• 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!

Can Senator Sanders win the democratic nomination for president?

Can Senator Sanders win the democratic nomination for president?


  • Total voters
    65
Lessee now. The USA has saved from bankruptcy the auto industry, the banking industry, the steel
industry, the home-building industry, and etc. That running up massive amounts of unsustainable
debt sounds pretty familiar and pretty current ever since ol' GWBush nearly bankrupted the Nation.
How is it you blame this crap on Bernie? He could not be worse economically compared to the morons
we have suffered.

The GM bail out cost the Tax payers Billions and you have NO idea whether or not GM would have survived a Bankruptcy or not. The Home building industry ? Are you kidding ?

Government intervention into the free market via Clinton's " Fair lending task force " and his 1995 Home-ownership policy led to the largest credit bubble in History. It bankrupted our GSEs and corrupted Capital Markets all over the world with toxic MBS.

Debt under George Bush spiked because Fannie and Freddie pushed Trillions of dollars of worthless " AAA " securities out into the Markets as part of their Government " affordable lending " initiative and the government forced banks to lower their lending standards under the threat of DOJ prosecution. Even Bush's debt is a fraction of what Obama has left this Country with.

You have no idea what your'e talking about if you think Bush " nearly bankrupted the Nation ". From his FY 2002 Budget...

The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”


So Bush wasn't an idiot, his replacement is the idiot and anyone who seriously considers Bernie Sanders as a candidate isn't much smarter than Obama.
 
Lessee now. The USA has saved from bankruptcy the auto industry, the banking industry, the steel
industry, the home-building industry, and etc. That running up massive amounts of unsustainable
debt sounds pretty familiar and pretty current ever since ol' GWBush nearly bankrupted the Nation.
How is it you blame this crap on Bernie? He could not be worse economically compared to the morons
we have suffered.

Yep lessee now. Under Bush he raised the National debt by 5.8 trillion in 8 yrs. nearly bankrupted the Nation as you claim. Now under Obama who has raised the national debt by 8 trillion in 6 yrs is by far worse. How would you describe Obama bankrupting the Nation. I would say he is the most unpatriotic president in US History.

Here is Obama in his own words.

Flashback: Obama Talks "Unpatriotic" Debt In 2008 | RealClearPolitics
 
what do you think? Does Sanders have a chance?
I'm taking the question at face value. *Can* he win the nomination? Yes, I think he *can*. Primarily because I don't believe the anointing of Hillary is the done deal many others seem to think it is, and sometimes strange things happen in politics.

Do I think he'll be nominated? No.
 
Yep lessee now. Under Bush he raised the National debt by 5.8 trillion in 8 yrs. nearly bankrupted the Nation as you claim. Now under Obama who has raised the national debt by 8 trillion in 6 yrs is by far worse. How would you describe Obama bankrupting the Nation. I would say he is the most unpatriotic president in US History.

Here is Obama in his own words.

Flashback: Obama Talks "Unpatriotic" Debt In 2008 | RealClearPolitics



Exactly what did Obama do raise the national debt? Please be specific

Hint: There is an economic infrastructure consisting of tax policy and expenditures, both discretionary and non-discretionary that dictate the year over year economic outcomes for our treasury. Presidents can advocate policies that effect those outcomes, but those policies have to be enacted by Congress. A President, by himself, can't do much to effect the outcomes. So, please tell us what Obama did that would substantiate your implication that he raised the debt....
 
Last edited:
Vegas odds has Cruz at 33/1... Sanders at 100/1

OK.... BIG longshot and Huge longshot. What to quibble over the difference? Isn't 3x nil still nil (2.9% v. .9%)... and those a betting odds...
 
Last edited:
Perhaps true with the right-wing....but sorry....left-wing voters are going to cast their votes for Hillary in the GE because we recognize that we are never going to get much more than a left-leaning moderate. That is just political reality...something that the right-wing doesn't really understand as well. I think moderate Republican voters get it, but the radical right-wing wants to push the party further to the right which truly does end up losing voters.

Generally speaking the democrat base is more tenuous about voting than the republican one. If anything, they are more apt to sit out an election if they aren't excited about the candidate at the top of the ticket.
 
Exactly what did Obama do raise the national debt? Please be specific

Hint: There is an economic infrastructure consisting of tax policy and expenditures, both discretionary and non-discretionary that dictate the year over year economic outcomes for our treasury. Presidents can advocate policies that effect those outcomes, but those policies have to be enacted by Congress. A President, by himself, can't do much to effect the outcomes. So, please tell us what Obama did that would substantiate your implication that he raised the debt....

To be specific I suggest you ask Obama that exact same question about what he said about Bush being unpatriotic for raising the national debt by 4 trillion. Now I suggest Obama is the most unpatriotic president in US History by his own standards. Let me know what Obama says when you pop the question to him and if he does not give you the correct answer then you can give him your HINT.

However you don't have to ask him, here he tells you exactly what Bush did. If you don't remember, here is Obama himself. Now I think you have your answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking the democrat base is more tenuous about voting than the republican one. If anything, they are more apt to sit out an election if they aren't excited about the candidate at the top of the ticket.

I disagree completely. The left is much more realistic about what it takes to get a candidate elected. If the left were as apathetic as you claim...they would have sat out the last several elections...but they didn't. They elected Clinton despite his moderate/centrist views...and Obama despite his moderate stance on the issues. The left is realistic. On the otherhand....you have a strong right-wing base to the Republican party that uses its threats to get the candidates to cowtow to their issues. It is probably why Romney lost. If he hadn't sold his soul to the right-wing and flip flopped on every major issue and stayed true to his convictions....but instead he felt the need to pander to the right-wing base and he couldn't shake his etch a sketch enough to reinvent himself for the GE
 
I disagree completely. The left is much more realistic about what it takes to get a candidate elected. If the left were as apathetic as you claim...they would have sat out the last several elections...but they didn't.

...did you entirely miss 2010/2014? When the lefts' base is excited about a candidate (Obama), they turn out. When they aren't, they don't.

Statistically, the groups that make up the lefts' base (young people, african americans, single women) are simply less likely to vote. In some circumstances they can be pulled to (for example, a candidate they are excited about), but generally:

292-4.gif


They're more likely to not bother.

..you have a strong right-wing base to the Republican party that uses its threats to get the candidates to cowtow to their issues. It is probably why Romney lost. If he hadn't sold his soul to the right-wing and flip flopped on every major issue and stayed true to his convictions....but instead he felt the need to pander to the right-wing base and he couldn't shake his etch a sketch enough to reinvent himself for the GE

Sort of - you have it backwards. Romney was to the GOP in 2012 was Hillary will likely be to the DNC in 2016 - a candidate that doesn't really match the base, and thus depresses turnout.

Americans have gotten more polarized over the past few years. A winning national-level candidate now is one that excites their base without scaring off the middle.

PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-01.png
 
Last edited:
Sanders is running for one reason. He's got something to say. What he has to say won't be heard otherwise. If this is what he has to do...more power to him. I think some will be surprised at the number of people who are really sick of the Clintons and would vote for Bernie...if nothing else but to make a collective political statement that enough is enough of the Clinton Dynasty.

Lets hope that the GOPer's have come to the same understanding concerning their own Bush Dynasty!!!
 
...did you entirely miss 2010/2014? When the lefts' base is excited about a candidate (Obama), they turn out. When they aren't, they don't.

Statistically, the groups that make up the lefts' base (young people, african americans, single women) are simply less likely to vote. In some circumstances they can be pulled to (for example, a candidate they are excited about), but generally:

292-4.gif


They're more likely to not bother.



Sort of - you have it backwards. Romney was to the GOP in 2012 was Hillary will likely be to the DNC in 2016 - a candidate that doesn't really match the base, and thus depresses turnout.

Americans have gotten more polarized over the past few years. A winning national-level candidate now is one that excites their base without scaring off the middle.

PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-01.png

Keep making the Romney/Hilary comparison maybe someday it will stick. Is that what they say on talk radio nowadays? I haven't seen that comparison anywhere. And probably a lot of reasons why that graph shows us so close in 2004 was due to fear. In 2014 it's due to a great dysfunction in congress and the horrible channels where people get their "information" from.

That graph also shows the independent base being bigger than ever, with a majority of independents leaning left.
 
...did you entirely miss 2010/2014? When the lefts' base is excited about a candidate (Obama), they turn out. When they aren't, they don't.

Statistically, the groups that make up the lefts' base (young people, african americans, single women) are simply less likely to vote. In some circumstances they can be pulled to (for example, a candidate they are excited about), but generally:

292-4.gif


They're more likely to not bother.



Sort of - you have it backwards. Romney was to the GOP in 2012 was Hillary will likely be to the DNC in 2016 - a candidate that doesn't really match the base, and thus depresses turnout.

Americans have gotten more polarized over the past few years. A winning national-level candidate now is one that excites their base without scaring off the middle.

PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-01.png


You are talking about two different things. We are not talking about the Democratic "base" we were talking about "liberal voters". I might agree with you if we were talking about the base. The point is, the conversation was whether liberal voters will turn out to vote for Hillary despite the fact that she is essentially a moderate/centrist candidate. Hilary will have no problems appealing to the base of the party and liberals will come out and hold their nose and vote for her because they know what the altervative is.
 
Best Senator in the Congress. He would make a terrific President - maybe one of the best ever.

He has no chance of being nominated nor of ever being elected.
 
You are talking about two different things. We are not talking about the Democratic "base" we were talking about "liberal voters". I might agree with you if we were talking about the base. The point is, the conversation was whether liberal voters will turn out to vote for Hillary despite the fact that she is essentially a moderate/centrist candidate. Hilary will have no problems appealing to the base of the party and liberals will come out and hold their nose and vote for her because they know what the altervative is.

Oh stop it. You keep saying she's a moderate, but moderate voters never thought of her as a moderate. Just because you rabid liberals think she's not good enough doesn't mean she's actually a moderate. That's your problem, not ours.O'Malley is a moderate, Jim Webb is a moderate. Hillary Clinton is not.
 
Last edited:
Keep making the Romney/Hilary comparison maybe someday it will stick. Is that what they say on talk radio nowadays?

:shrug: I have no idea what they are saying on talk radio. Probably a variety of things.

But if you think that Hillary excites the liberal base of the Democrat party, I think you haven't been paying attention. In that respect she absolutely is a Romney - both of their bases know full well that they parrot the beliefs they feel will get them elected, rather than ones they hold.

I haven't seen that comparison anywhere.

Well then, given the way that this place tends to echo the arguments you find in the public discourse, it probably isn't "what they are saying on talk radio".

And probably a lot of reasons why that graph shows us so close in 2004 was due to fear. In 2014 it's due to a great dysfunction in congress and the horrible channels where people get their "information" from.

Fear? No - you saw a lot of issue overlap and a broad "middle". America was a bell curve, politically speaking. Now? Not so much. Though the balkanization of information-sphere's is probably (as you identify) a major driver of that trend. It's fully possible for most folks now to spend their regular days never coming into contact with well-informed but opposing views, and so they tend to view those who disagree not as being incorrect, but rather as being illegitimate.

That graph also shows the independent base being bigger than ever, with a majority of independents leaning left.

No it doesn't. It identifies that people are becoming more ideologically consistent. The middle is shrinking - "independents" mostly grow or not as a party's base is more or less willing to identify with it.
 
You are talking about two different things. We are not talking about the Democratic "base" we were talking about "liberal voters".

That's like saying that we aren't discussing Dogs - we are discussing Domesticated Canines. You might have an odd wolf or coyote here or there, but fundamentally, those are the same thing.

I might agree with you if we were talking about the base. The point is, the conversation was whether liberal voters will turn out to vote for Hillary despite the fact that she is essentially a moderate/centrist candidate. Hilary will have no problems appealing to the base of the party and liberals will come out and hold their nose and vote for her because they know what the altervative is.

:shrug: you might. Thankfully, many of your fellows will not. There might be a third-party candidate that attracts them (if Sanders runs as an independent, for example), or they may choose to say that they are striking a pose because "Man, like, they're all, like, politicians, and, like, part of the system, like, you know?", or they may not even care. But they are less likely - statistically - to vote for Her Inevitableness if she doesn't excite the base.
 
What if Hillary is indicted? Sanders might have a chance to win the Democrat nomination?
 
Sanders is not a good looking man. He has a bad comb-over. The nation will never vote for him. It's a shame we're so shallow, but it is what it is. Sanders is too socialist. O'Malley has a better shot. He has a good look, and presence.
 
That's like saying that we aren't discussing Dogs - we are discussing Domesticated Canines. You might have an odd wolf or coyote here or there, but fundamentally, those are the same thing.



:shrug: you might. Thankfully, many of your fellows will not. There might be a third-party candidate that attracts them (if Sanders runs as an independent, for example), or they may choose to say that they are striking a pose because "Man, like, they're all, like, politicians, and, like, part of the system, like, you know?", or they may not even care. But they are less likely - statistically - to vote for Her Inevitableness if she doesn't excite the base.


I agree a third party could take away votes...absolutely. Just like Nader did in 2000. However, where you are wrong is in the first part of your post. Liberals are not the base of the Democratic party. I wish they were but we are not. The base of the party is the moderate/centrists. So it more like discussing cats and dogs.
 
Back
Top Bottom