View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9711
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/20 1:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
The reason they didn't want Bernie is that they don't believe he can win. They don't believe that when it is all said and done, with the electoral college being what it is, that someone who outright calls himself a socialist can win in the states he would need to to win the presidency.
|
I disagree. Bernie polled well against Trump in 2016 and 2020. Swing states are not red states. Free health care and bringing manufacturing back (if Bernie still talks about that as he did in 2016) should resonate more than how he labels himself.
I think the donor class and the corporate media are down on Sanders because they don’t like his policies (which are all for the people at the other end of the pyramid - not where they want the focus) and that he isn’t someone they can buy or manipulate as easily as the others.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 12851 Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/20 6:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
The reason they didn't want Bernie is that they don't believe he can win. They don't believe that when it is all said and done, with the electoral college being what it is, that someone who outright calls himself a socialist can win in the states he would need to to win the presidency.
|
I disagree. Bernie polled well against Trump in 2016 and 2020. Swing states are not red states. Free health care and bringing manufacturing back (if Bernie still talks about that as he did in 2016) should resonate more than how he labels himself.
I think the donor class and the corporate media are down on Sanders because they don’t like his policies (which are all for the people at the other end of the pyramid - not where they want the focus) and that he isn’t someone they can buy or manipulate as easily as the others. |
This ^^^^^
As jammerbirdi said, the power elite prefers a 2nd Trump term to a 1st of Sanders or Warren.
_________________ Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Last edited by cthskzfn on 03/31/20 11:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 19803
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9711
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/20 9:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
*duplicate*
Last edited by tfan on 03/31/20 9:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9711
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/20 10:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Those polls are basically meaningless until the two candidates are actually running head-to-head.
And, most importantly, they are popular vote polls.
For instance, Bernie cannot win Florida. It is a non-starter. Too many older Cubans that will never, ever, EVER, vote for a socialist (no matter the actual ideological differences between a democratic socialist and a communist) because of Castro.
And those policies people keep saying poll well? They don't. Not really. Yes, things like single-payer healthcare poll well initially. People like it in broad strokes and see the flaws in the current system. They like the idea of more people being covered.
But once they start getting polled on the nitty-gritty of it, that support plummets. For instance, people don't want to be forced to give up their current insurance. Especially people who have good insurance at the moment--you know people like Union workers in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the people Sanders will 100% need to have and will not be able to lose a single vote of if he wants to win. It also starts to poll less well when people are asked of they are willing to move to a system where people have to wait longer for non-emergent surgeries. Like spinal surgery or heart valve replacements or knee replacements, etc.
There is a reason why Warren actually started backing away from going all-in on the Medicare-for-all plan. She understood that while it may be the best policy, it is not actually as popular a policy as its supporters make out. And once you have to go head-to-head on the general election the less wiggle room you've given yourself on it's less popular aspects the more you may have doomed the country to 4 more years of Trump. But of course that made Warren "not a true progressive" to the Bernie-or-bust people instead of the progressive candidate who actually understood how to win in the general.
And I say all this as someone who actually likes Sanders. Whose political ideology is much closer to Sanders than it is Biden's. Who would love to see a progressive in the White House. But I also understand reality, and refuse to become a progressive version of Trump where just because I want something to be true I believe it to be true.
The entire idea about how Sanders beats Trump rests on this idea that he excites these young people who never vote so much that they actually vote. And in a strictly-by-the-numbers as they are on paper it could happen in some theoretical election. But it's not going to. Because he shrinks the base at the other end, losing moderate Democrats for whom he is too radical, the numbers of those never-voters he needs to draw are immense. And that's just not going to happen at that level. And the primaries prove it. If he really did excite those voters that much, he would be drawing them and easily taking down a pretty underwhelming candidate in Biden right now.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9711
Back to top |
Posted: 04/01/20 6:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Those polls are basically meaningless until the two candidates are actually running head-to-head.
And, most importantly, they are popular vote polls. |
It is unfortunate that we have national polls and an electoral college vote which makes the national poll meaningless.
Quote: |
For instance, Bernie cannot win Florida. It is a non-starter. Too many older Cubans that will never, ever, EVER, vote for a socialist (no matter the actual ideological differences between a democratic socialist and a communist) because of Castro. |
I would like to know why Sanders decided to label himself that way and yet not advocate socialism. Even if his ultimate goal is a disbanding of private ownership of the means of production as the Democratic Socialist party advocates on their website - but says it will have to wait - much easier to get elected without labeling yourself in a way that old Cubans and Fox News pundits can get worked up about.
Quote: |
But once they start getting polled on the nitty-gritty of it, that support plummets. For instance, people don't want to be forced to give up their current insurance. Especially people who have good insurance at the moment--you know people like Union workers in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the people Sanders will 100% need to have and will not be able to lose a single vote of if he wants to win.
It also starts to poll less well when people are asked of they are willing to move to a system where people have to wait longer for non-emergent surgeries. Like spinal surgery or heart valve replacements or knee replacements, etc. |
I don’t think it can be stated how much it will cost someone versus the current or how effective the service will be. Anyone polling on “how it will be” is doing a poll designed to influence the results.
Quote: |
There is a reason why Warren actually started backing away from going all-in on the Medicare-for-all plan. She understood that while it may be the best policy, it is not actually as popular a policy as its supporters make out. And once you have to go head-to-head on the general election the less wiggle room you've given yourself on it's less popular aspects the more you may have doomed the country to 4 more years of Trump. But of course that made Warren "not a true progressive" to the Bernie-or-bust people instead of the progressive candidate who actually understood how to win in the general. |
Warren was running into resistance on Medicare for all from the elite. I remember Chris Mathews on the allegedly left MSNBC badgering her repeatedly to say that taxes would go up (“why can’t you just say that”). The point Warren was making is that employer contributions and employee deductions and co-pays would go away to offset the taxes. I saw David Axelrod say on CNN that back when Warren was near the front of the pack that there was a belief by some of the elite (my word) that Warren was going to (paraphrasing) be someone who they could influence and who would (or did) have different back room positions than public positions.
Sander’s positions don’t seem radical to me, but the Democratic Party has moved to the right (despite Republican politicians and pundits constantly saying how radically it has moved left) I was surprised to see card-carrying Democrats in 2016 being very dismissive of Sanders and complaining not about electability, but about not wanting to have to pay any extra taxes due to his proposals. So Sanders does face the issue that the segment he wants to help doesn’t vote as much and the segment he doesn’t want to help (they don’t need it) isn’t fired up to help the people who need it. I guess there is a reason that even Sanders speech writers will remove “poor” from their speeches. Most politicians will only say “middle class” but I think Sanders will say “working class”, although I have heard him do the “only mention middle class” thing. I did read an article once that said that there are a lot of people who aren’t middle class who still consider themselves that, which helps keep “poor” or “lower class” out of political speeches.
Last edited by tfan on 04/01/20 6:35 pm; edited 11 times in total |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15754 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/20 4:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Our only real hope is that Biden accepts the nomination and then is told to step down due to the allegations against him and they replace him with one of the governors making a name for themselves with their competence right now. |
Yessss! I've been thinking that very thing my self!! "MC* (the) Hammer", maybe? (think: NY)
_________________ Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22477 Location: NJ
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 19803
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 11:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
He really needed to do that after what happened in Wisconsin. Republicans aren't ever going to do the right thing. Sanders staying in the race was just putting people at risk.
_________________ “Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63869
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 12:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mercfan3 wrote: |
Sanders staying in the race was just putting people at risk. |
Yeah, right. Him not being president puts a lot more people at risk.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16378 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 12:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mercfan3 wrote: |
He really needed to do that after what happened in Wisconsin. Republicans aren't ever going to do the right thing. Sanders staying in the race was just putting people at risk. |
There were a lot more - and frankly, a lot more important - races on the ballot yesterday than the Democratic primary.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67051 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 12:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Shades wrote: |
mercfan3 wrote: |
Sanders staying in the race was just putting people at risk. |
Yeah, right. Him not being president puts a lot more people at risk. |
He wasn't going to be president regardless of whether he stayed in the race
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63869
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 2:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Shades wrote: |
mercfan3 wrote: |
Sanders staying in the race was just putting people at risk. |
Yeah, right. Him not being president puts a lot more people at risk. |
He wasn't going to be president regardless of whether he stayed in the race |
I don’t trust your statement on this.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 12851 Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63869
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 3:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If Biden would’ve dropped out after his incredibly slow start, I think everybody would be feeling a lot better about Trump being gone in January.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 3:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Shades wrote: |
If Biden would’ve dropped out after his incredibly slow start, I think everybody would be feeling a lot better about Trump being gone in January. |
While I absolutely agree with you as far as we'd be better off with another candidate, it also wasn't ever going to happen. From the beginning Biden has lead the nation wide polling averages, and Nate Silver kept pointing out that all of Biden's best states didn't come until Super Tuesday or later so not to read too much into the early state results. Those results helped close the gaps some at times, but never so much that he would have been thinking of dropping. Only way he would have dropped was to have a disastrous Super Tuesday and lose places like South Carolina.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 19803
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 19803
Back to top |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16378 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 19803
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 12851 Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 6:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mercfan3 wrote: |
cthskzfn wrote: |
mercfan3 wrote: |
He really needed to do that after what happened in Wisconsin. Republicans aren't ever going to do the right thing. Sanders staying in the race was just putting people at risk. |
Is there nothing Bernie won't be blamed for? smh.
Expect if Trump is re-elected, we will hear: "if Bernie dropped out after South Carolina, Biden would have won! Those goddamn bernie bros!" |
Bernie still being in the primary meant people going out to vote for the primary in large numbers.
He's no longer on the ballot, so a significant portion of people won't be leaving their house to vote.
How is that even debatable?
Regardless, he was essentially mathematically eliminated. Why still be running against the presumptive nominee? He did a lot of damage last time |
Yeah, 40 or so events for Hillary. Terrible, terrible Bernie.
Did you see how CNN framed his withdrawal speech today? It wasn't nice enough, they said. Didn't give much to Biden.
Bernie called Biden a "very decent man". Still, NOT enough. Never enough.
How long did HRC stay in the 2008 primary?
The hatred for the only major candidate who actually wants to drain the DC swamp, insure everyone, increase taxes on the hyper-wealthy, ensure no more voter fuckery, defend Choice, clean the environment, invest in green industries etc etc etc,..... and the people MOST fucked-over by the current system, i.e. WOC, blow him off and support a Corp Dem hack.
I'm always amazed by it.
_________________ Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15754 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
Posted: 04/08/20 7:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mercfan3 wrote: |
Regardless, he was essentially mathematically eliminated. Why still be running against the presumptive nominee? He did a lot of damage last time. |
Nah. I can't buy that one at all. Hillary earned over 3 million more votes than Don the Con. That was *probably* helped by Bernie's support, after the convention. She DIDN'T win the electoral college. THAT'S on her, and her cavalier attitude towards various demographics in the key battleground states. She took way too much for granted, and damaged herself and her campaign that way.
_________________ Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
|
|