• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Things Have Been Different If Bernie Was The Nominee?

Geoist

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
35,095
Reaction score
26,951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was the kicker.


Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
 
Geoist said:
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was huge.


Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
Click to expand...

I believe that he would have lost by a far wider margin.

There are still many Americans who believe that they should earn their own way.
 
Senator Bernie Sanders just became the true leader of the free world. I'm sure many will agree with that, especially after the Trump Crisis.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I believe that he would have lost by a far wider margin.

There are still many Americans who believe that they should earn their own way.
Click to expand...

Doubt that actually. The countries desire for legal plunder is unquenchable. That's pretty much what Sanders was selling to the American people and I assure you they would have ate it all up and demanded seconds.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I believe that he would have lost by a far wider margin.

There are still many Americans who believe that they should earn their own way.
Click to expand...

You do realize FDR was elected three times?
 
Geoist said:
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was the kicker.


Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
Click to expand...

Odds are he would have won. Shame he didn't run as an independent.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I believe that he would have lost by a far wider margin.

There are still many Americans who believe that they should earn their own way.
Click to expand...

IE: When Republicans spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on pointless wars we can't afford, it's capitalism and democracy, but if someone comes along and suggests we spend a tiny fraction of that on the American people instead, it's socialist unicorn time robbing from the middle class.
 
Geoist said:
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was the kicker.

Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
Click to expand...

Yep. We could easily have been waking to a hippy do gooder instead of a reality TV star in the White House.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Senator Bernie Sanders just became the true leader of the free world. I'm sure many will agree with that, especially after the Trump Crisis.
Click to expand...

Yes! BS for President 2024! :hm
 
Geoist said:
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was the kicker.


Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
Click to expand...
Would the DNC have been as motivated to stack the deck and cheat for and on his behalf?

And what if his opponent were Rubio, since we are talking what ifs.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
IE: When Republicans spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on pointless wars we can't afford, it's capitalism and democracy, but if someone comes along and suggests we spend a tiny fraction of that on the American people instead, it's socialist unicorn time robbing from the middle class.
Click to expand...

How about going out and earning it for yourself instead?
 
Geoist said:
During the primaries I voted for a candidate from one of the two parties for the very first time. I voted for Sanders. And while I do not consider myself a democratic socialist, I liked how he was not corrupted by lobbyist money the way other candidates were. Having 50% approval rating from Republicans in his own state was also a positive sign. Naturally, now, many of us are thinking what could have been. No email scandals. No Benghazi. No Bill Clinton. Just a campaign about the issues. The DNC worked its hardest to make sure it was not to be. But as we learned from this election, enthusiasm for an anti-establishment candidate was the kicker.


Was Bernie a better candidate for this cycle? Let me count the ways.
Click to expand...

Real Clear politics showed him doing a better job than Clinton.But seeing how they were wrong about Trump they were probably also wrong about Sanders. Plus as other posted out there are far too many Americans who believe they should earn what they get.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
IE: When Republicans spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on pointless wars we can't afford, it's capitalism and democracy, but if someone comes along and suggests we spend a tiny fraction of that on the American people instead, it's socialist unicorn time robbing from the middle class.
Click to expand...

I wonder, do you think democrats are against an interventionist policy? Don't you think this little talking point is kind of worn out after Obama and company showed themselves to be just as much supporters of interventionism as republicans?
 
RetiredUSN said:
People didn't have the sense of entitlement back then, as many do today.

FDR was the right man for the times.
Click to expand...

True, but that is when it started in the US.
 
Henrin said:
True, but that is when it started in the US.
Click to expand...

I think you need to go back to the 60's era to see the largest change.

FDR never meant to provide free birth control, free college, etc. etc. etc.

FDR believed in a hand up, not a life long handout.
 
In answer to your question....

I personally feel Sanders would have lost to Trump by a huge margin.

But, Sanders made a deal with Hillary early on and threw the nomination.

There are even leaked emails where he fussed at her and said some of the things she was doing were not in their deal.

Bernie needs to enjoy the beach house the DNC bought for him and slowly slide away to enjoy his latter years.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I think you need to go back to the 60's era to see the largest change.

FDR never meant to provide free birth control, free college, etc. etc. etc.

FDR believed in a hand up, not a life long handout.
Click to expand...

The second new deal is really a large part of the backbone of the goals of the democratic party and liberals in the US. They love that little deal and have been working their way down the list of things on it ever since it failed to pass. There is a reason FDR is their idol and that reason is because his beliefs and his way of doing things is part of the foundation of everything they believe in. Of course, the ideas of Europe were already creeping in by the time he was elected and sooner or later the supporters of those views were going to get someone in office.

Anyway, you might be right about FDR, but in the end the one bleeds into the other just by the natural flow of things. If you start the one then you will undoubtedly have to deal with the other before long.
 
Henrin said:
The second new deal is really a large part of the backbone of the goals of the democratic party and liberals in the US. They love that little deal and have been working their way down the list of things on it ever since it failed to pass. There is a reason FDR is their idol and that reason is because his beliefs and his way of doing things is part of the foundation of everything they believe in. Of course, the ideas of Europe were already creeping in by the time he was elected and sooner or later the supporters of those views were going to get someone in office.

Anyway, you might be right about FDR, but in the end the one bleeds into the other just by the natural flow of things. If you start the one then you will undoubtedly have to deal with the other before long.
Click to expand...

I believe that you are right on this.

If you feed a stray dog, he's bound to follow you home.
 
RetiredUSN said:
How about going out and earning it for yourself instead?
Click to expand...

If you're talking about things like healthcare and higher education, then having no choice but to pay through the nose whatever is demanded by a profit-driven sector is much closer to blackmail and extortion than earning something. These are essential and sometimes life-or-death services, which are best (and sometimes only) provided by large institutions; Mum and Pop startups can't afford MRI machines and electron microscopes, after all. A "pay what we demand or feel free to die" approach to healthcare is absurd.

Providing quality public alternatives both benefits society generally and increases the competitiveness of those sectors.
 
Mithrae said:
If you're talking about things like healthcare and higher education, then having no choice but to pay through the nose whatever is demanded by a profit-driven sector is much closer to blackmail and extortion than earning something. These are essential and sometimes life-or-death services, which are best (and sometimes only) provided by large institutions; Mum and Pop startups can't afford MRI machines and electron microscopes, after all. A "pay what we demand or feel free to die" approach to healthcare is absurd.

Providing quality public alternatives both benefits society generally and increases the competitiveness of those sectors.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the ACA did anything to improve the situation either.

It only provided a BS insurance where a good many of users couldn't afford the co-pays.

So, if that is your argument, then I don't know what to tell you. The system sucks............and I agree with you.
 
Mithrae said:
If you're talking about things like healthcare and higher education, then having no choice but to pay through the nose whatever is demanded by a profit-driven sector is much closer to blackmail and extortion than earning something. These are essential and sometimes life-or-death services, which are best (and sometimes only) provided by large institutions; Mum and Pop startups can't afford MRI machines and electron microscopes, after all. A "pay what we demand or feel free to die" approach to healthcare is absurd.

Providing quality public alternatives both benefits society generally and increases the competitiveness of those sectors.
Click to expand...

Not really all that open to listening to liberals about those things honestly. It was liberals almost entirely that pushed education and healthcare costs up with government regulations, so honestly, they just need to stop offering up solutions on those things now. You don't get to raise the costs of healthcare for a hundred years with endless regulations and then say you will solve the problem. No, you are not worthy of that position.
 
Henrin said:
Not really all that open to listening to liberals about those things honestly. It was liberals almost entirely that pushed education and healthcare costs up with government regulations, so honestly, they just need to stop offering up solutions on those things now. You don't get to raise the costs of healthcare for a hundred years with endless regulations and then say you will solve the problem. No, you are not worthy of that position.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen of your posts you're not open to listening to anyone about anything. Least of all basic facts and common sense, if you think that I raised the healthcare costs in your country a century ago :roll:
 
Bernie would have beaten Trump. Crazy Bernie would have been President if he had only done what Trump did, believed in himself and jumped in with the intent to win.

But he didn't.

So now he is a loser.
 
Mithrae said:
From what I've seen of your posts you're not open to listening to anyone about anything. Least of all basic facts and common sense, if you think that I raised the healthcare costs in your country a century ago :roll:
Click to expand...

Nice personal attack. Btw, I'm not wrong. The regulations that were put on the medical field over the last 100 years had a considerable influence on the price of medical care. Guess who is responsible for most of that? Your side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom