Bernie Sanders for President

mrussel1 said:

BrokenGlass said:

The numbers for Hillary create both a ceiling and a floor for her. She is pretty stable. Fortunately, Trump is as well. He is the only one with unsure numbers like Hillary (2 pts higher) And she had a huge head start on Bernie, you're right. Look at the poll averages in the link I provided below. Set the graph for a year and you can see how Bernie has climbed while HRC has consistently hovered in the 50-60% range over the past half year. That's to be expected in a competitive race.

You can interpret the 30% to be positive. I don't draw any conclusions, but it is RISK. You can't underestimate what the term 'Socialist' means to the generation that grew up in the Cold War. It doesn't mean Sweden or Canada. It means Russia. And no group heads to the polls more consistently than older people, with far better turnout than the youth. So again, it is risk to the progressive agenda started again by Obama. That's what worries me.

I don't know when you started voting, but if you're old enough to remember the Swift Boat veterans, you know what can happen to a good man with a good history.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

My first vote in a presidential election was in 1976. I supported a progressive, Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, but my primary (Ohio) was the last one, and he had withdrawn by then, so I instead voted for Sen. Mo Udall, a progressive and strong environmentalist. We got stuck with centrist Jimmy Carter. In 1980, I was a volunteer coordinator for Ted Kennedy in Cincinnati. Dems stuck with the "safe" choice and Carter was creamed by Reagan. In 1984 and 1988, Dems nominated establishment hacks Mondale and Dukakis, rejecting progressives like Paul Simon, Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson, and we again got creamed. That opened the door to the Clinton created Democrat Leadership Council, who convinced the party that the way to win the White House was to out-Republican the Republicans. We got Bill Clinton, a "Democrat" who gutted the welfare programs, passed the oppressive crime bill in 1994, crammed NAFTA down our throats, and granted most-favored nation trading status to China, the world's worst human rights abuser, laying the seeds for the great American manufacturing exodus. In 2000, Dems again stuck with the establishment and Al Gore; that delivered us GWB.
Sure I remember the Swift Boating, and I recognize the potential for lowball tactics against Bernie. But that was a reelection campaign by an incumbent during wartime, not buffoons like Trump or neo-Nazi religious fanatics like Cruz. I believe we are at a historic crossroads for progressive politics. We must not settle once again for quasi-liberals like Hillary (and Obama) and hope they stick to their progressive promises. They never do, because they aren't principled, they are panderers who will say what they must to obtain power. WE must vote with the courage of our convictions if we want to truly succeed at taking this country back for the 99%.
Finally, Bernie is not counting on the reliable older white demographic to win the presidency. He states emphatically at every rally that he can only win if we get a large turnout of young, working poor, and working class people who traditionally don't vote. We know the hard task ahead; we have the strength, the will, and the message to achieve it. Speaking truth to power is the only way we bring the change we need to restore American democracy and an economy that works for us all.

mrussel1 said:

Brianlux, that's my point. You are saying it's BAU with HRC and I agree. But it's continuing Obama's agenda. Certainly domestically there is little daylight between Hillary and Obama. So criticizing what she would do as president is akin to criticizing him. She is more hawkish than he is so there is that which I'm not a fan of. But I have no real sense of what Sanders would do if he sat in the chair. Casting conscience votes is a lot different than making the decisions everyday. You can see it in Obama and his decisions. He is more hawkish than anyone would have guessed him to be.

Obama was the best choice at the time time so, yes, I voted for him but that doesn't mean I've always supported his every move. In fact, I have been critical of some of Obama's actions and of course I'm critical of business as usual but I don't see the relevance of any of that here.

So back to Sanders since that is the focus of this thread: What would Sanders do if he sat in that chair? I think that is asking the wrong question. I think the better question is, what would we do if he sat in that chair? Bernie will not be our dictator. He will inspire and motivate us to be more involved, more educated, more active. I'll even go further by saying I'm not at all a fan of any one person have power to dictate what will directly affect 322 million Americans and at least indirectly the rest of the world. I mean, really, whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?

Business as usual is not good for the people and a lot of the people are starting to get that.

considering how little obama accomplished without both houses ... pretty sure if Sanders got elected - he's a lame duck ...

look at the people that occupy these positions and i'm not sure how anyone could have any faith in an America that will veer from its current course ...

Free said:

Hillary demonstrates her weakness by not committing to NY debate with Sanders

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/hillary-demonstrates-her-weakness-by-not-committing-to-ny-debate-with-sanders/

From the article: "[Sander's] picking up steam and gaining more momentum, and part of the reason why is because his message against political corruption is resonating with progressive voters."

That's what she's afraid of and for good reason. Go Bernie!

JimmyV said:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/715215485218983940?s=09

I would expect Bernie to win WI. The demos are very similar to MN with the exception of having a little bit larger African American population due to Milwaukee. The goal for him is to win 59% of the delegates. Conversely, Hillary winning 48% or so would probably be considered a victory as it would put pressure on the next big set of primaries in NJ, MD, etc.

Free said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

Hillary demonstrates her weakness by not committing to NY debate with Sanders

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/hillary-demonstrates-her-weakness-by-not-committing-to-ny-debate-with-sanders/

From the article: "[Sander's] picking up steam and gaining more momentum, and part of the reason why is because his message against political corruption is resonating with progressive voters."

That's what she's afraid of and for good reason. Go Bernie!

She's also scared of the embarassment of losing in her home state of NY. Which is also the state Sanders grew up in. Primaries may be a mess there.

NY isn't her home state. She moved there so she could run for the Senate seat.

so she is a reverse carpetbagger??

i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY.
she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.