• 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!

Why do we need Bernie, and not another Democrat?

Moot said:
And yet, Obama won. So your comparison fails.
Click to expand...

Not really; the point is that Sanders supporters were more loyal than supporters of prior candidates opposing the nominee.

This is especially impressive when you consider that so many Sanders supporters had no prior existing allegiance to the Democratic party.

Moreover, of those that did abstain/defect, the vast majority had no real existing attachment to the party.


Given how hard Sanders' campaigned for Clinton, and how many people he brought into the fold that otherwise would never have considered supporting the Dems in the first place, it could be more easily argued that he helped the party more than he hurt it in the general, and that without his support, Hillary would have done worse.


Lastly, to call Sanders the 'main reason' Clinton lost is pure and baseless partisan hackery; even most of those who despise Sanders, while according blame to him, know better. Clinton and her campaign were inept and complacent, and her taking the rust belt/so-called 'Blue Wall' for granted, despite explicit warnings from the Sanders' campaign working for them at the time, was almost certainly the single biggest and most impactful factor, the blame for which falls squarely on her shoulders.
 
Last edited:
I can adapt myself to either a progressive or a moderate, if they are electable and have solid political instincts and skills. I won't vote for the leftovers of 2008 or 2016 unless I have to. . Clinton, and Sanders both showed weaknesses as candidates. We need to find someone who will successfully appeal to black voters (
Sanders did not) young voters ( Hillary did not) independents (Hillary did not), Hispanics, older voters (Sanders did not) , moderates (Sanders did not). Biden is not the guy because he is slipping. Booker is too superficial, Habbord is too conservative. Buttigieg is too green.

At present I am sticking with Warren. But I feel free to change my mind.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Believe it or not, our "traditional values" do not align with Democratic Socialism.
Click to expand...

But they do align somewhat with social democracy.
Either way, Bernie, despite his protests to the contrary, is just a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR but his problem is that he insists on calling himself a name which Americans are conditioned to fear.

And, he just had a heart attack. Nope, sorry...I love you Bernie but your 15 minutes were up in 2016.
Flip to Warren, please...thanks.
 
SoCal said:
As much as I would love to see the Democrats most progressive policies put in place, job one is beating Numnuts. I don't believe Sanders or Warren gives us our best chance, but I don't believe she's corruptible and I don't doubt her principles. She may not be forthright on the taxes needed for her health plan (which I approve of), but Democrats should be able to disagree about policies without hurling accusations...

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday challenged her Democratic primary rivals to release the names of contributors and fundraisers with influential positions on their campaigns, while pledging to champion legislation that would effectively disqualify big-dollar donors from being appointed to cushy diplomatic posts..."
Click to expand...

Former CIGNA chief Wendell Potter says that the current healthcare debate proves that the lies he was paid to tell for CIGNA are working.



"And finally there’s the industry lie that Medicare for All would be too expensive and disruptive. The reality is that the current system, controlled and frequently disrupted by private insurance companies and aided by the lawmakers over which they hold sway, is the one that’s too expensive and unsustainable."
Click to expand...

M4A vote 2019.jpg
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
But they do align somewhat with social democracy.
Either way, Bernie, despite his protests to the contrary, is just a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR but his problem is that he insists on calling himself a name which Americans are conditioned to fear.

And, he just had a heart attack. Nope, sorry...I love you Bernie but your 15 minutes were up in 2016.
Flip to Warren, please...thanks.
Click to expand...

That "somewhat" came far later than anything existing as a Constitutional federal power prior to the Great Depression. The addition of the New Deal and Great Society federal powers should have required Constitutional amendment(s).

The idea that anything related to taxation (collecting money), commerce (spending money) and/or promoting the general welfare (it is a good idea?) is a federal power so long as congress feels that it is "important" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Neither medical care nor education were concepts unknown to the founders, yet neither was enumerated as a Constitutional federal government power.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
That "somewhat" came far later than anything existing as a Constitutional federal power prior to the Great Depression. The addition of the New Deal and Great Society federal powers should have required Constitutional amendment(s).

The idea that anything related to taxation (collecting money), commerce (spending money) and/or promoting the general welfare (it is a good idea?) is a federal power so long as congress feels that it is "important" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Neither medical care nor education were concepts unknown to the founders, yet neither was enumerated as a Constitutional federal government power.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you're bouncing back and forth between "our traditional values" and The Constitution.
Now, if you're saying that our values can ONLY BE FOUND IN The Constitution, I beg to differ, but you're certainly free to believe that if you wish.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
But they do align somewhat with social democracy.
Either way, Bernie, despite his protests to the contrary, is just a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR but his problem is that he insists on calling himself a name which Americans are conditioned to fear.

And, he just had a heart attack. Nope, sorry...I love you Bernie but your 15 minutes were up in 2016.
Flip to Warren, please...thanks.
Click to expand...

Warren can have our support and Bernie's support when it becomes factually clear that Bernie is not going to win, and not a moment sooner, and certainly not per the opinion of know-nothing talking head pundits that despised him in the first place and never thought he should be in this race to begin with despite creaming their pants for Biden whenever given half a chance; a guy who is just as old and has failed wholly and miserably every time he ran in a presidential nomination and only ever became vice president, a primary he also lost, because Obama directly gave it to him. Repugnant presumptions like this aren't helpful and will only create spite and bitterness.

Further, I can only assume you're calling for Biden to drop out when the guy repeatedly can't even remember the name of his best friend he served under day in and day out for 8 years?
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
I can adapt myself to either a progressive or a moderate, if they are electable and have solid political instincts and skills. I won't vote for the leftovers of 2008 or 2016 unless I have to. . Clinton, and Sanders both showed weaknesses as candidates. We need to find someone who will successfully appeal to black voters (
Sanders did not) young voters ( Hillary did not) independents (Hillary did not), Hispanics, older voters (Sanders did not) , moderates (Sanders did not). Biden is not the guy because he is slipping. Booker is too superficial, Habbord is too conservative. Buttigieg is too green.

At present I am sticking with Warren. But I feel free to change my mind.
Click to expand...

I mean if the black vote is important to you, Warren is definitely not who you want to go with.

Meanwhile Sanders is most popular among women and minorities, and certainly has a stronger showing proportionately with the black vote/favourability, and as independents go, Bernie is one of the best performers in the primary.
 
Mycroft said:
Especially after Hillary and DWS screwed him over.
Click to expand...

It could be because he lost the primaries by over a million votes and realized nothing could have changed that.
 
Surrealistik said:
Warren can have our support and Bernie's support when it becomes factually clear that Bernie is not going to win, and not a moment sooner, and certainly not per the opinion of know-nothing talking head pundits that despised him in the first place and never thought he should be in this race to begin with despite creaming their pants for Biden whenever given half a chance; a guy who is just as old and has failed wholly and miserably every time he ran in a presidential nomination and only ever became vice president, a primary he also lost, because Obama directly gave it to him. Repugnant presumptions like this aren't helpful and will only create spite and bitterness.

Further, I can only assume you're calling for Biden to drop out when the guy repeatedly can't even remember the name of his best friend he served under day in and day out for 8 years?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if he was a Democrat he would have a better chance at the Democratic nomination. Have you ever thought of that?
 
Surrealistik said:
Warren can have our support and Bernie's support when it becomes factually clear that Bernie is not going to win, and not a moment sooner, and certainly not per the opinion of know-nothing talking head pundits that despised him in the first place and never thought he should be in this race to begin with despite creaming their pants for Biden whenever given half a chance; a guy who is just as old and has failed wholly and miserably every time he ran in a presidential nomination and only ever became vice president, a primary he also lost, because Obama directly gave it to him. Repugnant presumptions like this aren't helpful and will only create spite and bitterness.

Further, I can only assume you're calling for Biden to drop out when the guy repeatedly can't even remember the name of his best friend he served under day in and day out for 8 years?
Click to expand...

I've never been a fan of the Biden/Hillary/Bubba neolib establishment.
Democrats are supposed to be the liberal party.
If you're a conserv-a-Dem, your home is actually the Republican Party and you can be a fantastic liberal Republican.
I can't help it the GOP booted out all the moderates and liberals and went to the extreme far Right.

But that's the proper party for them.
The Democratic Party has plenty of room for liberals who hold certain quasi-conservative or outright conservative views but primarily, we're supposed to be the liberals. If you're center-Right and you hold office as a Democrat, you're lying to yourself.

And politically speaking, you're Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.
Get out.

giphy.gif


I supported Bernie in 2016.
I also did as he asked, held my nose and pulled the "H" lever in an effort to prevent Trump from winning but I supported Bernie all through the primaries.
I truly do respect your stick-to-it-iveness on Bernie.
I'm supporting Warren this time around because she appears to be close to Bernie and because she has the numbers.
If Bernie comes from behind to be the front runner, he can be assured of my vote in November 2020.
If any of you decide to come over to Liz, I assure you that you will be warmly welcomed.

I don't think Bernie will be especially heartbroken if he bows out and his voters look to Warren.
Oh sure, he'll be heartbroken about bowing out and I feel for him.
But I think that he knows that many of his ideas would be in good hands with Liz.

Cheers to you, Surrealistik, and may the best candidate win. :)
 
iguanaman said:
Perhaps if he was a Democrat he would have a better chance at the Democratic nomination. Have you ever thought of that?
Click to expand...

Ever see the movie "Reds" with Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton?

PLOT:

In 1915, married socialite Louise Bryant encounters the radical journalist John Reed for the first time at a lecture in Portland, Oregon, and is intrigued with his idealism.
Click to expand...

That's all you need for what I am getting at...

Bernie is still intrigued with his OWN IDEALISM of the 1960's and early 70's, back when it was "COOL" to be up in Vermont and calling yourself a socialist. The trouble is, the marketing and branding doesn't sell anymore.
It does sell with the generation that has only known the evil side of our current predatory darwinian unregulated capitalism.
But that is not enough. Bernie has to also sell his "brand" to people who grew up under the New Deal.

Those folks never heard the word "socialism" come out of the mouths of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson or Carter, except to mock the hardcore Right when they engaged in red-baiting.


They heard "socialism" come out of the mouth of all the McCarthyists, and they heard it come out of the mouth of then California Governor Ronald Reagan.

And for the last forty or fifty years they've been hearing it from a nonstop parade of Republicans, and they're sick and tired of defending New Deal policies from attacks like that.
I wish Bernie would allow himself to understand the power of focused branding.

His branding is still stuck in the early 1960's in Vermont.
I wish it would sell, it should sell, but it isn't selling enough.
 
iguanaman said:
Perhaps if he was a Democrat he would have a better chance at the Democratic nomination. Have you ever thought of that?
Click to expand...

As stated repeatedly before, it's not that simple, and it's probably tantamount to a trade-off between more strength in the primaries and more strength in the general. Bernie opted for the latter by remaining independent.

Checkerboard Strangler said:
I've never been a fan of the Biden/Hillary/Bubba neolib establishment.
Democrats are supposed to be the liberal party.
If you're a conserv-a-Dem, your home is actually the Republican Party and you can be a fantastic liberal Republican.
I can't help it the GOP booted out all the moderates and liberals and went to the extreme far Right.

But that's the proper party for them.
The Democratic Party has plenty of room for liberals who hold certain quasi-conservative or outright conservative views but primarily, we're supposed to be the liberals. If you're center-Right and you hold office as a Democrat, you're lying to yourself.

And politically speaking, you're Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.
Get out.

I supported Bernie in 2016.
I also did as he asked, held my nose and pulled the "H" lever in an effort to prevent Trump from winning but I supported Bernie all through the primaries.
I truly do respect your stick-to-it-iveness on Bernie.
I'm supporting Warren this time around because she appears to be close to Bernie and because she has the numbers.
If Bernie comes from behind to be the front runner, he can be assured of my vote in November 2020.
If any of you decide to come over to Liz, I assure you that you will be warmly welcomed.

I don't think Bernie will be especially heartbroken if he bows out and his voters look to Warren.
Oh sure, he'll be heartbroken about bowing out and I feel for him.
But I think that he knows that many of his ideas would be in good hands with Liz.

Cheers to you, Surrealistik, and may the best candidate win. :)
Click to expand...

As should be probably clear by now, I very much like Warren and I won't be upset if she wins; there will be no nose holding unlike with Clinton or Biden. If the time comes when Sanders packs it in and endorses her, I will be firmly and eagerly in her camp, but at the end of the day, as things stand, I am a Sanders man till the end. For me, the bottom line is that Warren is no Sanders, and she simply doesn't have the track record, the trailblazing vision (hers is largely borrowed from his own) and the sheer incorruptibility and fighting spirit he does. I feel her to be too willing to compromise on her principles when we need an adamant, unshakeable fighter more than ever.

Sanders in a nutshell: YouTube

But yes, may the best candidate win; as stated, my vote goes to whoever stands in opposition to Trump, despite having my favourites.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
I mean if the black vote is important to you, Warren is definitely not who you want to go with.

Meanwhile Sanders is most popular among women and minorities, and certainly has a stronger showing proportionately with the black vote/favourability, and as independents go, Bernie is one of the best performers in the primary.
Click to expand...

He sure as hell wasn't last time. He did poorly with blacks, women, and older Americans as well as moderates. Those went for Hillary.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
With all due respect, you're bouncing back and forth between "our traditional values" and The Constitution.
Now, if you're saying that our values can ONLY BE FOUND IN The Constitution, I beg to differ, but you're certainly free to believe that if you wish.
Click to expand...

I certainly consider the Constitution to play a big part in our traditional values. While voluntary charitable giving is certainly part of our traditional values, is quite commendable and continues to exist, forced income redistribution (regardless of the label used) is not and is found nowhere in our Constitution as a federal power.
 
Moot said:
And yet, Obama won. So your comparison fails.
Click to expand...

Whether Obama won or not has nothing to do with more Hillary supporters not voting for Obama, than Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary. You have Bernie Derangement Syndrome.
 
btthegreat said:
I can adapt myself to either a progressive or a moderate, if they are electable and have solid political instincts and skills. I won't vote for the leftovers of 2008 or 2016 unless I have to. . Clinton, and Sanders both showed weaknesses as candidates. We need to find someone who will successfully appeal to black voters (
Sanders did not) young voters ( Hillary did not) independents (Hillary did not), Hispanics, older voters (Sanders did not) , moderates (Sanders did not). Biden is not the guy because he is slipping. Booker is too superficial, Habbord is too conservative. Buttigieg is too green.

At present I am sticking with Warren. But I feel free to change my mind.
Click to expand...

And yet Bernie has no problem attracting black voters, and has more support from black voters than Warren. So no, support from black voters isn't as important to you as you said. Bernie got two independent voters for every one Hillary got - he's the strongest candidate with independents, who are a larger group than either party. So much for your stated issues.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I certainly consider the Constitution to play a big part in our traditional values. While voluntary charitable giving is certainly part of our traditional values, is quite commendable and continues to exist, forced income redistribution (regardless of the label used) is not and is found nowhere in our Constitution as a federal power.
Click to expand...

I agree. The forced income redistribution to the top 1% must stop or we are all doomed. When Reagan deified them as the "Job Creators" we didn't think that meant ALL the profits needed to go to them. But that is what happened.
 
Craig234 said:
And yet Bernie has no problem attracting black voters, and has more support from black voters than Warren. So no, support from black voters isn't as important to you as you said. Bernie got two independent voters for every one Hillary got - he's the strongest candidate with independents, who are a larger group than either party. So much for your stated issues.
Click to expand...
Craig. I am smarter than this. Bernie Sanders was given months and months full of primaries to show that black voters who he was, and would get out and vote for him in primaries. He failed. He failed to get moderates out and older voters out. Hillary carried those demographics and they were a major reason he was not the nominee. I am not going to compare polling data this early in 2019 with Warren largely unknown to many voters , with polling data post primary and caucus election through super-tuesday and later in 2016. We don't know how Warren will do outside very involved Dems, until more people are paying attention and getting to know their choices. Most rank and file Democrats are frankly not paying a lot of attention, and haven't even watched these debate so those candidates with more name familiarity will do better at this early stage. That's why Biden was so overwhelmingly strong, and Sanders was second. Now both are doing less well as Warren is grabbing more attention. Now we will see what happens as Warren gets some less favorable coverage and more candidates take her on, instead of Biden.

Sanders and Biden are both loosing ground. I think that tread will likely continue with Sanders, and it is likely to continue with Biden. They are both familiar names, but soon to become yesterday's news. Its very hard to rebrand yourself as new and improved,, with new flashier brands coming on the market that can just claim to be great.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
Craig. I am smarter than this. Bernie Sanders was given months and months full of primaries to show that black voters who he was, and would get out and vote for him in primaries. He failed. He failed to get moderates out and older voters out. Hillary carried those demographics and they were a major reason he was not the nominee. I am not going to compare polling data this early in 2019 with Warren largely unknown to many voters , with polling data post primary and caucus election through super-tuesday and later in 2016. We don't know how Warren will do outside very involved Dems, until more people are paying attention and getting to know their choices. Most rank and file Democrats are frankly not paying a lot of attention, and haven't even watched these debate so those candidates with more name familiarity will do better at this early stage. That's why Biden was so overwhelmingly strong, and Sanders was second. Now both are doing less well as Warren is grabbing more attention. Now we will see what happens as Warren gets some less favorable coverage and more candidates take her on, instead of Biden.

Sanders and Biden are both loosing ground. I think that tread will likely continue with Sanders, and it is likely to continue with Biden. They are both familiar names, but soon to become yesterday's news. Its very hard to rebrand yourself as new and improved,, with new flashier brands coming on the market that can just claim to be great.
Click to expand...
Actually a new poll shows a bit of a resurgence for Biden and Warren went south a few points secondary to the attacks she got. . Maybe Trump's attack on Hunter backfired and Biden has stopped his bleed. He had a better debate IMO, but I still am not interested in him at present.
 
Yeah....'cuz we need a candidate who's gonna keel over from another heart attack in his first 6 months.
 
Craig234 said:
It's not because of his healthcare policy, his student debt policy, his minimum wage policy, or other specific policies. Those might be good reasons for him to win, but they're not the main reason.

The reason isn't about any specific policy this election. It's about the direction of the country, which took a wrong turn with Nixon/Reagan, toward plutocracy, where all the economic wealth was shifted away from the American people and to the few most wealthy - and power followed, to where our democracy is heavily corrupt.

We need a change in direction for the country, not shifting some numbers here and there as we continue the plutocracy.

And only Bernie seems to really understand that and to want to change the direction of the country back to its traditional values, of government that serves the people.

Democracy is more and more attacked, destroyed, weakened the longer the plutocracy continues, as the courts are packed with plutocrats who are re-writing the constitution (e.g., money is speech) to cement the plutocracy in place and remove the people's power.

Bernie is a historic candidate. More need to understand that. Electing him won't fix things alone - as he says, that's the start to fixing things if the people have a political revolution as well as electing him to lead it.

Words like 'revolution' are scary to people, but they shouldn't be. We had a 'bad' revolution, the 'Reagan revolution', which put us on plutocracy.

This is a return to normal American values - when a 10% increase in the economy tends to benefit everyone 10%, instead of only the most rich taking it all, as they have for decades, leading to record inequality.

We can't afford to keep the same thing we've been doing 40 years going - electing fast plutocracy under Republicans and slower plutocracy under centrist Democrats. The American people should get the big increase in wealth and power that would come from Bernie's policies as we restore democracy.
Click to expand...
Have you actually LOOKED at the economic status of the average American family? Their income is at record highs and family wealth has grown dramatically. Wages are high and unemployment is low. Bernie would destroy all that.
 
Bernie is a f****** communist. Last century in the Korean war and the Vietnam war over 100,000 young Americans were killed by communist!!!!

This country wants nothing more to do with communism.
 
btthegreat said:
Craig. I am smarter than this. Bernie Sanders was given months and months full of primaries to show that black voters who he was, and would get out and vote for him in primaries. He failed. He failed to get moderates out and older voters out. Hillary carried those demographics and they were a major reason he was not the nominee. I am not going to compare polling data this early in 2019 with Warren largely unknown to many voters , with polling data post primary and caucus election through super-tuesday and later in 2016. We don't know how Warren will do outside very involved Dems, until more people are paying attention and getting to know their choices. Most rank and file Democrats are frankly not paying a lot of attention, and haven't even watched these debate so those candidates with more name familiarity will do better at this early stage. That's why Biden was so overwhelmingly strong, and Sanders was second. Now both are doing less well as Warren is grabbing more attention. Now we will see what happens as Warren gets some less favorable coverage and more candidates take her on, instead of Biden.

Sanders and Biden are both loosing ground. I think that tread will likely continue with Sanders, and it is likely to continue with Biden. They are both familiar names, but soon to become yesterday's news. Its very hard to rebrand yourself as new and improved,, with new flashier brands coming on the market that can just claim to be great.
Click to expand...

So, you just Bernie by the early results running against a hugely better known person, but for Warren, we just have to wait to see. Very fair minded. Bernie has no problems with any of those voters - unless by moderates you mean the corporatists, they do not want to vote for Bernie.
 
Logical1 said:
Bernie is a f****** communist. Last century in the Korean war and the Vietnam war over 100,000 young Americans were killed by communist!!!!

This country wants nothing more to do with communism.
Click to expand...

You're a rock.

Rocks fall on people and crush them! Rocks aren't supposed to type on keyboards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom