[W:165] Bernie supporters: If Bernie doesn't win the nomination....

[Surrealistik]

I do not think so. That is simply short-term schadenfreude. I have heard enough members of the right-wing commentariat wring their hands with glee at the thought of an unelectable socialist like Sanders taking the Democratic nomination because they think it absolutely ensures Donald Trump's reelection, in the same way the Democrats in 2016 were gleeful at the thought of Donald Trump taking the Republican nomination would ensure their own victory.

Getting into the practice of choosing your opponents is like the art of whistling the best tune you can think of while walking past the graveyard.

Not at all.

The greatest threat by far that is rightly recognized by both sides is internal party division over the party candidate. By all accounts and data thus far, the election promises to be close, and any substantive splintering of Democratic unity and depression of turnout is sure to result in failure.

Conversely, Bernie polls extremely well against Trump; he did in 2016, he does now, and increasingly he polls the best in head to heads of any candidate in the entire Dem field. Further, he polls well in the crucial rust belt. At present, the data is abundantly clear that whatever Sanders is, he's not a weak match up against Trump, and perhaps more importantly, there aren't any clear lines of attack against him besides ancient quotations taken out of context and NeoMcCarthyism; all of which promise to fall flat given how disingenuous attacks on Sanders have thus far backfired horribly to the last for those responsible.

Bernie Sanders was an apologist for some of the worst regimes of the twentieth century, and tut-tutted some of the worst atrocities in human history. You may continue to deny reality at your pleasure, Surrealistik. And unfortunately for the Democrats if he takes the nomination, enough people are alive who lived during the Cold War who were not useful idiots or fellow-traveller pinkos like Sanders. While I do not think is prospects are good, his loss is far from inevitable and, again, I do not want to take a chance such a person could take the Presidency.

Nonsense. You'll need to provide concrete examples, and Sanders saying he approves of breadlines providing basic necessities like food doesn't nearly rise to the level of apologism. Personally I'm confident in Sanders' chances, not only in that he'll win the nomination, but that he'll defeat Trump and the morally bankrupt, self-serving, corrupt plutocracy he so perfectly represents.

 

[joko104]

Not at all.

The greatest threat by far that is rightly recognized by both sides is internal party division over the party candidate. By all accounts and data thus far, the election promises to be close, and any substantive splintering of Democratic unity and depression of turnout is sure to result in failure.

Conversely, Bernie polls extremely well against Trump; he did in 2016, he does now, and increasingly he polls the best in head to heads of any candidate in the entire Dem field. Further, he polls well in the crucial rust belt. At present, the data is abundantly clear that whatever Sanders is, he's not a weak match up against Trump, and perhaps more importantly, there aren't any clear lines of attack against him besides ancient quotations taken out of context and NeoMcCarthyism; all of which promise to fall flat given how disingenuous attacks on Sanders have thus far backfired horribly to the last for those responsible.



Nonsense. You'll need to provide concrete examples, and Sanders saying he approves of breadlines providing basic necessities like food doesn't nearly rise to the level of apologism. Personally I'm confident in Sanders' chances, not only in that he'll win the nomination, but that he'll defeat Trump and the morally bankrupt, self-serving, corrupt plutocracy he so perfectly represents.

Sanders is a raging old white socialist from at state with an entire population less than 700,000. He has never been in an election with a Republican where the district wasn't overwhelmingly Democrat - WHITE Democrats (94%). He has never accomplished anything. His promises are both impossible to keep and would massively harm this country and nearly everyone in it.

 

[joko104]

This all is very simple to understand. Sanders has gathered the progressive socialist control-freak type who envision fantasy realities to him as their leader. He is a stand-alone character. It is not as if he is part of any political organization or team.

Mayor Pete? He is the perfect man to the standards of the HR department of Google. His statements are exactly what the billionaires and mega millionaires of Silicon Valley want. He is dressed perfectly, in perfect composure, his responses are precise with a narrow range of emotion and tone, when acceptable, though robotic body movement.

His career climbing is truly impressive - but at the height becoming mayor of a small Midwest poor cities with high crime, high poverty, and a high minority population. He would seem ideal to the old guard in that he isn't extreme like some black radical would be - but he's young and gay so he's cool. The Peter principle applied. While as mayor he decided the solution was to fire the black police chief and replace him with a white police chief whose job was to arrest all the black criminals. This didn't go over very well. Very poor judgement.

Biden is finished. Steyer is nobody. This is going to become a Sanders versus Bloomberg primary. To try to stop this, the super rich who own the MSM, press and Internet will do everything possible - while still seeming and being anti-Trump, do not see any candidate other than possibly Sanders able to gain 50% of the vote. Unlike Republicans, most Democratic states assign delegates proportionally. This makes a deadlock convention far more like. So, to avoid they they will rapidly narrow how many candidates are allowed into the debate - probably something like Sanders, Warren and Bloomberg. The goal is to stop Sanders from getting 50%. They'll do anything to stop it.

This is potentially a horrific disaster at the Democratic Party convention. Sanders people screaming about cheating and conspiracies, possibly all sorts of protest groups then on all side. The Democrats made a bad choice with Milwaukee - a city known for riots and huge protests, on the massive population crest including Chicago.

I saw a video of the 1968 Democratic convention. The 2020 Democratic convention could be much, much worse.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Hillary isn't running this time. Sanders is. Do try to keep up.

You said that the Dems were united in 2008 and that Bernie came along and ruined it. I proved you wrong.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Bernie Sanders was an apologist for some of the worst regimes of the twentieth century, and tut-tutted some of the worst atrocities in human history.

Source?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Every Democrat's goal is getting to universal coverage (regardless of the path), something we'd all do well to remember.

Yeah, Dems give lip service to universal coverage but the plans alternative to Medicare For All leave swaths of the population uncovered, underinsured, or would bloat the cost of healthcare for the sickest individuals — thus tanking the whole goal of Medicare For All, which is to reduce the cost of healthcare. And a public option would be under constant assault because of the bloated cost of maintaining it (as it would have all the poorest, sickest and mostly costly individuals under its coverage).

Why the 'public option' is not a real solution to our health care woes - PNHP

 

[American]

We already know most will not, that intentional in party polarization will ensure Trump’s second term.

 

[American]

This all is very simple to understand. Sanders has gathered the progressive socialist control-freak type who envision fantasy realities to him as their leader. He is a stand-alone character. It is not as if he is part of any political organization or team.

Mayor Pete? He is the perfect man to the standards of the HR department of Google. His statements are exactly what the billionaires and mega millionaires of Silicon Valley want. He is dressed perfectly, in perfect composure, his responses are precise with a narrow range of emotion and tone, when acceptable, though robotic body movement.

His career climbing is truly impressive - but at the height becoming mayor of a small Midwest poor cities with high crime, high poverty, and a high minority population. He would seem ideal to the old guard in that he isn't extreme like some black radical would be - but he's young and gay so he's cool. The Peter principle applied. While as mayor he decided the solution was to fire the black police chief and replace him with a white police chief whose job was to arrest all the black criminals. This didn't go over very well. Very poor judgement.

Biden is finished. Steyer is nobody. This is going to become a Sanders versus Bloomberg primary. To try to stop this, the super rich who own the MSM, press and Internet will do everything possible - while still seeming and being anti-Trump, do not see any candidate other than possibly Sanders able to gain 50% of the vote. Unlike Republicans, most Democratic states assign delegates proportionally. This makes a deadlock convention far more like. So, to avoid they they will rapidly narrow how many candidates are allowed into the debate - probably something like Sanders, Warren and Bloomberg. The goal is to stop Sanders from getting 50%. They'll do anything to stop it.

This is potentially a horrific disaster at the Democratic Party convention. Sanders people screaming about cheating and conspiracies, possibly all sorts of protest groups then on all side. The Democrats made a bad choice with Milwaukee - a city known for riots and huge protests, on the massive population crest including Chicago.

I saw a video of the 1968 Democratic convention. The 2020 Democratic convention could be much, much worse.

Can Bloomberg get the black vote?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Every Democrat's goal is getting to universal coverage (regardless of the path), something we'd all do well to remember.

Is our current single-payer national "defense" system controlling costs, saving money and preventing the MIC (defense contractors) from making large profits? Everyone likes to compare what other countries spend (per capita) when they talk about the wonders of single-payer systems, yet tend to avoid looking at this country's other single-payer (publicly funded) systems.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yeah, Dems give lip service to universal coverage but the plans alternative to Medicare For All leave swaths of the population uncovered, underinsured, or would bloat the cost of healthcare for the sickest individuals — thus tanking the whole goal of Medicare For All, which is to reduce the cost of healthcare. And a public option would be under constant assault because of the bloated cost of maintaining it (as it would have all the poorest, sickest and mostly costly individuals under its coverage).

Why the 'public option' is not a real solution to our health care woes - PNHP

Ah yes, the One True Path to Universal Coverage (the model that's the exception, not the rule, globally).

Unfortunately, "sounds great on paper" doesn't necessarily translate into coverage or cost relief for anybody. Just ask Vermont.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can Bloomberg get the black vote?

Does he need it with super delegate support and unlimited campaign cash? It's not like the black vote would go to Trump if Bloomberg was selected over Sanders by the DNC.

 

[Greenbeard]

Is our current single-payer national "defense" system controlling costs, saving money and preventing the MIC (defense contractors) from making large profits? Everyone likes to compare what other countries spend (per capita) when they talk about the wonders of single-payer systems, yet tend to avoid looking at this country's other single-payer (publicly funded) systems.

The conflation of the terms "single-payer" and "universal coverage" is becoming a real problem. They are not the same thing and the latter does not imply the former.

You can certainly find systems around the world with multi-payer universal coverage models that significantly outperform those nations that have inspired the single-payer folks (and to be clear, no single-payer nation on earth offers the generosity of coverage folks are promising, so to that extent the current proposals are untested).

 

[American]

Does he need it with super delegate support and unlimited campaign cash? It's not like the black vote would go to Trump if Bloomberg was selected over Sanders by the DNC.

They could stay home.

 

[noonereal]

If you're upset about people helping Trump by not voting for him, wait till you hear about the Democrats that vote and support his policies.

This is stellar logic. I can see why you adore the socialist.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The conflation of the terms "single-payer" and "universal coverage" is becoming a real problem. They are not the same thing and the latter does not imply the former.

You can certainly find systems around the world with multi-payer universal coverage models that significantly outperform those nations that have inspired the single-payer folks (and to be clear, no single-payer nation on earth offers the generosity of coverage folks are promising, so to that extent the current proposals are untested).

That (bolded above) is what far too many simply ignore and the fact that the middle class tax burden imposed (in those other countries) to achieve far less than they are promising approaches 50% (in many cases). Tossing in full coverage for all US residents (regardless of immigration status) is simply insane, but all the hands went up when that was "discussed" during the demorat POTUS "debate".

Even the PPACA employer mandate did not dare impose that cost burden on "small" (those with less than 50 employees) employers. When folks are promising "Medicare for all" what they really mean (when you look at the "details") is "Medicaid for all" with it's complete lack of out-of-pocket costs (i.e. no premiums, deductibles or co-pays) but changing it to become 100% federally funded.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They could stay home.

That is possible, but unlikely since POTUS is but one office on the ballot. The bigger possibility, IMHO, is that more "Bernie bots" would vote for Trump out of spite.

 

[Dans La Lune]

That is possible, but unlikely since POTUS is but one office on the ballot. The bigger possibility, IMHO, is that more "Bernie bots" would vote for Trump out of spite.

Again, Emerson polling shows that Bernie supporters are the least likely to support Trump.

 

[slick]

Refusing to vote for the dem nominee just because your primary candidate doesn't win out in the end is a vote for Trump. Not two ways about this. This next election is Trump vs Dem nominee. Trumps voters WILL be out and voting strictly for Trump. Refusing to vote for the dem nominee, no matter who that person is, is a vote for Trump to have a 2nd term. Any person who doesn't support the dem nominee should not even begin to complain about Trump for the next 4 years as YOU put him there. You may not like it, but these statements are true.

There is one scenario that will positively lead to a Trump victory, perhaps even a Trump landslide. That would be Bloomberg being the nominee.
Bernie has been the 'pied piper' leading the entire group of candidates to the far left with most if not all of them following the dogma Bernie
championed in 2016. Seriously Beto & Gillibrand two godforsaken failures campaigned even to the left of Sanders.

Bernie's main thrust has been railing against billionaires with three of the having more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
Approximately 65 million voters will be in the Democrats column come November and say 30% are solid Sander voters &
1/2 of them are Sander cultists that's 10 million who will stay away from the polls if the nomination is taken away from Bernie &
given to a multi billionaire like Bloomy. After all Sanders isn't even a democrat and many of his young supporters are not either
having no allegiance to that party only to Sanders.

If in the first ballot Bernie has the most delegates but not enough to outright win the nomination & superdelagates who will
vote on the 2nd ballot giving the nomination to Bloomberg or even Buttigieg or Mrs. Clinton that would be the worst possible
scenario for the Democrats.

 

[Felis Leo]

Source?

I will just copy and paste cpwill's Post #57 from the other Bernie Sanders thread, which I think covers most of the bases.

Bernie Sanders literally honeymooned in the Soviet Union. He praised Cuban "Democracy", communist "provision" of goods and services, and claimed that criticisms of it's abuses were just right wing propaganda. He praised Castro and Daniel Ortega, but later said that it was okay, because he did it to criticize Reagan. As mayor, he made his city a sister-city of a Sandanista Government, and flew down to speak at the six year celebration of their revolution . "In the long run, I am certain that you will win,” Sanders wrote, “and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” (The Sandinistas were ousted by Nicaragua’s voters in 1990). He also allied his town with the Soviet government in Yaroslavl, whom he praised for the cheapness of their housing and healthcare during a visit (he also met with the Mayor of Havana). He argued that Venezuelans under Chavez were more likely to achieve the American Dream than people in the United States, and sarcastically suggested that we - not Venezuela et. al., were the "Banana Republic".

There's a reason Maduro refers to Bernie as "Our Revolutionary Friend".

But really, more than Bernie's long history of fondness for the achievements of brutal socialist dictators, what I'm getting at is:

If he wins the nomination, Sanders’ old (and not so old) videos praising failed socialist experiments and tiptoeing around recent cruelties in Latin America will surely resurface, playing on a loop... This may be fearmongering, but Democrats dismiss its effectiveness at their own peril.​

​

These ads write themselves. Clip of Bernie praising Ortega, Castro, etc., followed by a message from a victim, followed by another clip of Bernie defending them on healthcare when asked to explain himself.

Remember the "Grab em by the *****" video? What made it so damaging, such a serious threat, was that it confirmed all the worst suspicions about the candidate from his own lips. If he gets the nomination, Bernie potentially faces multiple experiences like that, where his past statements and positions and actions are used to confirm people's worst suspicions of him.



Fella, if you think everyone who thinks Bernie is a bit nuts and has some major vulnerabilities on this issue is a Trump supporter, you're gonna find yourself in a dark, dark, world.

You may begin minimizing at your pleasure.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I will just copy and paste cpwill's Post #57

Did you do the research yourself? I am looking at it now and I see some hilariously backward attacks, such as criticizing Bernie Sanders for opposing Reagan-supported rape and death squads in Nicaragua. If Bernie Sanders is in the wrong, who is in the right?

Honest question.

 

[Phys251]

Never said "zero" either.
I just don't think it's automatic, universal or even a majority position.

But you can admit that it does sometimes happen, right?

 

[Phys251]

Did you do the research yourself? I am looking at it now and I see some hilariously backward attacks, such as criticizing Bernie Sanders for opposing Reagan-supported rape and death squads in Nicaragua. If Bernie Sanders is in the wrong, who is in the right?

Honest question.

If I were you, I would go back and read what cpwill had to say there. Cause on that one, he was absolutely right.

Especially the very last line of the post. Don't say we didn't warn you. :shrug:

 

[mrjurrs]

In November, I'm voting blue, no matter who.

 

[Dans La Lune]

If I were you, I would go back and read what cpwill had to say there. Cause on that one, he was absolutely right.

I read it.

Who is right, Bernie for opposing rape/murder squads and in Latin America or Ronald Reagan for supporting it? You accused Bernie Sanders of some heinous views and atrocity support. Lets see if you can wiggle out of this box you put yourself in.

You should be careful of who you quote, and if you understand what you're quoting. I'll debate cpwill on this stuff all day long if he's willing.

 

[Phys251]

I read it.

Who is right, Bernie for opposing rape/murder squads and in Latin America or Ronald Reagan for supporting it? You accused Bernie Sanders of some heinous views and atrocity support. Lets see if you can wiggle out of this box you put yourself in.

You should be careful of who you quote, and if you understand what you're quoting. I'll debate cpwill on this stuff all day long if he's willing.

That we disagree with cpwill most of the time is irrelevant here. He put you Sanders supporters on notice. You ignore his warning at your peril. And the peril of this nation.

Like I said, if Sanders somehow gets the nomination, don't say that we didn't warn you. :shrug: