the Presidency with more ease and bridge any aisles with Republicans better than Bernie - you have another thing coming. She ain't no Bill, that's for sure. I think she's quite weak under pressure and is quite disagreeable (her sort of ball busting attitude is probably what has helped get her where she is, but make no mistake, I don't think she's "respected" as much as she would like to think she is).
I'm really hoping people get turnt up for Bernie...he's at least the real deal and you know exactly what you're going to get. And I happen to like his politics more, so 2-for-1 for me. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will run and steal the "I want to vote for the 1st woman president" sentiment away from Hillary! :)
^^^Oh my goodness, we're in perfect agreement.
Will wonders never cease? ;)
Bernie is polling at 2% with blacks, he has no chance.
Quote from: fsquid on July 21, 2015, 03:45:58 PM
Bernie is polling at 2% with blacks, he has no chance.
Good! Good!
Thank God!
As for Hilary, if you've been happy with our warmongering president Obama, you'll love her!
Quote from: coredumped on July 21, 2015, 09:30:50 PM
Thank God!
As for Hilary, if you've been happy with our warmongering president Obama, you'll love her!
I would Take Hilliary over any REPUBLICAN that is running for the White House at this time. 8)
Quote from: coredumped on July 21, 2015, 09:30:50 PM
Thank God!
As for Hilary, if you've been happy with our warmongering president Obama, you'll love her!
I'm not going to defend Obama's record - but I think it's a
bit harsh to call him a warmonger when he's just continued what the other guy(s) started.
I'd imagine Clinton wouldn't be much different - and I suspect any of the Republicans would be the same, too.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 12:45:50 AM
Quote from: coredumped on July 21, 2015, 09:30:50 PM
Thank God!
As for Hilary, if you've been happy with our warmongering president Obama, you'll love her!
I would Take Hilliary over any REPUBLICAN that is running for the White House at this time. 8)
What I don't understand is why you would take Hillary over Bernie. As literally everyone has said, the Primaries are purely about voting for who you want to...even if for a guy/gal who might get only 0.0001% of a single party's Primary voter turnout. I'm guessing you genuinely prefer Hillary over Bernie and that you are voting for her in the Primary based on this, not because you think that Bernie won't win the nomination. If it's the latter and you are voting for Hillary simply because you don't think Bernie has a shot, then you are part of the issue that there are so many people with this mentality that vote for the person they think will win rather than the person they actually want to win (which would be ode to the cluelessness about process that several forum members have cautiously brought up to you). Food for thought that if you like Bernie, your vote can make a difference, moreover, your vocal support for the man can make an even larger difference since so many people vote for who their more vocal (and apparently informed) friends are voting for...
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 01:35:04 AM
Quote from: coredumped on July 21, 2015, 09:30:50 PM
Thank God!
As for Hilary, if you've been happy with our warmongering president Obama, you'll love her!
I'm not going to defend Obama's record - but I think it's a bit harsh to call him a warmonger when he's just continued what the other guy(s) started.
I'd imagine Clinton wouldn't be much different - and I suspect any of the Republicans would be the same, too.
Hilary, Obama, and Bush are on some levels all cut from the same mold. They are all purely politicians, not ideologues across most of the spectrum. Their means is a tad different, but their end is all basically the same.
This is where I believe Bernie to be different. His end is very different and his means is also very different, reflecting what he truly believes down to his core. He is an ideologue, and I respect that about him. He's a politician second. I think he will utterly destroy Hilary in debates because people will see that he is both informed and genuine, rather than rehearsed and fake.
Quote from: simms3 on July 22, 2015, 01:39:13 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 01:35:04 AM
Quote from: coredumped on July 21, 2015, 09:30:50 PM
Thank God!
As for Hilary, if you've been happy with our warmongering president Obama, you'll love her!
I'm not going to defend Obama's record - but I think it's a bit harsh to call him a warmonger when he's just continued what the other guy(s) started.
I'd imagine Clinton wouldn't be much different - and I suspect any of the Republicans would be the same, too.
Hilary, Obama, and Bush are on some levels all cut from the same mold. They are all purely politicians, not ideologues across most of the spectrum. Their means is a tad different, but their end is all basically the same.
This is where I believe Bernie to be different. His end is very different and his means is also very different, reflecting what he truly believes down to his core. He is an ideologue, and I respect that about him. He's a politician second. I think he will utterly destroy Hilary in debates because people will see that he is both informed and genuine, rather than rehearsed and fake.
I agree that Bernie is different - he's certainly more principled. But he is still a politician, so I wonder how different he would be if he got the job. Plus, I suspect that it's easy to have a lot principles before you get the job. Once you do, it's likely a whole different story.
I hope Sanders destroys Hillary in the debates. But if he continues to do well, he will be pilloried in the press and by the combined power of Hillary's campaign and the Democratic Party. It will be like the 1950s red scare all over again.
Bernie Sanders is quite intelligent and perceptive ... seeing what most GOP goofballs, and even Hillary, cannot. Hillary is faking her way so as to appear genuinely concerned about the average worker, the majority, and about important issues. But being too long associated with the elitist establishment, and involved in the process of gaining and holding wealth ... and being too much the classic politician ... even if she massages her thinking to appear genuinely concerned about making the important changes in government and society, she will be overwhelmed by the established powers, as was Obama, and therefore will be the same mediocrity as was Obama.
Our nation's predicament ... the suffering of the average worker and the great middle class, is understood by Sanders. He knows that something must be done to change the worsening political culture in Washington ... to rid our government of the entrenched politicians too concerned about enhancing their own power and wealth, and who do very little to achieve genuine legislation favoring the great majority.
Sanders is leading the genuine arguments against the destructive and abusive status quo. All other candidates will attempt to copy so as to gain votes, but once elected, will laps into meandering ineptitude.
Maybe Sanders and Warren? What a pair.
Given his political philosophy, and the threat he poses to the real power in this country, there is a slight chance that Sanders will be assassinated.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 22, 2015, 05:11:40 AM
Bernie Sanders is quite intelligent and perceptive ... seeing what most GOP goofballs, and even Hillary, cannot. Hillary is faking her way so as to appear genuinely concerned about the average worker, the majority, and about important issues. But being too long associated with the elitist establishment, and involved in the process of gaining and holding wealth ... and being too much the classic politician ... even if she massages her thinking to appear genuinely concerned about making the important changes in government and society, she will be overwhelmed by the established powers, as was Obama, and therefore will be the same mediocrity as was Obama.
Our nation's predicament ... the suffering of the average worker and the great middle class, is understood by Sanders. He knows that something must be done to change the worsening political culture in Washington ... to rid our government of the entrenched politicians too concerned about enhancing their own power and wealth, and who do very little to achieve genuine legislation favoring the great majority.
Sanders is leading the genuine arguments against the destructive and abusive status quo. All other candidates will attempt to copy so as to gain votes, but once elected, will laps into meandering ineptitude.
Maybe Sanders and Warren? What a pair.
Given his political philosophy, and the threat he poses to the real power in this country, there is a slight chance that Sanders will be assassinated.
So you don't like Hilliary? Do you remember John McCain & Sarah Palin ha ha ha ha. The people that thought Sarah was a smart and intelligent woman have got to be a little off? "I can see Russia from my Kitchen Window." Yes I know she didn't say this quote. But here is what she has said over the years? 1. "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
― Sarah Palin 2. "God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."
― Sarah Palin 3. "Well, let's see. There's—of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others. But, um."
― Sarah Palin 4. "You were born to live live to die so fuck the world and get high" So go ahead and beat your chest and believe that Bernie Sanders would be a good President. But the question I have for you do you even vote? Because a lot of people that feel they have a higher IQ don't vote. I have heard.
If you were to listen to some of Sander's speeches and interviews, you would discover that he is far and away different from a Sarah Palin type; that is, the typical self-centered politician out to play the game of politics.
There a great difference between the philosophies, motives, intelligence, and concerns of these two individuals.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 22, 2015, 05:11:40 AM
Bernie Sanders is quite intelligent and perceptive ... seeing what most GOP goofballs, and even Hillary, cannot. Hillary is faking her way so as to appear genuinely concerned about the average worker, the majority, and about important issues. But being too long associated with the elitist establishment, and involved in the process of gaining and holding wealth ... and being too much the classic politician ... even if she massages her thinking to appear genuinely concerned about making the important changes in government and society, she will be overwhelmed by the established powers, as was Obama, and therefore will be the same mediocrity as was Obama.
Our nation's predicament ... the suffering of the average worker and the great middle class, is understood by Sanders. He knows that something must be done to change the worsening political culture in Washington ... to rid our government of the entrenched politicians too concerned about enhancing their own power and wealth, and who do very little to achieve genuine legislation favoring the great majority.
Sanders is leading the genuine arguments against the destructive and abusive status quo. All other candidates will attempt to copy so as to gain votes, but once elected, will laps into meandering ineptitude.
Maybe Sanders and Warren? What a pair.
Given his political philosophy, and the threat he poses to the real power in this country, there is a slight chance that Sanders will be assassinated.
So you don't like Hilliary? Do you remember John McCain & Sarah Palin ha ha ha ha. The people that thought Sarah was a smart and intelligent woman have got to be a little off? "I can see Russia from my Kitchen Window." Yes I know she didn't say this quote. But here is what she has said over the years? 1. "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
― Sarah Palin 2. "God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."
― Sarah Palin 3. "Well, let's see. There's—of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others. But, um."
― Sarah Palin 4. "You were born to live live to die so fuck the world and get high" So go ahead and beat your chest and believe that Bernie Sanders would be a good President. But the question I have for you do you even vote? Because a lot of people that feel they have a higher IQ don't vote. I have heard.
I think Sanders is a smart guy and I think he is principled. He is also the only major-party candidate that offers anything remotely different.
I am not sure I agree with Ron's statement that Clinton is faking an interest in the average worker. But I do think she's even more a part of the establishment than Sanders and I think she's lost a lot of her perspective and ideals over the years.
I'd love it if Sanders won the Democratic nomination. But he won't.
Trump is literally the only "Republican" that Sanders could beat.
Maybe ..... but times are achangin ... me thinks.
Politicians will always be the same besides "per Wiki" Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. A self-described democratic socialist,[5][6][7][8] he favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those of Scandinavia.[9" He has a snow ball chance in Hell to bet Hilliary and lets say he did? God Forbid. The Republicans would win the White House and if a Republican gets into the White House with a Republican controlled House & Senate. Well I'm gone you can have America "Sydney Australia sounds like it would be a great place to live." Because with these Idiots running the show. Atheists like the bookmine dude and a lot on this Forum you're Screwed. I believe in God but I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will. And when you Die because, Thank God we all do one day. We all will be judged by him or we will all just rot in the ground. p.s. Yes I believe in a God but I don't go to Church unless it's for a wedding or a Funeral. I also was baptized in the Methodist Church. But I even have doubt what happens after I die. :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 10:15:49 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 09:21:49 AM
Trump is literally the only "Republican" that Sanders could beat.
I would have agreed with you two elections ago. Unfortunately the Republican brand is so damaged, and the country has changed so much due to so many of the GI generation dying off (which they continue to do daily) I doubt very much that would be true by election time.
So Stephen in your great wisdom ::) would you vote for Trump?
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 10:28:20 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 10:26:04 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 10:15:49 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 09:21:49 AM
Trump is literally the only "Republican" that Sanders could beat.
I would have agreed with you two elections ago. Unfortunately the Republican brand is so damaged, and the country has changed so much due to so many of the GI generation dying off (which they continue to do daily) I doubt very much that would be true by election time.
So Stephen in your great wisdom ::) would you vote for Trump?
Why ask me questions about my opinion, gg?
Because you believe you know all. And you have posted over
40940 (13.780 per day) So your smart or just full of ?
Sanders is emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. He appeals to white progressives, and the small percentage of people who openly identify as socialists, but he just doesn't speak to other Democrats, let alone anyone else. He won't get 20% of the primary vote.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 10:54:52 AM
Sanders is emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. He appeals to white progressives, and the small percentage of people who openly identify as socialists, but he just doesn't speak to other Democrats, let alone anyone else. He won't get 20% of the primary vote.
Very True and well spoken Tacachale. 8)
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 10:11:33 AM
Politicians will always be the same besides "per Wiki" Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. A self-described democratic socialist,[5][6][7][8] he favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those of Scandinavia.[9" He has a snow ball chance in Hell to bet Hilliary and lets say he did? God Forbid. The Republicans would win the White House and if a Republican gets into the White House with a Republican controlled House & Senate. Well I'm gone you can have America "Sydney Australia sounds like it would be a great place to live." Because with these Idiots running the show. Atheists like the bookmine dude and a lot on this Forum you're Screwed. I believe in God but I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will. And when you Die because, Thank God we all do one day. We all will be judged by him or we will all just rot in the ground. p.s. Yes I believe in a God but I don't go to Church unless it's for a wedding or a Funeral. I also was baptized in the Methodist Church. But I even have doubt what happens after I die. :)
Why do you think Sanders or anyone else will tell you what church to go to (or am I missing something)?
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 10:54:52 AM
Sanders is emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. He appeals to white progressives, and the small percentage of people who openly identify as socialists, but he just doesn't speak to other Democrats, let alone anyone else. He won't get 20% of the primary vote.
What do you base that on, taca?
I personally think that the electorate constellation resembles the one that elected Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal campaigns. I think Sanders is going to be a surprise to many.
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/roosevelt-campaigns-and-elections
The Democratic party has always been a party of factions and coalitions - I think it's just been a while since a progressive candidate has come to the fore.
Sanders may self-describe as a "democratic socialist" but his positions clearly show him to be a social democrat. It's funny that a candidate who falls just to the left of center could be seen as so radical - but I suppose that's a reflection of the times.
I noticed that a traditionally very conservative mother of a friend of mine has said Sanders is her favorite candidate so far - though Trump is her second choice. It's only one example, but I would love to see if Sanders's message resonates more with average Americans than one would normally expect it to.
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 11:01:29 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 10:11:33 AM
Politicians will always be the same besides "per Wiki" Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. A self-described democratic socialist,[5][6][7][8] he favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those of Scandinavia.[9" He has a snow ball chance in Hell to bet Hilliary and lets say he did? God Forbid. The Republicans would win the White House and if a Republican gets into the White House with a Republican controlled House & Senate. Well I'm gone you can have America "Sydney Australia sounds like it would be a great place to live." Because with these Idiots running the show. Atheists like the bookmine dude and a lot on this Forum you're Screwed. I believe in God but I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will. And when you Die because, Thank God we all do one day. We all will be judged by him or we will all just rot in the ground. p.s. Yes I believe in a God but I don't go to Church unless it's for a wedding or a Funeral. I also was baptized in the Methodist Church. But I even have doubt what happens after I die. :)
Why do you think Sanders or anyone else will tell you what church to go to (or am I missing something)?
Your missing something if you look again Adam White. I said if a Republican wins the white house "I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will." If you listen to the Nut jobs in the religious circles in America they would demand God be taught in Public schools. And so many other things would change. I'm a Christian and don't believe in this. I'm so glad Mitt Romney didn't win back in 2012. I would have already been gone.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 11:10:32 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 11:01:29 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 10:11:33 AM
Politicians will always be the same besides "per Wiki" Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. A self-described democratic socialist,[5][6][7][8] he favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those of Scandinavia.[9" He has a snow ball chance in Hell to bet Hilliary and lets say he did? God Forbid. The Republicans would win the White House and if a Republican gets into the White House with a Republican controlled House & Senate. Well I'm gone you can have America "Sydney Australia sounds like it would be a great place to live." Because with these Idiots running the show. Atheists like the bookmine dude and a lot on this Forum you're Screwed. I believe in God but I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will. And when you Die because, Thank God we all do one day. We all will be judged by him or we will all just rot in the ground. p.s. Yes I believe in a God but I don't go to Church unless it's for a wedding or a Funeral. I also was baptized in the Methodist Church. But I even have doubt what happens after I die. :)
Why do you think Sanders or anyone else will tell you what church to go to (or am I missing something)?
Your missing something if you look again Adam White. I said if a Republican wins the white house "I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will." If you listen to the Nut jobs in the religious circles in America they would demand God be taught in Public schools. And so many other things would change. I'm a Christian and don't believe in this. I'm so glad Mitt Romney didn't win back in 2012. I would have already been gone.
So yeah - I did miss something. Sorry about that :)
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 11:13:43 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 11:10:32 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 11:01:29 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 10:11:33 AM
Politicians will always be the same besides "per Wiki" Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. A self-described democratic socialist,[5][6][7][8] he favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those of Scandinavia.[9" He has a snow ball chance in Hell to bet Hilliary and lets say he did? God Forbid. The Republicans would win the White House and if a Republican gets into the White House with a Republican controlled House & Senate. Well I'm gone you can have America "Sydney Australia sounds like it would be a great place to live." Because with these Idiots running the show. Atheists like the bookmine dude and a lot on this Forum you're Screwed. I believe in God but I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will. And when you Die because, Thank God we all do one day. We all will be judged by him or we will all just rot in the ground. p.s. Yes I believe in a God but I don't go to Church unless it's for a wedding or a Funeral. I also was baptized in the Methodist Church. But I even have doubt what happens after I die. :)
Why do you think Sanders or anyone else will tell you what church to go to (or am I missing something)?
Your missing something if you look again Adam White. I said if a Republican wins the white house "I don't want my Government telling me how or which God to pray to. "Freedom of Religion" goes both ways you can believe or you don't. God gave us all Free Will." If you listen to the Nut jobs in the religious circles in America they would demand God be taught in Public schools. And so many other things would change. I'm a Christian and don't believe in this. I'm so glad Mitt Romney didn't win back in 2012. I would have already been gone.
So yeah - I did miss something. Sorry about that :)
No Problem :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 11:10:00 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 10:54:52 AM
Sanders is emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. He appeals to white progressives, and the small percentage of people who openly identify as socialists, but he just doesn't speak to other Democrats, let alone anyone else. He won't get 20% of the primary vote.
What do you base that on, taca?
I personally think that the electorate constellation resembles the one that elected Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal campaigns. I think Sanders is going to be a surprise to many.
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/roosevelt-campaigns-and-elections
The Democratic party has always been a party of factions and coalitions - I think it's just been a while since a progressive candidate has come to the fore.
Sanders may self-describe as a "democratic socialist" but his positions clearly show him to be a social democrat. It's funny that a candidate who falls just to the left of center could be seen as so radical - but I suppose that's a reflection of the times.
I noticed that a traditionally very conservative mother of a friend of mine has said Sanders is her favorite candidate so far - though Trump is her second choice. It's only one example, but I would love to see if Sanders's message resonates more with average Americans than one would normally expect it to.
I think Sanders is going to go further in the primaries than people currently expect.
Mostly the people who believe that he doesn't have a chance are the types who live in the Fox 'bubble' of self reinforcing dogmatized political 'media'. Since they exist politically in a closed circuit, they don't realize that the rest of america hasn't really come to the same conclusions that they have (except for an imaginary 'far left')
But the politic systems of the cold war and the oil wars are winding down. There are other concerns and the underlying issues that caused the great Progressive movement at the turn of the last century have emerged again.
People are going to listen and make surprisingly independent choices.
ha ha ha ha ha And if this happens the next time I see you at Murray Hill Library I will ask to shake your hand. ;D
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 11:10:00 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 10:54:52 AM
Sanders is emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. He appeals to white progressives, and the small percentage of people who openly identify as socialists, but he just doesn't speak to other Democrats, let alone anyone else. He won't get 20% of the primary vote.
What do you base that on, taca?
I personally think that the electorate constellation resembles the one that elected Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal campaigns. I think Sanders is going to be a surprise to many.
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/roosevelt-campaigns-and-elections
The Democratic party has always been a party of factions and coalitions - I think it's just been a while since a progressive candidate has come to the fore.
Sanders may self-describe as a "democratic socialist" but his positions clearly show him to be a social democrat. It's funny that a candidate who falls just to the left of center could be seen as so radical - but I suppose that's a reflection of the times.
I noticed that a traditionally very conservative mother of a friend of mine has said Sanders is her favorite candidate so far - though Trump is her second choice. It's only one example, but I would love to see if Sanders's message resonates more with average Americans than one would normally expect it to.
I think Sanders is going to go further in the primaries than people currently expect.
Mostly the people who believe that he doesn't have a chance are the types who live in the Fox 'bubble' of self reinforcing dogmatized political 'media'. Since they exist politically in a closed circuit, they don't realize that the rest of america hasn't really come to the same conclusions that they have (except for an imaginary 'far left')
But the politic systems of the cold war and the oil wars are winding down. There are other concerns and the underlying issues that caused the great Progressive movement at the turn of the last century have emerged again.
People are going to listen and make surprisingly independent choices.
I hope he does well in the primaries. You could be right - though I bet the shit storm cooked up against him by the Clinton campaign will be epic.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 10:54:52 AM
Sanders is emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. He appeals to white progressives, and the small percentage of people who openly identify as socialists, but he just doesn't speak to other Democrats, let alone anyone else. He won't get 20% of the primary vote.
What do you base that on, taca?
I personally think that the electorate constellation resembles the one that elected Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal campaigns. I think Sanders is going to be a surprise to many.
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/roosevelt-campaigns-and-elections
The fact that he's polling at 2% with black voters (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/bernie-sanders-african-americans-2016-netroots/index.html) (one of the core wings of the Democratic Party) and less than 10% for all non-white voters. He may pull some of the union support from Clinton but not enough to get over his major blind spots.
He's one of those guys with a great brain but no legs.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:37:40 AM
Taca, I think I would agree with the comparisons to Howard Dean's early campaign successes. ---Dean ultimately blew it in the first real days of round the clock cable television coverage with his famous scream---it undermined the public opinion about his temperament and fitness to govern back before the days of social media forced everyone to realize that almost everyone has these moments.
But I think the comparison's end there.
These days there is a much better messaging network than there was during those days, and a correspondingly more sophisticated consumer of that information.
Apparently the numbers of the upcoming election require that the Republicans must get 47% of the Latin vote in order to win. There will be a decreased African American turn out in an election without Obama, heightening the importance of the Latin vote.
So, the republicans can thank Trump for making that goal harder. The only ticket that would overcome the anti latin rhetoric of the republican field would be Bush/Rubio, and that is the most likely ticket for that reason in my opinion.
But Sanders has a perfect voting score from the NAACP (one of the few senators who has that, btw) and was arrested in the Civil Rights movement for demonstrating. Also, his social message is going to resonate fairly well with latin voters.
Its going to be an interesting election, and Sanders is going to make it more interesting.
I would put his odds somewhere in the low thirties to become the eventual Democratic Nominee, and I think he finishes later than people are predicting.
You talk a good game but your wrong. I guess I won't have to shake your hand after all? ;)
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:39:20 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 22, 2015, 11:20:28 AM
I hope he does well in the primaries. You could be right - though I bet the shit storm cooked up against him by the Clinton campaign will be epic.
no kidding! ;)
Can you imagine the even more epic shit storm if Hillary doesn't get the nomination again?
Man, that would be fun to watch.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:37:40 AM
Taca, I think I would agree with the comparisons to Howard Dean's early campaign successes. ---Dean ultimately blew it in the first real days of round the clock cable television coverage with his famous scream---it undermined the public opinion about his temperament and fitness to govern back before the days of social media forced everyone to realize that almost everyone has these moments.
But I think the comparison's end there.
These days there is a much better messaging network than there was during those days, and a correspondingly more sophisticated consumer of that information.
Apparently the numbers of the upcoming election require that the Republicans must get 47% of the Latin vote in order to win. There will be a decreased African American turn out in an election without Obama, heightening the importance of the Latin vote.
So, the republicans can thank Trump for making that goal harder. The only ticket that would overcome the anti latin rhetoric of the republican field would be Bush/Rubio, and that is the most likely ticket for that reason in my opinion.
But Sanders has a perfect voting score from the NAACP (one of the few senators who has that, btw) and was arrested in the Civil Rights movement for demonstrating. Also, his social message is going to resonate fairly well with latin voters.
Its going to be an interesting election, and Sanders is going to make it more interesting.
I would put his odds somewhere in the low thirties to become the eventual Democratic Nominee, and I think he finishes later than people are predicting.
I didn't compare Sanders to Dean. I think Dean was a much stronger candidate than Sanders, to be honest. He was the Dem front runner for a good while.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 10:15:49 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 09:21:49 AM
Trump is literally the only "Republican" that Sanders could beat.
I would have agreed with you two elections ago. Unfortunately the Republican brand is so damaged, and the country has changed so much due to so many of the GI generation dying off (which they continue to do daily) I doubt very much that would be true by election time.
If these big crowds start getting more diverse, then I would say he's a serious candidate. Maybe they will be.
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
If these big crowds start getting more diverse, then I would say he's a serious candidate.
Are you talking about Sanders or any Republican?
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:56:55 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 11:55:31 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:37:40 AM
Taca, I think I would agree with the comparisons to Howard Dean's early campaign successes. ---Dean ultimately blew it in the first real days of round the clock cable television coverage with his famous scream---it undermined the public opinion about his temperament and fitness to govern back before the days of social media forced everyone to realize that almost everyone has these moments.
But I think the comparison's end there.
These days there is a much better messaging network than there was during those days, and a correspondingly more sophisticated consumer of that information.
Apparently the numbers of the upcoming election require that the Republicans must get 47% of the Latin vote in order to win. There will be a decreased African American turn out in an election without Obama, heightening the importance of the Latin vote.
So, the republicans can thank Trump for making that goal harder. The only ticket that would overcome the anti latin rhetoric of the republican field would be Bush/Rubio, and that is the most likely ticket for that reason in my opinion.
But Sanders has a perfect voting score from the NAACP (one of the few senators who has that, btw) and was arrested in the Civil Rights movement for demonstrating. Also, his social message is going to resonate fairly well with latin voters.
Its going to be an interesting election, and Sanders is going to make it more interesting.
I would put his odds somewhere in the low thirties to become the eventual Democratic Nominee, and I think he finishes later than people are predicting.
I didn't compare Sanders to Dean. I think Dean was a much stronger candidate than Sanders, to be honest. He was the Dem front runner for a good while.
it was in the article from CNN that you posted as a reference. ;)
I was just using that to show what the poll numbers look like. I'll say it again, any Democrat who does this poorly with the black and Latino vote has no chance.
Quote from: finehoe on July 22, 2015, 12:00:40 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
If these big crowds start getting more diverse, then I would say he's a serious candidate.
Are you talking about Sanders or any Republican?
Republicans don't have to worry about getting out of the Democratic primary.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:48:49 AM
i wouldn't bother actually.
Stephen you nor I could careless for each other I can live with this. :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 12:07:16 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 12:04:30 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:56:55 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 11:55:31 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:37:40 AM
Taca, I think I would agree with the comparisons to Howard Dean's early campaign successes. ---Dean ultimately blew it in the first real days of round the clock cable television coverage with his famous scream---it undermined the public opinion about his temperament and fitness to govern back before the days of social media forced everyone to realize that almost everyone has these moments.
But I think the comparison's end there.
These days there is a much better messaging network than there was during those days, and a correspondingly more sophisticated consumer of that information.
Apparently the numbers of the upcoming election require that the Republicans must get 47% of the Latin vote in order to win. There will be a decreased African American turn out in an election without Obama, heightening the importance of the Latin vote.
So, the republicans can thank Trump for making that goal harder. The only ticket that would overcome the anti latin rhetoric of the republican field would be Bush/Rubio, and that is the most likely ticket for that reason in my opinion.
But Sanders has a perfect voting score from the NAACP (one of the few senators who has that, btw) and was arrested in the Civil Rights movement for demonstrating. Also, his social message is going to resonate fairly well with latin voters.
Its going to be an interesting election, and Sanders is going to make it more interesting.
I would put his odds somewhere in the low thirties to become the eventual Democratic Nominee, and I think he finishes later than people are predicting.
I didn't compare Sanders to Dean. I think Dean was a much stronger candidate than Sanders, to be honest. He was the Dem front runner for a good while.
it was in the article from CNN that you posted as a reference. ;)
I was just using that to show what the poll numbers look like. I'll say it again, any Democrat who does this poorly with the black and Latino vote has no chance.
I always thoroughly read citations. :)
The article you cited contradicts your underlying assumption then.
Not really, it takes it as granted that to be competitive Sanders much reach minority Democrats. It's not going so hot for him in that regard. Maybe he turns it around, but I tend to doubt it.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 12:05:11 PM
Quote from: finehoe on July 22, 2015, 12:00:40 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
If these big crowds start getting more diverse, then I would say he's a serious candidate.
Are you talking about Sanders or any Republican?
Republicans don't have to worry about getting out of the Democratic primary.
But they do have to worry about being judged a serious candidate.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 12:15:57 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 12:07:16 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 12:04:30 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:56:55 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 22, 2015, 11:55:31 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2015, 11:37:40 AM
Taca, I think I would agree with the comparisons to Howard Dean's early campaign successes. ---Dean ultimately blew it in the first real days of round the clock cable television coverage with his famous scream---it undermined the public opinion about his temperament and fitness to govern back before the days of social media forced everyone to realize that almost everyone has these moments.
But I think the comparison's end there.
These days there is a much better messaging network than there was during those days, and a correspondingly more sophisticated consumer of that information.
Apparently the numbers of the upcoming election require that the Republicans must get 47% of the Latin vote in order to win. There will be a decreased African American turn out in an election without Obama, heightening the importance of the Latin vote.
So, the republicans can thank Trump for making that goal harder. The only ticket that would overcome the anti latin rhetoric of the republican field would be Bush/Rubio, and that is the most likely ticket for that reason in my opinion.
But Sanders has a perfect voting score from the NAACP (one of the few senators who has that, btw) and was arrested in the Civil Rights movement for demonstrating. Also, his social message is going to resonate fairly well with latin voters.
Its going to be an interesting election, and Sanders is going to make it more interesting.
I would put his odds somewhere in the low thirties to become the eventual Democratic Nominee, and I think he finishes later than people are predicting.
I didn't compare Sanders to Dean. I think Dean was a much stronger candidate than Sanders, to be honest. He was the Dem front runner for a good while.
it was in the article from CNN that you posted as a reference. ;)
I was just using that to show what the poll numbers look like. I'll say it again, any Democrat who does this poorly with the black and Latino vote has no chance.
I always thoroughly read citations. :)
The article you cited contradicts your underlying assumption then.
Not really, it takes it as granted that to be competitive Sanders much reach minority Democrats. It's not going so hot for him in that regard. Maybe he turns it around, but I tend to doubt it.
Personally I think that the low numbers simply reflect the fact that he is a relative new comer to the national stage where as Hillary has been in the center of it for decades. Essentially he is an unknown in these communities. If his message, voting record, and background get out there to core constituencies then you might see a complete turn around. There is a long way to go until primary voting yet.
Quote from: ben america on July 21, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
We're talking about party primaries. Why is anyone even discussing Electoral College?
Under the premise that he stands little to no chance to make the ticket as anything other than 3rd party and therefore will be irrelevant to the conversation once we've passed the primaries.
The right is going to skewer him with whatever catchy, buzzword of the week is to call someone a borderline communist.
The left is going to distance themselves from him because he might represent a legitimate change in the status quo if elected.
Those of us that don't swear to the bible of mainstream
news opinion channels will be the only ones that will be able to hear his message without some added negative context.
I'm not much on political prognosticating, but I doubt he'll even get a double digit % of the democratic vote.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 22, 2015, 04:03:29 PM
Those of us that don't swear to the bible of mainstream news opinion channels will be the only ones that will be able to hear his message without some added negative context.
Looks like even those who read the "newspaper of record" are being shortchanged:
QuoteThe front page story is about such issues as "work force anxieties," "shrinking middle class," "stagnant wages," and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders, although it mentions others with less credibility.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-ny-times-basically-doing-blackout-bernie-sanders
Quote from: finehoe on July 22, 2015, 04:11:42 PM
QuoteThe front page story is about such issues as "work force anxieties," "shrinking middle class," "stagnant wages," and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders, although it mentions others with less credibility.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-ny-times-basically-doing-blackout-bernie-sanders
His conclusion was... 'shocking'...
QuoteBernie Sanders has always been all about serious treatment for a sick economy. Bernie Sanders is getting to be a bigger and bigger elephant in the room where denial of the cancer remains powerful. Eventually perhaps the Times and the rest of mainstream media will begin to talk about him honestly. But they are all part of the cancerous system and benefit from it. So perhaps a more radical infusion will come through other channels.
Quote from: finehoe on July 22, 2015, 12:00:40 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
If these big crowds start getting more diverse, then I would say he's a serious candidate.
Are you talking about Sanders or any Republican?
shit, Romney did better with blacks than Bernie is polling.
Quote from: fsquid on July 23, 2015, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: finehoe on July 22, 2015, 12:00:40 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 22, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
If these big crowds start getting more diverse, then I would say he's a serious candidate.
Are you talking about Sanders or any Republican?
shit, Romney did better with blacks than Bernie is polling.
I know, right? Tone deafness on race issues isn't exclusively a Republican thing.
And again, Republicans don't have to worry about getting out of the Democratic primary. Of course most of them are hamstrung on the race issue, except maybe Rubio and Jeb with Hispanics, but they have their own core of mainly white voters. I guarantee that (at least) one Republican will come out of the Republican primary.
Sanders has a separate issue. He carries pretty well with white progressives and however many self-identifying "socialists" there actually are, but so far, he has not carried well with non-white Dems. Here's a newer breakdown from just last week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/bernie-sanderss-limited-appeal-even-to-democrats/
Only 28% of non-white Democrats have a favorable opinion of Sanders, while 23% have a disfavorable opinion. Clinton, by contrast, is 86% to 9%. Bottom line is, Sanders has a problem. Maybe he can turn it around, I guess we'll see.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 24, 2015, 12:55:22 PM
And again, Republicans don't have to worry about getting out of the Democratic primary. Of course most of them are hamstrung on the race issue, except maybe Rubio and Jeb with Hispanics, but they have their own core of mainly white voters. I guarantee that (at least) one Republican will come out of the Republican primary.
Sanders has a separate issue. He carries pretty well with white progressives and however many self-identifying "socialists" there actually are, but so far, he has not carried well with non-white Dems. Here's a newer breakdown from just last week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/bernie-sanderss-limited-appeal-even-to-democrats/
Only 28% of non-white Democrats have a favorable opinion of Sanders, while 23% have a disfavorable opinion. Clinton, by contrast, is 86% to 9%. Bottom line is, Sanders has a problem. Maybe he can turn it around, I guess we'll see.
and yet he is bringing larger crowds and has raised more money than Obama did at the same time during his (also doomed) campaign for president. ;)
I think Ron Paul was similar. We see how far that got him.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 01:31:17 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 24, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 24, 2015, 12:55:22 PM
And again, Republicans don't have to worry about getting out of the Democratic primary. Of course most of them are hamstrung on the race issue, except maybe Rubio and Jeb with Hispanics, but they have their own core of mainly white voters. I guarantee that (at least) one Republican will come out of the Republican primary.
Sanders has a separate issue. He carries pretty well with white progressives and however many self-identifying "socialists" there actually are, but so far, he has not carried well with non-white Dems. Here's a newer breakdown from just last week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/bernie-sanderss-limited-appeal-even-to-democrats/
Only 28% of non-white Democrats have a favorable opinion of Sanders, while 23% have a disfavorable opinion. Clinton, by contrast, is 86% to 9%. Bottom line is, Sanders has a problem. Maybe he can turn it around, I guess we'll see.
and yet he is bringing larger crowds and has raised more money than Obama did at the same time during his (also doomed) campaign for president. ;)
I think Ron Paul was similar. We see how far that got him.
He ran against Obama. Who was doomed, as you remember. ;)
No, he ran in the Republican primaries, and lost big time to McCain and then Romney. He was another guy who had strong support from one particular group, and basically no one else.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 24, 2015, 01:40:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 01:31:17 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 24, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2015, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 24, 2015, 12:55:22 PM
And again, Republicans don't have to worry about getting out of the Democratic primary. Of course most of them are hamstrung on the race issue, except maybe Rubio and Jeb with Hispanics, but they have their own core of mainly white voters. I guarantee that (at least) one Republican will come out of the Republican primary.
Sanders has a separate issue. He carries pretty well with white progressives and however many self-identifying "socialists" there actually are, but so far, he has not carried well with non-white Dems. Here's a newer breakdown from just last week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/bernie-sanderss-limited-appeal-even-to-democrats/
Only 28% of non-white Democrats have a favorable opinion of Sanders, while 23% have a disfavorable opinion. Clinton, by contrast, is 86% to 9%. Bottom line is, Sanders has a problem. Maybe he can turn it around, I guess we'll see.
and yet he is bringing larger crowds and has raised more money than Obama did at the same time during his (also doomed) campaign for president. ;)
I think Ron Paul was similar. We see how far that got him.
He ran against Obama. Who was doomed, as you remember. ;)
No, he ran in the Republican primaries, and lost big time to McCain and then Romney. He was another guy who had strong support from one particular group, and basically no one else.
And this is Checkmate great comment Tacachale. ;)
211 people in Jacksonville tonight at Jax for Bernie Sanders event.
Quote from: ben america on July 30, 2015, 12:19:23 AM
211 people in Jacksonville tonight at Jax for Bernie Sanders event.
"And is it selfish of me to crave victory, or is it brave?"
― Veronica Roth, Divergent
Sen. Bernie Sanders runs far behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination fight, but the socialist from Vermont would defeat New York real estate mogul and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in a presidential general election, a new poll suggests.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-poll/index.html
Quote from: finehoe on July 30, 2015, 09:04:28 PM
Sen. Bernie Sanders runs far behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination fight, but the socialist from Vermont would defeat New York real estate mogul and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in a presidential general election, a new poll suggests.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-poll/index.html
congrats to him
Were there any other volunteers canvassing for presidential candidates at Art Walk?
Quote from: ben america on August 10, 2015, 11:00:19 AM
Were there any other volunteers canvassing for presidential candidates at Art Walk?
Yes, there was a couple for Bernie Sanders handing out fliers.
Like the man or not, he's taking it to Clinton right now. He's putting on a campaign clinic. Not sure who his campaign manager is, but that guy is killing it.
Having strong memories of the "Dean Scream," I try not to attempt to predict the future too much - you never really can tell where we'll be next November. The primaries can ruin candidates.
That said - it would be amazing if, come November, voters had to choose between two rank outsiders (Sanders and Trump - or maybe Carson) for President.
Yeah, he's hammering Clinton right now. Although that's almost as much on her as it is on Sanders, that email scandal isn't going away. Of course, if she doesn't make a comeback, we can probably expect Uncle Joe to jump in the race.
What Bernie did and said at Liberty University today showed a lot of integrity. I am becoming a fan!
This fellow Sanders, unless he is assassinated, will probably be the next president. Of course, he could be assassinated after being elected. Most remember how former threats to established power structures from those speaking truth about fundamental issues affecting the majority of the citizens were struck down by lead projectiles originating from ... well, I wonder who? I suspect that since the two Kennedys, King, and MX all boldly spoke truth against the established power structure, most reasonable observers might be encouraged to suspect that the order to assassinate these individuals originated somewhere from within that threatened structure ... so desperately these intrenched beasts act to retain power and riches.
In any case, this fellow speaks to the fundamentals of what is going on in this country. His bold attempt to consistently address the needs of the majority, the downtrodden, and the average worker, those suffering as a consequence of the rape of this country by the thieving parasites who demand obscene riches at the expense of the economy, the environment, and the survival of the working class; his bold attempt to expose the bloodsuckers who are obsessed with accumulating everything possible so as to satisfy their obsession with wealth and power -- yes by god, this fellow says it like it is.
He's been my man for months, as I recognized his qualities early on, not only his genuine concern for the average worker, but also his efforts to confront reality, and his avoidance of the usual political bullshit. Sanders is the only presidential candidate to which I've ever contributed any substantial sum. The Sanders stickers on the windows of my old Ford have drawn some interesting comments.
This fellow has some fucking sense (expletive for impact only). He is not a common politician, as is Ms. Clinton and all the other fuckers on the goddamn stage (two expletives for greater impact).
Sanders, because he is inclined -- as opposed to most other candidates, including Clinton -- to debate without the usual political gaming and rehearsed rhetoric, appears non-aggressive toward other candidates, and therefore offers some the impression that he doesn't want to be president. Surely, to some unknown degree he wants to be president, but I suspect that he wants even more to convey his perception of, and concern about, the critical social and economic realities in America ... including the wrongs being perpetrated by the ensconced and mostly purchased political mediocrities elected by an electorate duped for the most part by absurd and self serving rhetoric made believable only by its repetitive nature ... made credible because it is spewed by a purchased and therefore clueless and insensitive media.
Sander's genuine focus on the significant issues ... his integrity and moral consistency ... is a refreshing contrast to Ms. Clinton's lip service to issues. Well advised by the team handsomely paid to shape the image of this establishment candidate, so as to at least give temporary appearance of concern and focused attention to the resolution of the serious socio/economic problems evolved over recent decades, Ms. Clinton has shown gains in the polls ... evidence that once again that shallow rhetoric can persuade most of our unthinking, media trained electorate.
The degree to which Ms. Clinton has been associated with Wall Street and established wealth in general, along with funding from same, should be an indication of what's on the horizon. Sanders gives attention to, and is funded mostly by, the average citizen .... funded moderately by individual donations and perhaps labor unions. Who can be trusted to genuinely address much needed issues affecting the majority of citizens? Which candidate will most likely settle into the whitehouse and massage old relationships, thus perpetuating the status quo?
Perhaps many are somewhat satisfied that Bernie's ideas have moved all candidates, especially the classic politician Ms. Clinton, to at least give the appearance of concern for the most critical issues affecting the average citizen. Will the concern become real, and lasting?
Whereas Sanders could conceivably exert such profound pressure against the established power structure -- a certain kind of fear -- to the degree that he could be targeted for assassination by individuals within that structure, Hillary is safe simply because she is of the establishment ... the skilfull politician with years of experience, quite capable of fooling most of the people most of the time -- and unfortunately, perhaps capable of fooling enough of our unthinking electorate to become the first female president ... an idea perhaps more important to many, than having a president who will act to confront the very important issues affecting our majority.
I find myself being too often amazed at the ignorance of so many citizens as regards history. Whereas a select few .... and thank goodness for them... as exhibited on this forum .... do understand the major and minor flows in the history of mankind, too many citizens can only recite the current shallow entertainment and fantasies offered by the for-profit media.
I am concerned about the consequences of this ignorance, as it deprives the citizen of the good sense necessary for choosing the best leadership for our country. A reasonably accurate perspective about the human journey through ancient and modern times is gained by study, especially by reading books purchased from Chamblin Bookmine or Chamblin's Uptown. ;D
Looks like Bernie sold out, but I think everyone knew he would. The Democrats are as screwed as the Republicans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/743604646057500673
^ sorry, but I don't consider compromise and collaboration as "selling out"
Quote from: coredumped on June 18, 2016, 04:11:32 PM
Looks like Bernie sold out, but I think everyone knew he would. The Democrats are as screwed as the Republicans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/743604646057500673
I've not been following the campaigns that closely - but did Sanders claim he wouldn't work with Clinton? They seemed quite cordial when I saw excerpts from one of the early debates. I know the rancour had increased as the campaign went on, of course.
Hilary really represents everything Bernie is against. Big money, corruption, etc. I'm not sure he said outright he wouldn't work with her, but when things started to get nasty, Bernie was told to tone it down and he fell right in line.
After all, it "her turn."
Both the major parties are losing members and falling apart, and that's good for America.
Bernie is hanging out hoping the FBI finds the cloth Hillary wiped her hard drive with.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 18, 2016, 04:17:03 PM
^ sorry, but I don't consider compromise and collaboration as "selling out"
Because to some politics and religion are the same.
A bunch of people walking around telling everybody else how to live.
Quote from: coredumped on June 18, 2016, 06:27:09 PM
Hilary really represents everything Bernie is against. Big money, corruption, etc. I'm not sure he said outright he wouldn't work with her, but when things started to get nasty, Bernie was told to tone it down and he fell right in line.
After all, it "her turn."
Both the major parties are losing members and falling apart, and that's good for America.
If I'm honest, I think it's a sign of his ethics. Bernie Sanders isn't (or rather, wasn't) a Democrat. I felt he joined the party (however one does that) in order to run for the nomination. At least this way he's not cynically using the Democratic Party solely for his own purposes - he's doing the appropriate thing in standing behind the nominee and pledging to work with her.
Of course, he might be doing/saying this because he wants to unite people against Trump.
Quote from: coredumped on June 18, 2016, 06:27:09 PM
Hilary really represents everything Bernie is against. Big money, corruption, etc. I'm not sure he said outright he wouldn't work with her, but when things started to get nasty, Bernie was told to tone it down and he fell right in line.
After all, it "her turn."
Both the major parties are losing members and falling apart, and that's good for America.
Sounds like its time for another Civil War between the Sneetches with Stars on their bellies and the ones without Stars. :-\
Quote from: Adam White on June 19, 2016, 04:03:02 AM
Quote from: coredumped on June 18, 2016, 06:27:09 PM
Hilary really represents everything Bernie is against. Big money, corruption, etc. I'm not sure he said outright he wouldn't work with her, but when things started to get nasty, Bernie was told to tone it down and he fell right in line.
After all, it "her turn."
Both the major parties are losing members and falling apart, and that's good for America.
If I'm honest, I think it's a sign of his ethics. Bernie Sanders isn't (or rather, wasn't) a Democrat. I felt he joined the party (however one does that) in order to run for the nomination. At least this way he's not cynically using the Democratic Party solely for his own purposes - he's doing the appropriate thing in standing behind the nominee and pledging to work with her.
Of course, he might be doing/saying this because he wants to unite people against Trump.
I feel somewhat the same about why he joined the DNC, and that's one things that makes perfect sense to me, but others in my peer group seem to have a hard time understanding.
There's been so much talk of him dropping out, pledging for HRC, and many other things they would like him to do, "to unite the party'. And every time that I read that he's going his separate way, it reminds me of the snake and woman proverb, "Look lady, you knew I was a snake...."
And I take that to mean that he did what he had to do to be relevant in the primaries. His message resonated. And now he's using what little bit of leverage that he has left to try and push more of his platform. He's not a party democrat, so I don't expect him to just 'fall in line', but he is vehemently against what Trump and the RNC stand for right now and will push what amounts to a "Anyone but Trump" message.