2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe logical reason that Bernie will win.
Alright, here it goes.
So in 2008, there was an election in which an outsider ran against some well known and established politicians and he won because he ran on a platform that preached endlessly towards CHANGE and HOPE.
He promised the people he would work with them to get their needs met. He was attacked and smeared much in the same way Bernie is today. But there was a great wave of discontented Americans that carried him to the White House.
Who were those Americans? They were the progressive youth of our nation. They were the majority that voted him into the white house.
Now, let's look at the present day. And this part is very important. That generation is still here, they're a bit older and there are thousands more progressive youth that has joined them. For the most part, they're not entirely dissatisfied with their choice in Obama.
But remember this, they didn't vote for Hillary, and they weren't moved by any other message.
Now we have Bernie and he's appealing to the very same people that Obama had enchanted. Also take into consideration that Bernie is doing better than Obama did at this same point in time.
Now ask yourself the following question and you should come to the same logical conclusion that I have.
-Since that same majority that elected Obama not only still exists, (they've grown larger) why would they vote for a centrist moderate that they didn't vote for the first time round?
I mean, that logic is clear as day to me. The older generation has moved on, the younger has gotten bigger and they're becoming more politically involved than before.
How would that ever work in favor of Hillary?
And sorry, polls mean nothing after seeing what CNN was capable of doing. Scrubbing their poll results after the debate, scrubbing pro-Bernie/anti-Hillary comments, etc...
That alone proved that we're in an era where corporations are literally attempting to control the freedom of information. And in the favor of Hillary.
Remember what I said about Biden? Be wary when the powers that be are choosing a favorite for you. You can eat what you're served if you want but not me. :/
Either way, the generation that voted Obama instead of Hillary is still here. They're bigger than before and smarter. They exist. I feel like it's honestly as if they're the elephant in the room that Hillary supporters aren't really thinking about.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Never interrupt your opponent while they are making a mistake.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The plan for Clinton appears to be trying to relegate all opponents to "also-ran" status early. So she's spent 80% of the money she's raised doing things like large advertising campaigns.
Sanders is running a more "traditional" campaign in that his ads are going to be closer to the primary/caucus. Yet he's tied in NH and pretty close in IA, with nothing but Clinton ads on TV and radio - he got to "tied" with word of mouth and the Internet.
It ain't over yet.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Now that all the distractions are out of the way (Benghazi hearing and Biden), the real campaign begins. Right now it's 60-30 in Hillary's favor. Can Bernie get to 50% in 3 months? Maybe, but I don't think he will have to. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire then all the momentum is in his favor, and a repeat of 2008 is in the cards.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are registered Independents. They make up over 42% of registered voters due to voters fleeing both major parties.
Dems have only 32% of registered voters. Hillary's lead even there has been diminished since Sanders entered the race and people got to know him.
Sorry, but no one can win with 75% of 32% of the electorate. Hillary has practically zero cross over appeal. Bernie has enormous crossover appeal, which has not even been polled yet.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)In national polling where she consistently polls weaker against repub candidates than Bernie. To say she has a likeability and trust problem with republicans and a big segment of independents is an understatement.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)as readily as they will from the others? Would it be possible that the corporate media could make it tough for Sanders to get ad time? I know they're money-grubbing entities, but wasn't there just an instance where one of them refused to run ads for a candidate for some ethical reason?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Thank you for being so funny!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)zappaman
(20,607 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Many of Obama's supporters are for Hillary.
And Obama was running against many qualified candidates, so Bernie having as much now as he did then is nothing. Bernie is running only against Hillary basically.
2/3rds of Obamas biggest supporters were youth. He had the highest amount of the youth demographic supporting him, as does Bernie.
Also Bernie doesn't have as much now as Obama did then, he has more.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Bernie is not contending with a crowd of opponents. He basically the anti-Hillary. No Kucinich, Biden, Richardson, and there were others.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)back then. Bernie is actually ahead of where we were with Obama at this point.
Nearly everyone I know who is for Bernie now, was for Obama then. Bottom line, Hillary lost in 2008 to someone we were told couldn't possibly win.
Hillary will lose again to someone we are being told 'can't possiibly win'.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and you cannot prove that majority of Obama supporters are in your disappointment camp, as they are not. Not every Obama voter of 2008 will be going for Bernie. No more than a small minority.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Explain to me why that majority (that has grown larger since then) that chose something that promised CHANGE instead of Hillary, would vote for Hillary now?
Please.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I send him happy birthdays and greetings to Michelle all the time. I get loads of emails from him.
I love him and the family and I think this country is far better for having him in office.
He means a lot to all the minorities in this country. We have some dickheads, too but on the whole we see him, we see us.
I just now have the chance to vote in a true progressive and I am doing what I can to get him on the ballot!
TBF
(33,358 posts)and I am supporting Bernie in this election.
Obama did not run "against many qualified candidates" - he came out of the blue with a lot of energy and defeated Hillary. And that is exactly what we're witnessing again with Bernie.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)that no one has talked about. Will the newly politically aware Bernie supporters work for Hillary? I doubt it. Probably the die hard dems will, but I wouldn't count on any one else.
Bernie is bringing in people that usually don't get involved in politics, or are new to politics. They are excited by Bernie, and will get out the vote and basically work their butts off for Bernie. There is not that same excitement for Hillary, in fact, some downright can't stand her, more would just not care.
Z
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)If HC wins the nomination , I personally think it will be a disaster for Democrat voter turnout . The inspired independents will fade off and the simple fact is that the Clinton name will motivate the Republican base , taking the small section of moderate Republicans that would support Sanders over ANY Clinton in their book .
Time will tell , and I hope I am wrong ..... but it is what it is .
840high
(17,196 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)That's what worries me as well. Maybe I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of excitement in the Dem ranks for Hillary, sort of a "been there, done that" attitude. This could likely affect voter turnout and down-ticket races.
One thing I'm not wrong about is the red hot hatred the RW has towards Clinton...this would very likely bring out the republicans in droves to vote against her.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Time will tell.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)However: Obama was supported by the party
establishment as well as the media, because
they liked the fight.
Here we see the DNC doing everything it can to
undermine Bernie, and the media trying to
block him out totally.
No, Bernie has a much much steeper hill to
climb than Obama did to get the nomination.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)But there are a lot of differences in Bernie's favor this time.
The youth generation is larger.
The social media powers are greater.
Bernie has more support now than Obama had at the same time then.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Go Bernie!
Go Berners!
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)
this has to be said before it sinks in: Bernie Sanders is no Obama. While BS may have his own qualities, he lacks the things that Obama brought to the 2008 election cycle. Obama was young, charismatic, an exceptionally eloquent speaker; BS is none of those things.
Obamas focus was on what could be done in future to effect positive change. Bernies focus is on whats gone wrong in the past and its the same things hes been railing about for decades. In addition, BSs plans for changing things are vague at best, and largely unworkable.
Now we have Bernie and he's appealing to the very same people that Obama had enchanted.
No, actually hes not. BS wanted Obama primaried in 2012, and continues to complain about what Obama has and has not accomplished. In so doing, BS has disenchanted millions of potential supporters who remain loyal to Obama.
since that same majority that elected Obama not only still exists, (they've grown larger) why would they vote for a centrist moderate that they didn't vote for the first time round?
Firstly, calling HRC a centrist moderate is your label. It is not a label that millions of Democrats agree with. People base their perception of a candidate on their own opinion, not yours.
Secondly, you seem to forget how close HRC came to winning the nomination in 2008. She had millions of supporters then, and she has millions now. Of course, common sense would dictate that people who voted for Obama then wont be voting for him in 2016 because hes not running. Think about how many people (myself included) who saw HRC as their second choice in 2008, and now see her as their first choice without Obama as competition. To think that anyone who didnt vote for Hillary then wont vote for her now is beyond ludicrous.
The older generation has moved on
Really? We of the older generation are very much still here and we VOTE, while many of the younger generation still DONT.
Either way, the generation that voted Obama instead of Hillary is still here. I feel like it's honestly as if they're the elephant in the room that Hillary supporters aren't really thinking about.
Again, this logic is so flawed as to be laughable. You seem to be assuming that anyone who voted for Obama over Hillary in 2008 did so because they would never vote for her, then or now. How many politicians have lost elections (including BS) they later came to win in subsequent years? According to your logic, no one should ever seek office again after a lost election, because people who didnt vote for them the first time around would never vote for them a second time around or even a third or fourth time around. Does that really make sense to you?
The elephant in the room that BS supporters continue to ignore is the blatantly obvious fact that Bernie Sanders isnt Obama, not by a longshot and pretending they are seen as comparable or equal by voters is downright silly.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Clinton is still Clinton. A loser.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)That "loser" has far more support than BS does.
That "loser's" poll numbers keep rising, while BS's numbers have been stagnating for weeks.
That "loser" will be the next president.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Oh right, in 2007!
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that (a) Bernie is the same as Obama, and (b) because HRC lost to Obama in 2008, that means she'll lose to BS in 2016.
HRC is not competing with Obama this time around. She's competing with a man who has none of the qualities that Obama has.
This pipe-dream that this primary and the 2016 election will play out exactly as they did in 2008 is just that - a pipe-dream.
Just take out Obama and slot-in BS - and it will all go the same way now as it did then. The lack of logical thinking there is astounding.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,987 posts)eom
Number23
(24,544 posts)I seriously applaud your fortitude.
Obama got anywhere from 70-90% minority support and Hillary's numbers are about the same. Bernie is getting about 10% from the same groups.
Somehow to the OP and the person you're chatting with, that means "Bernie's a better candidate" or has "enchanted" the same people who supported Obama. I mean what else can you do but laugh. HARD.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)As loathe as I am to cite DU as a reflection of real-life political realities, apparently the OP has missed the fact that many, MANY, posters here who have been staunchly anti-Obama for years are now Bernie supporters - so much for the notion that BS is "enchanting" Obama supporters.
The fact is that it's the consistent Obama-bashers here often cite the fact that BS is NOT Obama as their reason for supporting him.
But as you say, what can you do but laugh - really, REALLY hard!
senz
(11,945 posts)You write,
Completely untrue. Bernie talks almost exclusively in the present and future. His proposals are quite specific, all the way down to how they will be paid.
Just make it up as you go along.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... and it's the same one he's been giving, over and over: "Here's what's wrong with everything!"
As for his plans to change things, they all require congressional support. I don't see telling millions of people to march on Washington to tell Republicans they'll "be out of a job" if they don't go along as a viable plan.
senz
(11,945 posts)You complain that he'll need congressional support to do help the American people. You overlook that your candidate, should she win the presidency, would also require congressional support -- unless she doesn't plan to do anything.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... and have heard the same talking points over and over.
HRC already has the support of congressional Democats via their endorsements. BS has two endorsements - not a big vote of confidence there.
Bernie prides himself on being the "outsider", the "no compromise" candidate. Well, guess what? In a two-party system, compromise gets things done - and being the "outsider" means the insiders aren't likely to have your back.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)because she's just way better at this than I could ever hope to be.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)All sorts of things wrong with your reasoning. Too many to try to type in my iPhone.
For starters, Bernie's no Obama? No s**t, really? He may not be young like Obama was, but it sure doesn't seem to affect his popularity with young voters. He may not be as "eloquent" of a speaker as Obama, but he has a simple, straight-forward and powerful way of speaking that sure seems to resonate with people. And charisma? I happen to think Bernie has a huge amount of charisma, it's just different from Obama.
And Bernie's major platform of creating a political revolution where people who have and have not been previously involved in the political process get engaged and stay engaged to pressure the powers in government to make the changes we desparately need. Sounds like a pretty damn good plan to me. Much more effective than people just showing up to the voting booth every two to four years and that's it (if they even do that)...going back to normal life thinking everything is just going to be peachy. How's that been working for us?
There's more, but tired of typing on this little keyboard.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... how do you explain his low, now all-but-stagnant poll numbers?
As for your comment that "Bernie's no Obama? No s**t, really", you might want to explain that to the OP, who seems to believe that BS is "appealing to the very same people that Obama had enchanted".
What I've seen so far in this thread is that voters are being drawn to BS because he's just like Obama and he's not Obama all at the same time.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)People came out in droves to vote for Obama because they wanted change. And, actually, not much has changed here in poor people's land. I remember 3 black women talking in K-Mart, they said don't worry Obama is going to fix everything. I knew they were going to be disappointed, but I kept my mouth shut. Oh, and that K-Mart......closed.
As for Obama's speeches, he really never said anything. People would come out and you'd ask him what he said, and all they could remember was that hope and change thing. Bernie's people come out from a speech and know exactly what he said.
Hillary has learned though from Obama, her speeches are pretty much the same thing now. What the hell does she stand for and what is she against. Who knows? Apparently she's not telling anyone until she's President.
Here's why people are coming out for Bernie.
Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html
You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me
-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
And, I'm below that, even with food stamps and my Medicaid/Medicare perks, I'm topped out at maybe $12,000 a year. And, again no COLA.
Some people are comfortable with their incomes, but most of us are not, and we see Hillary as a no win situation.
Z
JI7
(90,100 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I am a solid Hillary Clinton supporter this year.
<---- That's your logic.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)so why didn't you support Hillary then?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If Obama had not got into the race, I would have supported Hillary.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... and it was the same for many of us in 2008. Had Obama not entered the race, we'd now be discussing who Hillary's successor will be in 2016.
This is the "elephant in the room" that BS supporters just refuse to acknowledge - a vote for Obama in 2008 was a vote FOR Obama, not a vote AGAINST Hillary.
The "logic" of BSers on this point isn't flawed - it is simply non-existent.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)that's a weird answer to be honest.
"Why did you choose the Mac and cheese instead of the French fries?"
"because I chose the Mac and cheese"
what?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I lived in Illinois at the time. I had met Barack Obama on multiple occasions. A close relative lived in the same cooperative as the Obamas before he ever sought public office all the way up to the point where he purchased a different home in Hyde Park.
Had he not run, I would have supported Hillary.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)so then, would you have been for Bernie this time round had you lived in Vermont and met the man multiple times?
just a question and I mean nothing by this but, is having met a candidate really enough to give them a leg up on possibly superior competition?
I don't vote for Socialists. I vote for Democrats. I've known many Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians who sought office and I never voted for any of them.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)so this is a party loyalty kind of thing? I guess I can't argue with you there if that's how you feel.
personally, I'm with a few of the founding fathers on that matter.
www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/founding-fathers-beware-two-party-system/
but that's the system we have and it will never change. we are not a nation united, we are divided by red and blue. so be it.
still, thanks for discussing with me. I'm glad we got to the root of it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Socialism seeks to provide government control of the means of production. I have a fundamental disagreement with that.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)is a combination of capitalism and socialism.. Which is inherently what America should have always been.
A competitive market, with rules and regulations to prevent monopolies and other indecencies.
Plus...
Why the hell does everyone see Socialism, then look at Bernie and think, "that man wants to do the EXACT DEFINITION of socialism!"
No... Every economic ideology can evolve and be changed. Pure capitalism is freaking ruthless, I would HATE that world. Pure Socialism is inefficient. But together, they can seriously aid one another.
So yes, you're right that pure socialism lends government complete control over production, but... That's not what Bernie is about.
Remember in 2000 when Microsoft was taken to court by the U.S. government because of monopoly charges? That's democratic socialism at work.
You seriously can't have a fundamental disagreement with government oversight like that. One of the Democratic party's main purposes is to regulate things with federal oversight. Democratic socialism is the democratic party's mantra.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)system. The basis of Democratic Socialism is to still impose governmental control of the means of production.
I fundamentally disagree with this. In fact, I disagree with that basic principle more than I disagree with Republicans, whom I've spent an entire lifetime opposing.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)So that scenario that happened to Microsoft. Which was a democratic socialist act...
You're against that?
Are you implying that you believe that Microsoft should have been allowed to continue buying all smaller competitors so that they would keep their stranglehold on the market, they would continue to grow and swell until they became an unbeatable entity. All "mom and pop" businesses that would dare try to enter the business would be destroyed.
You're fundamentally against that?
You're beginning to blow my mind here.
Democratic Socialism is exactly what the American economy was supposed to be. Federal oversight will prevent corporations and other private entities from becoming overpowered and controlling too much. But Reaganomics took over, now we have the current system, where corporations are encouraged to grow and cut costs left and right.
You're fundamentally against the polar opposite of that kind of ideal?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)eom
So if the federal government takes an entity responsible for producing goods to court over the fact that they were doing something illegal, that does nothing to take over the control of the goods they produce? In a way, it clearly does. Microsoft could have been harmed greatly if they had not complied, and they would have produced goods, at a much more reduced rate.
So you're fundamentally against unions then? There's an example of a socialist organization that owns the means of a production.
Before you continue to assert that you have a very concrete understanding of what Democratic Socialism is, I want to remind you that it is an ideology that is capable of evolution and adjustment, just as any other. So read beyond the first sentence on Wikipedia's entry of Democratic Socialism, scroll on down to the section that reads "Relation to economics" and gain the understanding that whatever you're fundamentally against regarding Democratic Socialism, you're likely supportive of many other things that came from it.
Hopefully you'll also see that no Democratic Socialist is much like the other.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Regulation is not control. Control of the means of production requires nationalization of industry which then is run via governmental bureaucracy.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)that government isn't supposed to act independently of the people it serves.
in democratic socialism, look it up, it is SOCIETY that controls the means of production through the government that serves them.
what you're describing is the government acting on their own in controlling goods. that's a bit closer to communism which is a common misconception when reading into this.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)by individual entities and corporations.
Can you clearly explain to me, what is so bad about it?
And please, keep it on topic, we're discussing Democratic Socialism, not pure socialism.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So you aren't ever going to convince me that it is a viable system.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Corporations oppress people by creating economic inequality, ruining fair market practices, ruining the environment and peoples health, etc, etc, etc, etc....
So now that we're clear on how I "believe corporations oppress people" you tell me how Democratic Socialism "oppresses" anyone.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)production.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)that government would be controlled by the people themselves.
therefore they could not be oppressed. all that regulation and control over production would be based on what society themselves choose, why would society themselves choose unfair practices and such?
nevermind i'm not repeating this point any further, I'm talking to a wall and it looks like we're just going in circles here. you just keep repeating "oppression" without explaining how.
thanks for your time.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)REpublicans.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)that have always been oppressors.
you have yet to say how democratic socialism is oppressive.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Republicans will destroy it.
Nope, you won;t convince me. A Democratic Socialist form of government/economic system would be a horrid disaster.
Anybody but Sanders.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)your fear of Republicans poses the EXACT SAME OBSTACLE there.
well I guess we're screwed!
we're done, seriously. you have still not explained how democratic socialism is oppressive. you've degenerated into pointing the finger at Republicans. of course THEY'RE the problem, we all know that but let's use that as some excuse to explain the "fundamental opposition" to democratic socialism.
wow.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)And I gave you the explanation.
Government control of the means of production has failed miserably every time it has been attempted resulting in horrid oppression, such as the oppression under Hugo Chavez.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)no wait don't try again, this is going nowhere.
you said I'm not going to convince you right? second to that you keep pointing at socialist and communist examples of why democratic socialism is bad.
one more shot: http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism
we're done.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That sure as shit is democratic socialism, which ALWAYS results in brutal dictatorial regimes in the end.
You will never be capable of convincing me. History proves the disaster of what happens when government controls the means of production.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)is NOT the same as governing a nation with democratic socialist ideals.
please, stop trying or read this: http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism
oh BTW, how oppressed are the people of Sweden and Denmark right now? oh they're not? Denmark is rated the happiest country on earth?!
http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-reasons-denmarks-socialist-economy-leaves-the-us-in-the-dust/
look at all that oppression that you're "fundamentally against".
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)I was really hoping to learn something I didn't know but it appears we both wasted our time with that endeavor.
have a good day. I mean it. its Friday, let's enjoy it.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)We had a different group of candidates in 2008 than we do now.
Given the choice among the 2008 candidates, voters chose to support Obama over HRC. Given the choices now, voters are choosing HRC over BS.
I supported Obama in 2008 because I thought he was the best person for the job of POTUS. I am supporting HRC now because I think she's the best person for the job.
If you chose mac-'n'-cheese over French fries at one meal, does that mean you'll never eat French fries again for the rest of your life?
JI7
(90,100 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)I totally agree, but it isn't just the younger generation a lot of us in the "older" generation are still with the progressive agenda..
I didn't vote for her first timeout and will not vote for her in the primary this time out...as for the general, if she actually gets that far ( i sincerely hope not) I will once again hold my nose and go for the lesser of the 2 evils..
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I was only saying of all candidates, he had the most youth behind him. of course there were more than just that.
and I totally agree with you about the holding the nose part. I don't want to do it... but I'll have to.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Did not take offense at that was just pointing out that quite a lot of us "old farts" are pretty tired of getting screwed over and are pretty tired of watching all that we have worked to achieve in building this country to what it was go down the shitter. With proper leadership it could become great again..
ucrdem
(15,700 posts)That's the logic.
But Bernie is much more similar to Obama in 08 than Hillary is/was.
ucrdem
(15,700 posts)Not only that but Bernie launched his campaign by openly challenging Obama and questioning his motives in his anti-TPP rhetoric, which I found repulsive on several levels, not to mention dishonest. There's no question but that Sanders its the anti-Obama this time around.
disagreeing with the former president on his methods, and promising to do the same only better, does NOT make you the opposite of that president.
Seriously, Bernie is running on the same platform, he said that Obama didn't go far enough, which even I agree with. He won, walked into the white house, said "Don't worry, I GOT THIS" and left all those impassioned activists he encouraged out on the streets.
Bernie is basically the second chance for those people left behind by Obama.
Bernie didn't say Obama sucks at his job, he only said that he didn't come through enough.
ucrdem
(15,700 posts)At one point I did a transcript search and he said it repeatedly. Yes, he's running as the anti-Obama, and he knows it. I imagine he also know that he can't possibly win the Dem nomination. That explains why he hasn't bothered to declare as a Dem, but why is he running at all?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I'm going to wait for you to give me the source to that quote.
And quotes aside, his platform is closer to Obama's than Hillary's is.
ucrdem
(15,700 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)If BS is "similar" to Obama, how do you explain all of BS's supporters declaring they support Bernie because he's NOT Obama? If BS is "similar" to Obama, why did he want Obama primaried in 2012?
The revisionist history being promoted here is astounding. What's obvious is that BS is stagnating in the polls as HRC surges ahead. So now the "BS is NOT Obama" crowd are suddenly trying to convince people that if you liked Obama, you'll love Bernie.
No sale. You can peddle that bullshit as much as you like - but nobody's buying.
ucrdem
(15,700 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)DrBulldog
(841 posts)There are 75,000,000 millennials in our country now. Only 10% of them voted in the last Federal elections.
Bernie already has the support of 2/3 of the millennials - and he is only getting started.
So the choice is this:
Nominate Bernie. Massive voter turnout by the engaged millennials. Landslide for Bernie. At least one house of Congress returns to the Democrats. Bernie can now start working to fix some of our horrible problems.
Nominate Hillary. Another weak voter turnout with a general boycott by the millennials. Narrow win by Hillary. Both houses of Congress remain firmly locked in by the Republicans. Hillary spends at least four years sitting on her butt with a weak smile in the Oval Office doing NOTHING or CAVING in to the GOP.
The problem with your logic is there is no guarantee, in fact it is unlikely, that the American voting public will even be able to see this far ahead to pick Bernie. Corporate America will be fighting to get Hillary into the White House because she is already bought-and-paid-for and that is a powerful force to overcome.
So Bernie may not win - and America will lose.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)The majority of America is distrustful of their media these days.
Word of mouth and social media is much more trusted.
Keep in mind that the prevailing generations right now are Cold War Kids and Generation X. Both of these generations have seen first hand how our own country can lie to us with false information and propaganda.
They are the generations of skeptics. They rarely take ANYTHING at face value.
Combine that with the fact that the internet allows us ALL to be fact checkers instantaneously at all times.
I believe there is much more in Bernie's favor than people see on the surface.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)The two-thirds of 75 million, I mean? I'd like to see more detail on that.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I just think we are past a tipping point on so many things. We don't need mild sause. We need Siracha!
H=weak, milk toast, caver
Sanders=visionary, climate change focused, independent
mythology
(9,527 posts)And given Sanders has repeatedly voted against the most recent immigration bills (regardless of his reasoning), he's unlikely to make inroads with the Hispanic vote which was strongly for Clinton in 2008.
The Obama coalition wasn't just young voters. It was young voters, blacks and liberals. Sanders only has two legs of that stool.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Doing my part in the PNW.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Primary voters have lost faith in the era of Washington insiders coming out to bend their ears.
Senator Sanders is on track for a second round of journalists "discovering" his campaign. His will be the one where crowds of enthusiastic people come to hear talk of Progressive values, and a Progressive platform. He'll be engaging with the voters, and the journalists will once again marvel at it all.
And of course most prominent journalists aren't total idiots. They're fueling this upcoming narrative by the manner in which they're covering the primary contest today.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)- OWS! Anti Corporations, Anti Prisons for Profits, Anti FRACKING, Anti Big oil, Anti Big Ag, Anti Big Pharma and Anti GMOs/MONSANTO. <<<<<------- Hillary is connected to ALL of that.
Bernie's got this one - BIG TIME.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
retrowire
(10,345 posts)great points all around.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)it's so entertaining when you do.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)my op encompasses all races and genders soooo.....
TBF
(33,358 posts)I was a very disgruntled Gen-ex'er who returned to the political scene to support Obama because I thought he could actually beat the republicans. After 8 years of a horrible Bush presidency (that turned the war machine up to 11) we needed to act boldly and put an adult in office. We did that and despite some issues (ACA is not medicare for all, the drone thing is really not cool, etc) we at least stopped the hemorrhaging. I don't want to return to the years of Bush or Clinton (NAFTA, repeal of key portions of Glass-Steagal etc). We can build on what Obama has done and make improvements with Bernie.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)It's clear that he is appealing to some of the same people that Obama had enchanted. But there is a very large and very important part of the Obama coalition that (so far) is not feeling the Bern. You don't help your candidate by completely forgetting the role that they played in Obama's victory.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)the ones who haven't heard Bernie's message yet.
of course not all will "feel the bern" and its for many reasons.
fear of unelectability, fear of "socialism", fear of republicans, fear of his old age, etc etc
some people actually have legit opposition to Bernie. the death penalty for instance I've seen someone used as a reason.
but other than that, most that don't support him will likely do it out of fear. that's my hypothesis.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Do you know who I was referring to?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)African American voters?
demographics be damned. people are people. they can hear Bernie's message just the same as any other person.
their reasons to accept and object to it can be as varied as well.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)My point is that your OP is based on the claim that Bernie Sanders is appealing to "very same people" who supported Obama in 2008. This claim is clearly false. Now, there is still time for Bernie Sanders to appeal to African American voters (and other people who supported Obama eight years ago). But no matter how hard he tries I think it is pretty unlikely that Bernie Sanders will be able to achieve the level of primary support from African Americans that Obama enjoyed. Without comparable support among African Americans, it will be pretty difficult for Bernie Sanders to overtake Hillary Clinton.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I wasn't inferring race or demographics like that, I was inferring the general sentiment of a group of people that are displeased with our current economy, foreign policies, domestic issues and what not.
Again, exact demographics be damned, my hypothesis is directed towards the people as a whole, no specifics really. Just the majority that is discontented with "politics as usual".
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Why wouldn't he? He is the only candidiate who gives me hope for the change that did not materialize with Obama. For many reasons, I do not think Sandera will be the majority of the Black vote, but he has been making some gains.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Despite absolute prophecy being anything but logical, I deeply admire your faith in it.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)Taunts etc. So do my friends and family-locally. We are confident in our candidate and recognize this very juvenile behavior as one of a sort of panic over fears of losing.
No one actually has presented a good, rationale, documented objection to any of Sanders policies. It's so far..all manufactured nonsense.
If people want to know something..no matter how insignificant-call the Campaign. If it involves questions about a Vote...call his office. If one wants to make claims about this vote or that vote without first asking Why position A or B was taken....you look the fool Not person you are trying to make look inferior.
I heard comments about Sander having voted against an immigration bill. No one ask him Why. Funny thing about bills that have "poison pills" embedded.
The only funny thing here is the fact that folks are very quick to criticize about the only federal lawmaker that actually Reads a piece of legislation Before voting as they simultaneously complain about their own reps "blindly voting" the wrong way on most.
Just my observation and opinion(s)