• 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!

Will Elizabeth Warren's candidancy hurt Sanders in the primaries?

Chomsky said:
The way I see it, is:

"Decades of appeasement got us nothing, so what's to lose?"
Click to expand...
Nothing.

What the people who cry "only a moderate can save us!" forget is that moderates have had leadership for years, yet they've failed us time and again. We don't have to abandon moderate philosophy just because we say it's proponents are not cutout for leadership.

Republicans had to have a revolution to "get it". They got sick and tired of losing. Reagan showed his party to be proud of its partisanship and to never come back to the base empty handed, then Gingrich showed the same thing held true for congressional politics, and the party has remembered these lessons to this date.

Something similar needs to happen within the DNC.
 
Moot said:
I'm not even sure who the middle are anymore.

Just because we're discussing it in this thread doesn't mean democrats are spending all their time worried about Bernies swing voters. Not sure if there's that many of Bernie die hard supporters left to make a difference in either the nomination or the election But if Warren wins the nomination they've already declared they're going to vote for Trump...again.

5 Weird Items In The New Bernie-Buttigieg Poll



Anywho....Democrat candidates should be more worried about the Black vote. They didn't come out in droves for Hillary like they did for Obama. And Biden was Obama's VP.
Click to expand...

I definitely have many questions about that polling data and the conclusions they're drawing, but it seems incredibly suspect. Assuming it's all entirely accurate, all I can say is "even stupid people might support the right candidate some of the time". It makes no logical sense that you would support Bernie, but then take Trump over Warren. Warren is the closest thing we have to Bernie, other than Bernie.
 
Actually I think Bernie and Warren benefit each other's campaigns. Sure, right now they're cannibalizing each other's progressive base, but each on their own is doing work to make that very same progressive coalition bigger. When one drops out of the race, I think policy centric voters will naturally gravitate to the other.

The 2nd choice statistics don't bear this out quite yet, but as the candidates and their policies become more well known I think they might.
 
nekrodev said:
wow, you talking about hitting a nerve, but then you're posting literal journalistic meltdowns because someone didn't vote for Hillary, jesus. As if Susan Sarandon's vote changed the electoral results in her ENTIRELY BLUE DISTRICT lmfao

Hillary and the establishment lost 2016 because they didn't pay attention to the people, and instead tried to shove forward someone that was not well-liked, and didn't even try to campaign as if they cared. Even now, there are only about 3 Dem candidates who are going to the places that gave Trump his victory and actually telling those people they care about their issues, too. And, of course, the establishment hates all of them, instead, we'll get Creepy Uncle Joe or Copmala.
Click to expand...
Both of those opitions are still more realistic than Sanders or Tulsi Gabsalot is going to win.

Their campaign would fall faster than a Boeing 737 MAX in a general.
 
Chomsky said:
The way I see it, is:

"Decades of appeasement got us nothing, so what's to lose?"
Click to expand...


Yeah, if we're going to get Republican policy anyway, we might as well shoot for the moon with what we actually want.
 
MovingPictures said:
Both of those opitions are still more realistic than Sanders or Tulsi Gabsalot is going to win.

Their campaign would fall faster than a Boeing 737 MAX in a general.
Click to expand...

We'll see. Younger people are going to be a larger voting bloc this time around, and if 2018 engagement was any indicator, 2020 will have record voter turnouts.

Bernie's supporters tend to be younger, so that could swing things massively. Either way, I don't really see Trump winning, no matter who the Dem candidate is. He's pissed in his own kiddie pool a bit too much to get the same swing votes as last time.
 
nekrodev said:
wow, you talking about hitting a nerve, but then you're posting literal journalistic meltdowns because someone didn't vote for Hillary, jesus. As if Susan Sarandon's vote changed the electoral results in her ENTIRELY BLUE DISTRICT lmfao

Hillary and the establishment lost 2016 because they didn't pay attention to the people, and instead tried to shove forward someone that was not well-liked, and didn't even try to campaign as if they cared. Even now, there are only about 3 Dem candidates who are going to the places that gave Trump his victory and actually telling those people they care about their issues, too. And, of course, the establishment hates all of them, instead, we'll get Creepy Uncle Joe or Copmala.
Click to expand...

First the hyperbolic language and now shouting. Wow, yourself.

I posted the links because 3leftsdoo said he didn't believe or know a Bernie supporter who would vote for Trump.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof
 
Moot said:
I'm not even sure who the middle are anymore.

Just because we're discussing it in this thread doesn't mean democrats are spending all their time worried about Bernies swing voters. Not sure if there's that many of Bernie die hard supporters left to make a difference in either the nomination or the election But if Warren wins the nomination they've already declared they're going to vote for Trump...again.

5 Weird Items In The New Bernie-Buttigieg Poll



Anywho....Democrat candidates should be more worried about the Black vote. They didn't come out in droves for Hillary like they did for Obama. And Biden was Obama's VP.
Click to expand...
It's not unusual for a small percentage of a candidates supporters to dart all the way over to the other party if they don't win. Again, these are classic swing voters, who can't be relied on anyways.

These people often say one thing and do something totally different on election day. Many of them simply didn't vote, or voted for Stein, and that last group that the DNC needs to watch more than anything else, as that could totally screw their election.

20% of 20% (which is Sander's support), is only 4% of the liberal vote, and an smaller percentage of the overall vote, so don't worry too much it.
 
Moot said:
First the hyperbolic language and now shouting. Wow, yourself.

I posted the links because 3leftydoo said he didn't believe or know a Bernie supporter who would vote for Trump.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof
Click to expand...


It was more like heavy emphasis than shouting, but it's text on a screen, so interpret it however you like.

And yeah, of course some Bernie supporters ended up voting for Trump - because whether Hillary had a direct part in it or not, she got her nomination through lying, cheating, and preferential treatment from the establishment. Of course, people seeing this, would not simply line up to vote behind Hillary, and many held it against Bernie that he did fall in line.
 
MovingPictures said:
It's not unusual for a small percentage of a candidates supporters to dart all the way over to the other party if they don't win. Again, these are classic swing voters, who can't be relied on anyways.

These people often say one thing and do something totally different on election day. Many of them simply didn't vote, or voted for Stein, and that's last group that the DNC needs to watch more than anything else, as that could totally screw their election.
Click to expand...

Do you think Jill Stein is going to run again?

Everyone I know and talk to say they are going to vote for the democrat no matter how bad or terrible the candidate is. So it's starting to shape up into an anyone but Trump kind of election for most democrats.
 
Moot said:
First the hyperbolic language and now shouting. Wow, yourself.
I posted the links because 3leftsdoo said he didn't believe or know a Bernie supporter who would vote for Trump.
Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof
Click to expand...

From your link:
"What's more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump"
"25 percent of those who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Republican John McCain, rather than Barack Obama, in the general election."

"Another factor, however, was that of those who switched their allegiance from Sanders to Trump less than 10 percent considered themselves strong Democrats, while less than 50 percent even leaned Democrat."


Three key takeaways from that Article that somewhat refute the article title itself.
 
Moot said:
Do you think Jill Stein is going to run again?

Everyone I know and talk to say they are going to vote for the democrat no matter how bad or terrible the candidate is. So it's starting to shape up into an anyone but Trump kind of election for most democrats.
Click to expand...
It depends. These vanity candidates have egos that crave the attention, but then again, they might not want to be known as the person that helped get Trump another term.
 
Moot said:
Obamacare was a huge change. Saving the economy inspite of republican obstacles was a major thing. But still, Obama was too much of a pragmatist on most issues and lame on foreign policy and could've done more for the left that voted him into office.
Click to expand...

I'll just say that the focus for the Left really shouldn't be on President at all, IMO. The big problem with Obama is he had a 60 vote Senate for a few MONTHS, and then Democrats lost the house in 2010. Give Obama FDR majorities, or LBJ majorities, and if he doesn't get anything done, that's fair criticism, but he didn't have that.

So sure, let's worry about the President, but more important is getting voters out in those key states to flip the Senate, and flip it with liberal Senators and if that happens, I don't really think it matters a whole lot which Democrat is President. Their big 'constraint' is what can get through Congress. ACA is a good example - the reality is people like Joe Lieberman with huge personal ties to the health insurance industry and a bunch of other conservative democrats all had veto power as the 60th vote over ACA. So the possible is what some Democrat with deep financial ties to insurance and healthcare providers would agree to.

It's one criticism that I find pretty accurate about Democrats. They just are stupid when it comes to the day to day, raw power politics, that the GOP big donors have worked at for decades now, and the results are coming in. Fact is if the GOP controls the states, that helps control the Congress, so the GOP spends enormous resources at the state level on races no one hears about, but that $100k or $500k can win legislatures and state Supreme Court races. Not to mention that lots of big time policy gets made at the state level - see Medicaid expansion, union busting, etc. The Democrats have 87 people running for President and that will all be worthless even if a Democrat wins unless the Democrats flip the Senate in a big way and keep the House, and some of those 87 would presumably be excellent candidates for Senate or House.
 
BrotherFease said:
Think about it: Both agree on policy issues. Both are running as hard-lefties. The difference here is that Warren is younger and female.
Click to expand...

To the mainstream there are also other differences, chief among them being that Warren BRANDS herself as a Democrat while Bernie insists on still BRANDING himself as something that ordinary mainstream Americans have been trained to fear since 1947:

SOCIALIST

Now, between you, me and that lamppost over there, Bernie isn't actually a socialist.
He can claim to be one all day long, which he does, but he's actually an East Coast New Deal-FDR style liberal Democrat.
He hasn't been an actual socialist since the day he first set foot on Capitol Hill.

But it doesn't matter.
Ever since the start of the Cold War, Americans have been conditioned to view socialism as being a soft form of COMMUNISM.
POTUS elections are no time for academic arguments.
POTUS elections are the Super Bowl.

America went through a ten year period where socialists, communists and even former socialists and communists were rounded up, interrogated, fired from their livelihoods, IMPRISONED, threatened, shot, and generally branded as traitors.
And ordinary Democrats and other liberals were herded into the same pen.
Even chickenhawk cowboy John Wayne enjoyed more credibility as a patriot as he, in the words of director John Ford, "grew rich while men died".
All he had to do was demonize liberals and slap around actors who portrayed commies on the silver screen.

Partisans and partisan hacks love a good fight. Most partisan hacks live a very comfortable and protected life, or they're just born lucky.
That's why they're so willing to play fast and loose and bet the farm or take hostages, or sit out an election to punish anyone who isn't willing to be partisan enough to make them happy.

And they usually wind up punishing the people who can afford it the least, and that's the very same vulnerable, poor, disabled and elderly, and the remaining folks many of whom had played by the rules, worked hard and honestly, and just got dealt a very lousy hand of cards by fate.

Bernie needed to care about his branding in 2016 and ignored that caution.
He needs to care about it now, and still doesn't.
He believes deep down in his very heart and soul that ideology can beat perception and presentation, also known as BRANDING.

It never has.
And the folks who have to live with the outcome of that failing gamble wind up under the thumb of a would be dictator, an incompetent, sanity-deprived authoritarian hack with the attitude of a bully.

Elizabeth Warren cares about branding and presentation.
I love Bernie, don't get me wrong. He speaks to me very well, but I understand the realities of sales and advertising, and candidates are supposed to be good at that.
 
Chomsky said:
I think after Trump's rise in 2016, and with Warren being so close in ideology, Bernie would throw everything he could at her to help - should she take the lead.
Click to expand...
At this point, why would he? If Kamala Harris moves out front, for example, Bernie will keep fighting. Only if he thinks Warren is the only chance to be beat the Donald would he throw a bone.

After the convention is another story.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
To the mainstream there are also other differences, chief among them being that Warren BRANDS herself as a Democrat while Bernie insists on still BRANDING himself as something that ordinary mainstream Americans have been trained to fear since 1947:

SOCIALIST

Now, between you, me and that lamppost over there, Bernie isn't actually a socialist.
He can claim to be one all day long, which he does, but he's actually an East Coast New Deal-FDR style liberal Democrat.
He hasn't been an actual socialist since the day he first set foot on Capitol Hill.

But it doesn't matter.
Ever since the start of the Cold War, Americans have been conditioned to view socialism as being a soft form of COMMUNISM.
POTUS elections are no time for academic arguments.
POTUS elections are the Super Bowl.

America went through a ten year period where socialists, communists and even former socialists and communists were rounded up, interrogated, fired from their livelihoods, IMPRISONED, threatened, shot, and generally branded as traitors.
And ordinary Democrats and other liberals were herded into the same pen.
Even chickenhawk cowboy John Wayne enjoyed more credibility as a patriot as he, in the words of director John Ford, "grew rich while men died".
All he had to do was demonize liberals and slap around actors who portrayed commies on the silver screen.

Partisans and partisan hacks love a good fight. Most partisan hacks live a very comfortable and protected life, or they're just born lucky.
That's why they're so willing to play fast and loose and bet the farm or take hostages, or sit out an election to punish anyone who isn't willing to be partisan enough to make them happy.

And they usually wind up punishing the people who can afford it the least, and that's the very same vulnerable, poor, disabled and elderly, and the remaining folks many of whom had played by the rules, worked hard and honestly, and just got dealt a very lousy hand of cards by fate.

Bernie needed to care about his branding in 2016 and ignored that caution.
He needs to care about it now, and still doesn't.
He believes deep down in his very heart and soul that ideology can beat perception and presentation, also known as BRANDING.

It never has.
And the folks who have to live with the outcome of that failing gamble wind up under the thumb of a would be dictator, an incompetent, sanity-deprived authoritarian hack with the attitude of a bully.

Elizabeth Warren cares about branding and presentation.
I love Bernie, don't get me wrong. He speaks to me very well, but I understand the realities of sales and advertising, and candidates are supposed to be good at that.
Click to expand...
Two points.

1. You are absolutely right. While the Sanders supporters don't want to hear it, his embracing of the word "socialism" is campaign suicide. He isn't a socialist, but by using the label as a substitute for a "mixed economy", he's given the rightwing rocket fuel to campaign against him with.

2. Isn't amaing that McConnell was able to keep all of his 41 senators in check, while Schumer and Pelosi have waves of members in both houses constantly crossing the party line? It goes to show how uneffective they are as leaders.
 
MovingPictures said:
Two points.

1. You are absolutely right. While the Sanders supporters don't want to hear it, his embracing of the word "socialism" is campaign suicide. He isn't a socialist, but by using the label as a substitute for a "mixed economy", he's given the rightwing rocket fuel to campaign against him with.

2. Isn't amaing that McConnell was able to keep all of his 41 senators in check, while Schumer and Pelosi have waves of members in both houses constantly crossing the party line? It goes to show how uneffective they are as leaders.
Click to expand...


He definitely ****ed up using the word "socialist" or "socialism", because it's wrong, and because it's just a bad idea. Bernie is my main man, but he goofed.

The reason the Dems aren't as united is because it's such a large party. It encompasses everything from the center-left to the center-right. That's not a coherent party.
 
MovingPictures said:
Two points.

1. You are absolutely right. While the Sanders supporters don't want to hear it, his embracing of the word "socialism" is campaign suicide. He isn't a socialist, but by using the label as a substitute for a "mixed economy", he's given the rightwing rocket fuel to campaign against him with.

2. Isn't amaing that McConnell was able to keep all of his 41 senators in check, while Schumer and Pelosi have waves of members in both houses constantly crossing the party line? It goes to show how uneffective they are as leaders.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? McConnell doesn't have to keep anyone in check if nothing makes it to the floor for a vote. Its part of why he does what he does.....if they don't have to go on record, then nobody can get hurt by breaking ranks and making a rational vote.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
What do you mean? McConnell doesn't have to keep anyone in check if nothing makes it to the floor for a vote. Its part of why he does what he does.....if they don't have to go on record, then nobody can get hurt by breaking ranks and making a rational vote.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about 2009-2014, when he was the minority leader.
 
MovingPictures said:
I'm talking about 2009-2014, when he was the minority leader.
Click to expand...

Even then, the job was pretty easy, since anyone with an R behind thier name was committed to not letting Obama get ANYTHING passed.

Plus, it was pretty easy to be the Party of No when they have basically no power in the first place.
 
I honestly have no idea, we won't really know anything until after the second or third debates, and a clear frontrunner likely won't emerge until early-2020. Honestly? I think we need a president who has had some military experience. It's long overdue to have a veteran commander-in-chief with some legit military/combat experience, because we haven't had one in decades and it really shows foreign policy-wise...
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I honestly have no idea, we won't really know anything until after the second or third debates, and a clear frontrunner likely won't emerge until early-2020. Honestly? I think we need a president who has had some military experience. It's long overdue to have a veteran commander-in-chief with some legit military/combat experience, because we haven't had one in decades and it really shows foreign policy-wise...
Click to expand...


I don't really know that one has to be a veteran to be on the right side of foreign policy issues, you just can't be in the pockets of the establishment - because they're all pro-war. Tulsi is great, but I just don't think it's realistic at this point. Maybe next time, she's definitely capable, but the people just don't really care about her yet. She can use the next 4 years to make some waves, catch some eyes.

Bernie is pretty much on point for foreign policy, and Elizabeth Warren isn't awful. Any of the more typical Dems, though, like Biden, Harris, etc... are going to be awful. They might not start any new full-on-wars, but they'll keep us droning and meddling.
 
nekrodev said:
He definitely ****ed up using the word "socialist" or "socialism", because it's wrong, and because it's just a bad idea. Bernie is my main man, but he goofed.

The reason the Dems aren't as united is because it's such a large party. It encompasses everything from the center-left to the center-right. That's not a coherent party.
Click to expand...
True, but there are also varying degrees of conservatism within the GOP, but you don't see them break but once in a blue moon.

Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly never had to worry about leadership making them into bad guys, and so they felt free to act on impulses to join the Republican agenda when they were suckered into believing it was politically advantageous.

OTOH, Republican leadership treats such dissenters like criminals, because those members in places where the voters are sympathetic to the opposite party are going to vote them out anyways, so there's no point in backing somebody who stabbed you in the back and is now doomed to go down in flames anyways for betraying the base.
 
MovingPictures said:
True, but there are also varying degrees of conservatism within the GOP, but you don't see them break but once in a blue moon.

Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly never had to worry about leadership making them into bad guys, and so they felt free to act on impulses to join the Republican agenda when they were suckered into believing it was politically advantageous.

OTOH, Republican leadership treats such dissenters like criminals, because those members in places where the voters are sympathetic to the opposite party are going to vote them out anyways, so there's no point in backing somebody who stabbed you in the back and is now doomed to go down in flames anyways for betraying the base.
Click to expand...


The GOP members range from Very Conservative to Almost Literally Hitler, meanwhile Dems range from "Radical Socialist" to Very Conservative. That's a huge difference.

You are definitely right about the GOP being cutthroat, though. I hope, and believe that the Dems will become more like that as more progressives are brought in, assuming the progressives don't end up having to create their own party before then.
 
nekrodev said:
Bernie is pretty much on point for foreign policy, and Elizabeth Warren isn't awful. Any of the more typical Dems, though, like Biden, Harris, etc... are going to be awful. They might not start any new full-on-wars, but they'll keep us droning and meddling.
Click to expand...

It's cute to imagine a US without droning and meddling. Maybe in a hundred years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom