• 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!

Bernie Sanders Enters 2020 Presidential Campaign, No Longer An Underdog

DH Kirkwood said:
Gee, you don't like either of the two major nominess from the 2015 Democratic primary . . . are you sure that you were wanting the Democrats to win at all?

Idiot grandpa. What's idiotic about him, his policies, or the fact that he ran? Dude, for one thing, a lot of the people who were supporting Bernie would have never gone to the polls in the first place. We have a low voter turn-out because nobody has any faith in American politics. I've been a sort of political junkie ever since I decided that history was my favorite subject in high-school, and never failed to vote since. I became so disillusioned by politics that I was going to hang up my hat and stop torturing myself. Guess who lit a fire under my ass and caused me to give a **** again?

Bernie. ****ing. Sanders.

I'm not the only one, either. It's why we've got AOC. It's why David Doel ran for office in Canada, lost and then started a successful YouTube channel. He inspires people. He brings titans like Bezos to their knees. Most importantly, he brings kids out to vote. It's because of him that the progressive movement has become a force to be reckoned with. It's because of him that anyone is even talking about Medicare4All. It's because of him that all of the nine million candidates running for office are trying to court progressives.

You know what would have actually happened if Clinton had won? She would have been a two-term president due to the incumbant advantage, but would have done nothing to actually instill any confidence in the Democratic Party. The alt-right would not go away, and in fact, they would just sit there and broil until they exploded with a vengeance in 2020, electing . . . Donald Trump. We've been trading between both parties every administration for decades, and it's pretty obvious given that, and the pattern of our spiraling political discourse that we would merely be delaying the inevitable while perpetuating this vicious cycle.

Trump is not a fluke. The TEA party is not a fluke, the alt-right is not a fluke. This is a pattern. The GOP is getting crazier, has been getting crazier, and it's been happening because the Democrats chase them right off the rails, failing to tout anything resembeling a viable message while adopting conservative rhetoric in an attempt at appealing to moderate voters.

And who reallygives a **** about age. It's just a weak attempt at creating doubt about his campaign without actually have to battle him on policy. Worst thing that happens is that he dies or his health sinks during his first time. There's this thing called a 'vice president', and many of us progressives are eying Tulsi Gabbard for his running mate, who's only three years older than I am. While I like Tulsi less than I do Bernie, I would still be perfectly fine with her in office, but regardles of what opinionated MSM asshats say, all the signs show that Sanders is easily the best chance we got of actually winning the election. The guy raised a million dollars within four hours of launching his campaign. Even if he croaks he's at least going to be the armor-piercing round that gets the running mate elected.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you said really, but the problem is that none of those people you mentioned besides Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.
 
Surrealistik said:
Of the current contenders I don't think anyone would appeal more to the rust belt than Bernie TBH.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I do think Sherrod and Klobuchar would as well but I dont see them prevailing in the primaries. They both have shunned the progressive label and arent talking about progressive issues. So I do think that will hurt them a lot. I certainly dont see Harris, Booker, Gillibrand doing well outside of the coasts. So that could be problematic. Honestly I think if Ocasio Cortez comes out and endorses Bernie (she did in 2016), that would be huge as she is popular with the progressive base. I also think as I said above if Sanders comes out and does something unusual like announcing who he wants as his VP (he could say because of ageism) that also could help him. Imagine going into the primaries down south with Stacy Abrams as his VP? Lots of people on social media are already talking about how they want to see a Sanders/Trump debate. Would be interesting.
 
OscarLevant said:
None of those past races for dems had the benefit of someone like Trump destroying the republican party, american instiutions, and just being an all around disaster. Odds are, 2020 is going to be big for dems.

I could be wrong, but that is my gut feeling. My gut feeling that more people would vote for Hillary than Trump was correct. No one forsaw the EC. Another thing, in 2020, EC win on minority has never happened on a really wide vote margin win. All dems need is a stronger candidate than Hillary. Trump's EC win was unspectacular, and he ownly won by 80,000 votes in the swing states. Bernie cold easily clench those back from Trump. See, the best candidate to beat Trump is Bernie. It's all about "who is the real populist". Bernie's populist credentials are authentic and unimpeachable. I can't say that about Trump. THe contrast will be so pronounced, no one can miss, except the dumb and dumber.
Click to expand...

I do think Sanders could have won in 2016. He was one of only three candidates to have a higher favorable numbers than unfavorable. Both Trump and Hillary were in the pits on those. I've always said that any other Democrats would have beaten Trump other than Hillary. She was her own worst enemy with her ho hum campaign, laziness and inept campaign strategy. Yet even with all those deficiencies as you pointed out, she won the popular vote.

I also see 2020 as a huge year for the Democrats, more so than in 2018. But that all depends on whom they nominate. Candidates do matter, hopefully the Democrats learned that from 2016. When it comes to presidential elections, I pay very little attention to Republicans and Democrats. I keep my eye on the independent voter. They're the largest segment or block in our electorate. They make up approximately 40% of the total electorate.

The Democrats, well neither party paid any attention to his group of voters back in 2016. That was their right, both went with their most disliked candidate by America as a whole. 25% of all Americans disliked both Clinton and Trump which included 54% of independents. This is the portion of America which didn't want neither one to become their next president.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

I think there are a couple of candidates on the democratic side that could let Trump back into the race. But it might not even matter. That is if things stay as they are now, which they won't. Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 was in 2016 Hillary had all the baggage, in 2020 it will be Trump with all the baggage.
 
Surrealistik said:
That in no way forbids supplemental insurance per things not covered; again this is how private health insurance continues to exist in virtually every developed SP country.
Click to expand...

Section 107 of the Sanders Bill OUTLAWS such insurance. If you don't like the care you are getting through Medicare, well tough, Big Brother knows what is best. That is the Sander plan.

"SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) In General.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—

(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or

(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act."


And the kicker is, that bull**** doesn't even effect the autocrats like Bernie who wouldn't even need insurance to get the best care available. Us peons? Tough ****, says Bernie Sanders.
 
Perotista said:
I do think Sanders could have won in 2016. He was one of only three candidates to have a higher favorable numbers than unfavorable. Both Trump and Hillary were in the pits on those. I've always said that any other Democrats would have beaten Trump other than Hillary. She was her own worst enemy with her ho hum campaign, laziness and inept campaign strategy. Yet even with all those deficiencies as you pointed out, she won the popular vote.

I also see 2020 as a huge year for the Democrats, more so than in 2018. But that all depends on whom they nominate. Candidates do matter, hopefully the Democrats learned that from 2016. When it comes to presidential elections, I pay very little attention to Republicans and Democrats. I keep my eye on the independent voter. They're the largest segment or block in our electorate. They make up approximately 40% of the total electorate.

The Democrats, well neither party paid any attention to his group of voters back in 2016. That was their right, both went with their most disliked candidate by America as a whole. 25% of all Americans disliked both Clinton and Trump which included 54% of independents. This is the portion of America which didn't want neither one to become their next president.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

I think there are a couple of candidates on the democratic side that could let Trump back into the race. But it might not even matter. That is if things stay as they are now, which they won't. Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 was in 2016 Hillary had all the baggage, in 2020 it will be Trump with all the baggage.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I think dems are more divided than they realize. But generally, I do think they will begrudgingly vote for whoever wins the nomination just due to Trump. The indies are indeed the big question mark. Many dont regret their third party vote in 2016 and said they would do it again. Indies also were most interested to hear Howard Schultz and his ideas, while the partisans became angry at the idea of him running third party. So I do think that could pose a problem. If the dems go too far left, it could open the door to a big vote for Schultz (or whoever the libertarian candidate ends up being). That could leave the door open for Trump again.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I don't disagree with anything you said really, but the problem is that none of those people you mentioned besides Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.
Click to expand...

I don't actually see that as a problem.
 
pilot16 said:
I tend to agree. I think dems are more divided than they realize. But generally, I do think they will begrudgingly vote for whoever wins the nomination just due to Trump. The indies are indeed the big question mark. Many dont regret their third party vote in 2016 and said they would do it again. Indies also were most interested to hear Howard Schultz and his ideas, while the partisans became angry at the idea of him running third party. So I do think that could pose a problem. If the dems go too far left, it could open the door to a big vote for Schultz (or whoever the libertarian candidate ends up being). That could leave the door open for Trump again.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about Schultz. If anything, I think he would appeal more to moderate Republicans. Remember that during the primary, the one refrain we kept hearing out of MSM and the Clinton Camp was about her being more 'electable' due to outdated notions of what makes a Democratic candidate viable. "Any Blue will do" was the prevailing atitude among Hillary supporters and the one arguement they kept stick to was, 'Well I like Bernie, but he just can't win'.

I aside from that, progressive policy position poll very well. (I swear to you that the alliteration is by accident, but I'm too lazy and tired to find a different way to write that.) When polled, people tend to overwhelmingly in favor of Med4All, raising the minimum wage, and all that jazz. The voters are actually to the left of party leadership. I don't think enough of Hillary's former supporters actually supported her on policy issues enough to jump ship instead of voting for Sanders, while I would bet money that many fiscal conservatives that are fed up with Trump's in-your-face tribalism and overt---everything are going to throw in with Shultz.

If Warren, after having lost the primary, decided to run as an independant, then I would be worried. That would absolutely split the left vote.
 
pilot16 said:
I tend to agree. I think dems are more divided than they realize. But generally, I do think they will begrudgingly vote for whoever wins the nomination just due to Trump. The indies are indeed the big question mark. Many dont regret their third party vote in 2016 and said they would do it again. Indies also were most interested to hear Howard Schultz and his ideas, while the partisans became angry at the idea of him running third party. So I do think that could pose a problem. If the dems go too far left, it could open the door to a big vote for Schultz (or whoever the libertarian candidate ends up being). That could leave the door open for Trump again.
Click to expand...

You have to have money to be competitive. As much as both Trump and Hillary were disliked by America as a whole, Johnson and Stein had no money. With no name recognition, no media coverage, no debates, no way to get their message out, it is quite amazing third party candidates garnered 6% of the total vote. All they were was a name on the ballot that wasn't Trump nor Clinton. If Schultz is willing to spend money, yes indeed, he could become a force. Especially among independents. Without money, Schultz would be just another name on the ballot that wasn't a major two party candidate.

You're correct about the third party voter not changing his vote from a third party candidate. I voted third party and if the election was held today, I'd still vote third party. Such was my disdain for both Trump and Clinton. I don't think the Democrats ever realized how much Hillary was disliked. 70% of independents disliked her vs. 57% for Trump. No love there for either major party candidate. So 12% of independents voted third party against both major party candidate, most of the rest for the candidate they least wanted to lose. Not win, but least wanted to lose. Questions 10 and 11

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

I think most independents are looking for a more middle of the road candidate. Definitely not Trump, but also not some far left Wacko from the Democrats. As a third party voter in 2016, there were 9 million of us. I know I won't be voting for Trump in 2020. But that doesn't mean I will be voting Democrat either. It all depends on whom their nominee is.

Sanders is strange, he could be the farthest left candidate they have. Yet he is well respected especially among independents. Sanders and my politics for the most part are completely opposite. Yet I would trust him with our country. Hillary I wouldn't, a couple of other I wouldn't either.
 
DH Kirkwood said:
I'm not worried about Schultz. If anything, I think he would appeal more to moderate Republicans. Remember that during the primary, the one refrain we kept hearing out of MSM and the Clinton Camp was about her being more 'electable' due to outdated notions of what makes a Democratic candidate viable. "Any Blue will do" was the prevailing atitude among Hillary supporters and the one arguement they kept stick to was, 'Well I like Bernie, but he just can't win'.

I aside from that, progressive policy position poll very well. (I swear to you that the alliteration is by accident, but I'm too lazy and tired to find a different way to write that.) When polled, people tend to overwhelmingly in favor of Med4All, raising the minimum wage, and all that jazz. The voters are actually to the left of party leadership. I don't think enough of Hillary's former supporters actually supported her on policy issues enough to jump ship instead of voting for Sanders, while I would bet money that many fiscal conservatives that are fed up with Trump's in-your-face tribalism and overt---everything are going to throw in with Shultz.

If Warren, after having lost the primary, decided to run as an independant, then I would be worried. That would absolutely split the left vote.
Click to expand...

How do you feel this morning about the DNC demands that all candidates have a week to declare as democrats? Sanders had said he would wait until next year to do so (in fairness to supporters in Vermont). But now it appears they are forcing his hand.
 
Perotista said:
You have to have money to be competitive. As much as both Trump and Hillary were disliked by America as a whole, Johnson and Stein had no money. With no name recognition, no media coverage, no debates, no way to get their message out, it is quite amazing third party candidates garnered 6% of the total vote. All they were was a name on the ballot that wasn't Trump nor Clinton. If Schultz is willing to spend money, yes indeed, he could become a force. Especially among independents. Without money, Schultz would be just another name on the ballot that wasn't a major two party candidate.

You're correct about the third party voter not changing his vote from a third party candidate. I voted third party and if the election was held today, I'd still vote third party. Such was my disdain for both Trump and Clinton. I don't think the Democrats ever realized how much Hillary was disliked. 70% of independents disliked her vs. 57% for Trump. No love there for either major party candidate. So 12% of independents voted third party against both major party candidate, most of the rest for the candidate they least wanted to lose. Not win, but least wanted to lose. Questions 10 and 11

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

I think most independents are looking for a more middle of the road candidate. Definitely not Trump, but also not some far left Wacko from the Democrats. As a third party voter in 2016, there were 9 million of us. I know I won't be voting for Trump in 2020. But that doesn't mean I will be voting Democrat either. It all depends on whom their nominee is.

Sanders is strange, he could be the farthest left candidate they have. Yet he is well respected especially among independents. Sanders and my politics for the most part are completely opposite. Yet I would trust him with our country. Hillary I wouldn't, a couple of other I wouldn't either.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, Sanders is honest and that makes him respected and well liked. I could disagree 100% with a candidate but if they are honest and trying to make things better I still like them. Sanders has never ever hidden the fact that he is a democratic socialist. He has been proud of it. Even in Vermont the GOP re-elects him time and time again because they trust him. That says a lot. Too many times we see politicians of all stripes promise the moon and then turn their backs on the electorate. People dont feel he will. He is that old relative that says what he feels and doesnt care. People like that a lot and often wish they could be as bold.
 
pilot16 said:
How do you feel this morning about the DNC demands that all candidates have a week to declare as democrats? Sanders had said he would wait until next year to do so (in fairness to supporters in Vermont). But now it appears they are forcing his hand.
Click to expand...

To be honest, that one is news to me.

I'm fairly certain that his Vermont constituents will understand if he really has to end up doing that. I'd be concerned if he refused, and had to either drop out or run as an independant. While I think that he would do much better than Stein did outside of the Democratic party, but I still have no faith in third-parties and independants in presidential races, and this will remain true unless some serious changes are made. If this scenario came to pass, I would still donate to his campaign and support him, but when if it came down to vote, polls did not indicate an absolute miracle, I would throw my vote to either Tulsi or Warren.

I'm one of those people that does not regret a third-party vote back in 2016. I did feel, and still feel that Clinton, while on her face would be the lesser of two evils for sure, but would in the long-run mean a slow death for the left. Trump's supporters wouldn't simply go away, much like we 'Berniecrats' have not, and once Clinton's administration was done with, we'd end up electing Trump anyway. It would be delayed, but we would get Trump, he'd probably be listening to an even angrier crowd, and all the fervor on the left would have simply died out. That said, I do not plan on going round two with Donald Trump.
 
Last edited:
pilot16 said:
In my opinion, Sanders is honest and that makes him respected and well liked. I could disagree 100% with a candidate but if they are honest and trying to make things better I still like them. Sanders has never ever hidden the fact that he is a democratic socialist. He has been proud of it. Even in Vermont the GOP re-elects him time and time again because they trust him. That says a lot. Too many times we see politicians of all stripes promise the moon and then turn their backs on the electorate. People dont feel he will. He is that old relative that says what he feels and doesnt care. People like that a lot and often wish they could be as bold.
Click to expand...

No, he's NOT honest. Bernie Sanders is an old school left wing authoritarian, a demagogue who is well aware that what he's proposing is neither feasible or sustainable.
 
Verax said:
People can trash Sanders and lie about him, both the right and left and media, but he is going to smash and nobody can stop him. There are simply too many Americans both left and right who will vote for him. And this time he already has a tremendous amount of name recognition and is the most popular politician in the country. Give him your worst, it won't work.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he's going to "smash". I think that he can generate a lot of enthusiasm in his supporters, but he'll have to be able to translate that into votes. I think that the fear of a second term of Trump is large enough that the Democrats should be looking to find someone far more reasonable to run.

They have a good group of governors to choose from who are interested in the position, and I think they should start there.
 
Ikari said:
I don't know if he's going to "smash". I think that he can generate a lot of enthusiasm in his supporters, but he'll have to be able to translate that into votes. I think that the fear of a second term of Trump is large enough that the Democrats should be looking to find someone far more reasonable to run.

They have a good group of governors to choose from who are interested in the position, and I think they should start there.
Click to expand...

I think too after seeing the Klobuchar town hall, that personality is going to come into play. If we get over 12 candidates up there on stage or more, the one that is going to stand out has that better chance. So far, thats Bernie. We have seen how he goes right in for the jugular and performs. Now if Beto gets in, he seems like he could as well. Biden too. I think unfortunately for some of those governors, Hickenlooper, Bullock, Inslee, they are very sedate. They might not get that chance to show their expertise, unfairly so. It has the potential to end up with that "low energy Jeb" we heard from Trump. Sanders would surely be over the top.
 
Fenton said:
No, he's NOT honest. Bernie Sanders is an old school left wing authoritarian, a demagogue who is well aware that what he's proposing is neither feasible or sustainable.
Click to expand...

But he believes it is, thats the difference. He doesnt understand why we cant do or have those things. It is being honest.
 
pilot16 said:
I think too after seeing the Klobuchar town hall, that personality is going to come into play. If we get over 12 candidates up there on stage or more, the one that is going to stand out has that better chance. So far, thats Bernie. We have seen how he goes right in for the jugular and performs. Now if Beto gets in, he seems like he could as well. Biden too. I think unfortunately for some of those governors, Hickenlooper, Bullock, Inslee, they are very sedate. They might not get that chance to show their expertise, unfairly so. It has the potential to end up with that "low energy Jeb" we heard from Trump. Sanders would surely be over the top.
Click to expand...

It's the show that our national political stage is turning into, unfortunately. I don't think that the DNC should entertain any of those Congress Clowns for the job. Pick a former governor. They have experience running government at the Executive level, they many not be as crazy as the Congress Critters. You could find someone who is centrist, well spoken, has experience, has a solid platform, and could trounce Trump in debates. I don't see why they want to chance a second term of Trump by just showing off their Legislative Loonies. I believe that they need to take the threat of a second Trump term seriously and attack this issue intelligently and coherently.
 
Ikari said:
I don't know if he's going to "smash". I think that he can generate a lot of enthusiasm in his supporters, but he'll have to be able to translate that into votes. I think that the fear of a second term of Trump is large enough that the Democrats should be looking to find someone far more reasonable to run.

They have a good group of governors to choose from who are interested in the position, and I think they should start there.
Click to expand...

Being afraid and choosing centrist corporate Democrats is part of what has gotten us to where we are now. The country has screamed to the right economically for the past 40 years and it has been a disaster for the bottom 80%. If people want to elect another one, they'll get 8 years of the same old "bad is worse than terrible right?" economic policy. Regardless of how tame the Democrat is they will be branded as a socialist that is turning the country into Venezeula and if we don't elect a Republican next the country will be lost. A Republican will then be elected because the Democratic base has nothing to be fired up about because they got 8 years of center right economic policy and it hasn't really done much to help them, but they're not bleeding profusely at the moment. And then a Republican will take control and we'll start hemorrhaging again.

Or we can break the cycle and elect who we really want. Maybe it's not what centrists want, or libertarians want, or conservatives want; but it is what the majority of the people want. Bernie's policies are extremely popular despite what the corporate media and boomers scream at the top of their lungs. We can get people used to policies that actually benefit them and lift them out of poverty, boost the working class, the middle class; everyone but the wealthy. This will give them something worth voting for when the country tries to swing back right after the inevitable shift from the current administration. It will also shift the Overton Window back to the left or at least break even in the middle after all is said and done.
 
I'm not so sure if choosing Bernie as nominee is such a good move anymore, if I ever did in the first place.

Trump: 'I like Bernie' but he may have missed his shot
Trump says Bernie Sanders 'missed his time' for presidential campaign
Bernie, your moment has come — and gone - The Washington Post
Trump on Bernie Sanders 2020 run: He missed his time

If Bernie is nominee, expect a break between the Democratic party and every single major U.S. political machine in the country (even, yes, CNN and The New York Times) in a push to reelect Donald Trump president.

Notice those articles are criticizing Bernie, not Trump.
 
ftmen2u39oh21.jpg
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I'm not so sure if choosing Bernie as nominee is such a good move anymore, if I ever did in the first place.

Trump: 'I like Bernie' but he may have missed his shot
Trump says Bernie Sanders 'missed his time' for presidential campaign
Bernie, your moment has come — and gone - The Washington Post
Trump on Bernie Sanders 2020 run: He missed his time

If Bernie is nominee, expect a break between the Democratic party and every single major U.S. political machine in the country (even, yes, CNN and The New York Times) in a push to reelect Donald Trump president.

Notice those articles are criticizing Bernie, not Trump.
Click to expand...

That's right, you better vote for your corporate Democrats, or else they'll help elect Trump. These are the people you think we should support?
 
Ikari said:
I don't know if he's going to "smash". I think that he can generate a lot of enthusiasm in his supporters, but he'll have to be able to translate that into votes. I think that the fear of a second term of Trump is large enough that the Democrats should be looking to find someone far more reasonable to run.

They have a good group of governors to choose from who are interested in the position, and I think they should start there.
Click to expand...

Funny that you're afraid the most popular politician in the country will lose to the most unpopular president in modern history which is embroiled in 17 different investigations. They have reduced you to a beggar on your knees.
 
Verax said:
That's right, you better vote for your corporate Democrats, or else they'll help elect Trump. These are the people you think we should support?
Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying the corporate media will try to elect Trump to protect their elite status. I'm not saying it's RIGHT but its the harsh reality.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
No, I'm just saying the corporate media will try to elect Trump to protect their elite status. I'm not saying it's RIGHT but its the harsh reality.
Click to expand...

So cower and accept your defeat? Look back at history and tell me what happens to people who appease oppressors.
 
Verax said:
Funny that you're afraid the most popular politician in the country will lose to the most unpopular president in modern history which is embroiled in 17 different investigations. They have reduced you to a beggar on your knees.
Click to expand...

a960a0ac740d9b1e1a6250ec130b3ea4a7c0f2a79de6a058feb55eeaded97408.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom