# 2020 elections : Sanders back on the ballot



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

Bernie Sanders has announced this morning that he is running in 2020

He's going to be a very old man by that time (78)

Further, his policies have widely been adopted by others such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren

If you're American, would you vote for him in the primary?

Do you think his policy of running without pacs is going to hurt him?

Are his Medicare for all and free college ideas too far to the left to attract voters in a general election?

These are the questions that are going to be asked in the coming days.

It's shaping up to be an interesting race

What do you all think?


----------



## Chary (Feb 19, 2019)

Get Clinton in there again and we can recreate last election and the train wreck that it ensued.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

Chary said:


> Get Clinton in there again and we can recreate last election and the train wreck that it ensued.


Clinton running would be so insanely irresponsible, it would effectively reopen last election's wounds and tear apart the left.

Thankfully she has already said she will not run again!

Losers tend to have a hard time gaining momentum - it's why Gore never ran again.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 19, 2019)

I kind of wish he wouldn't run due to his age alone. If he does somehow win the Primaries, he will have my vote. We don't need another 4 years of Dump in the oval office.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I kind of wish he wouldn't run due to his age alone. If he does somehow win the Primaries, he will have my vote. We don't need another 4 years of Dump in the oval office.


The second most popular candidate is currently Joe Biden (who has not declared yet) 

That man (76) is currently one year younger than Bernie (77)

It's shaping up to be a Geriatric race again!


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 19, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The second most popular candidate is currently Joe Biden (who has not declared yet)
> 
> That man (76) is currently one year younger than Bernie (77)
> 
> It's shaping up to be a Geriatric race again!


I really don't want him to run either, both due to his age and his more recent comments had shown that he's becoming rather detached from Millenials. Realistically, if the Dems want to win, then they need someone younger, more progressive, and not bringing up the same talking points. The second they bring up something like, "I am going to be tough on Wall St!" is the second they start losing supporters because no one wants to hear that shit anymore.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I really don't want him to run either, both due to his age and his more recent comments had shown that he's becoming rather detached from Millenials. Realistically, if the Dems want to win, then they need someone younger, more progressive, and not bringing up the same talking points. The second they bring up something like, "I am going to be tough on Wall St!" is the second they start losing supporters because no one wants to hear that shit anymore.


Here is the issue, young people don't vote at very high numbers





It's the geriatrics who are voting, and thus we get geriatric candidates

I don't think this is necessarily bad - it means we get someone with more experience in most cases

And also, at this point just about every single candidate is beating Trump in the polls.


----------



## Chary (Feb 19, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I really don't want him to run either, both due to his age and his more recent comments had shown that he's becoming rather detached from Millenials. Realistically, if the Dems want to win, then they need someone younger, more progressive, and not bringing up the same talking points.


Which is why the dems should bring in Beto IMO. Maybe I’m biased as a Texan, though I don’t really share all his viewpoints, but I think he really gets on well with younger voters. He doesn’t sound antiquated, but he’s not entirely radical either.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 19, 2019)

Chary said:


> Which is why the dems should bring in Beto IMO. Maybe I’m biased as a Texan, though I don’t really share all his viewpoints, but I think he really gets on well with younger voters. He doesn’t sound antiquated, but he’s not entirely radical either.


He honestly checks out for what most young Democrats are looking for in a candidate these days, plus he's under 50 and that's a huge perk when everyone else just comes off as a socially detached old guy yelling at clouds.



x65943 said:


> Here is the issue, young people don't vote at very high numbers
> It's the geriatrics who are voting, and thus we get geriatric candidates
> 
> I don't think this is necessarily bad - it means we get someone with more experience in most cases
> ...


What's interesting is that is really starting to go downhill after Obama. Obama was really the last Dem to bring up different social issues and also was quick to adopt sites like Youtube, he brought a lot new to the table.  I could be reading this chart wrong, however, since years aren't marketed. But if you look at 2016, a lot of Dems were pretty pissed because the Dems went with Clinton over Sanders, basically just a return to the status quo of promising the same old same old, but also have to argue with someone who just said whatever and was basically bound to win because of that. So it's no shock that less came out to vote because they weren't going to get the radical changes that they were looking for with the Dems.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> He honestly checks out for what most young Democrats are looking for in a candidate these days, plus he's under 50 and that's a huge perk when everyone else just comes off as a socially detached old guy yelling at clouds.
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that is really starting to go downhill after Obama. Obama was really the last Dem to bring up different social issues and also was quick to adopt sites like Youtube, he brought a lot new to the table.  I could be reading this chart wrong, however, since years aren't marketed. But if you look at 2016, a lot of Dems were pretty pissed because the Dems went with Clinton over Sanders, basically just a return to the status quo of promising the same old same old, but also have to argue with someone who just said whatever and was basically bound to win because of that. So it's no shock that less came out to vote because they weren't going to get the radical changes that they were looking for with the Dems.


You're misreading the chart a little

This is a composite of all elections since 2002

Basically for the past 14 years only 1/5 20 year olds have voted in midterm elections, as opposed to about 70% of 70 year olds.

And for presidential elections, less than half of 20 year olds voted, as opposed to about 80% of 70 year olds.

No specific years are listed - this is just to show the trend of voting in different age groups.

Basically older people are voting 3-4x as much as younger people - and this is why candidates focus on issues that target the elderly - they will actually make it to the polls

This is a huge issue in our society. If we had even 50% voter turnout in youth Trump could have never won.

The young tend to be liberal, but also less serious and too preoccupied to make it out to vote.

Of course that is not the only reason the young vote less. They also have jobs they have to go to - and election day is not a holiday. 70 year olds on the other hand have all the free time in the world.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 19, 2019)

x65943 said:


> You're misreading the chart a little
> 
> This is a composite of all elections since 2002
> 
> ...


I thought I was misreading it, but it was pretty meh, to be honest with you.
When it comes down to it, not having the day off and having two candidates that always suck, really just makes voting a meh process. Personally, I won't vote for either of the parties because they are both still Right-Wing parties, with Dems only having some policies swaying to the Left. The only reason I vote for Dems is that they suck a little less than the Republicans when it comes to issues I care about.


----------



## Jayro (Feb 19, 2019)

I voted for him once, and I'm voting for him again. His progression is exactly what this country needs. (And he's got a lot of shit to fix thanks to Trump's fuck-ups.)


----------



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I thought I was misreading it, but it was pretty meh, to be honest with you.
> When it comes down to it, not having the day off and having two candidates that always suck, really just makes voting a meh process. Personally, I won't vote for either of the parties because they are both still Right-Wing parties, with Dems only having some policies swaying to the Left. The only reason I vote for Dems is that they suck a little less than the Republicans when it comes to issues I care about.


Oddly voter turnout actually wasn't very low in 2016




But I feel you on being turned off from the Rs and Ds, I voted L in the last two elections


----------



## Kraken_X (Feb 19, 2019)

Bernie is 4 years older than Trump and in fine health.  The attacks on his age by the corporate media are just their attempts to avoid checks against their growing monopoly powers.  

For example, the Bernie administration would not have let AT&T buy CNN, so of course CNN isn't going to give Bernie fair coverage.  Same with Amazon's Washington Post after Bernie made Amazon pay their warehouse workers a reasonable wage.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 19, 2019)

x65943 said:


> You're misreading the chart a little
> 
> This is a composite of all elections since 2002
> 
> Basically for the past 14 years only 1/5 20 year olds have voted in midterm elections, as opposed to about 70% of 70 year olds.



I am curious now. Do people "age into" voting?

When seeing discussions of religiousness of people it is generally noted that few really gain or lose religion (at least not enough to be more than noise in the sampling), however each new generation is less and less than the last. When sampled every 5 years you can see the attendant shift of the line to the right by 5 years.

I am then drawn to wonder if something similar happens here, or if people suddenly find themselves subject more to the whims of the government and thus feeling the desire to exercise some control over it.

Edit. Seems people already went there as I was looking up average salaries and playing with the tax calculator. Oh well.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I am curious now. Do people "age into" voting?
> 
> When seeing discussions of religiousness of people it is generally noted that few really gain or lose religion (at least not enough to be more than noise in the sampling), however each new generation is less and less than the last. When sampled every 5 years you can see the attendant shift of the line to the right by 5 years.
> 
> ...


It's a but of both I think






As you can see to some extent there has been an overall decrease in voting as a trend.

However the turnout has also stayed consistent enough in the past 50 years to lead me to believe people do "grow into voting" - as there is no precipitous drop.

Edit: the big drop in the early 20th century occurs around the time that voting was greatly expanded to women - so that may be a big factor there - of course it may also simply reflect that many were off to war and couldn't vote


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 19, 2019)

Makes sense. Would probably want to adjust for average lifespan a bit ( http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html ) and otherwise either do regression tests or a more complex analysis but I would have expected to see something in that. Might as well chuck a worldwide look at things in there as well https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/voter-turnout-trends-around-world .

Wonder if that also means when people complain that young whippersnappers that don't have any experience should not be voting are in fact complaining about nothing.


----------



## Kraken_X (Feb 19, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I thought I was misreading it, but it was pretty meh, to be honest with you.
> When it comes down to it, not having the day off and having two candidates that always suck, really just makes voting a meh process. Personally, I won't vote for either of the parties because they are both still Right-Wing parties, with Dems only having some policies swaying to the Left. The only reason I vote for Dems is that they suck a little less than the Republicans when it comes to issues I care about.



Primaries matter.  A lot.  Good people actually run in the primary and often don't win just because turnout is so much lower than the general election.  It's really the big chance you have to vote for someone you actually like rather than the lesser of two evils.  

Yeah, the general election can be pretty pointless if two bad candidates both win the primaries, or even if two good ones win.  But still, the state level and congressional races matter a lot too, possibly more than the president because we are seeing what happens when one party controls all three branches and disregards the constitutional checks on the executive branch's power.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 19, 2019)

Interesting topic. I just read it in the news papers myself.

Personally: I think it's very good news. I've read his biography, and it's much better than I thought it'd be.

But here's the thing general Americans have a hard time grasping: HIS IDEAS ARE MAINSTREAM IN EUROPE!

I've said it at least three times on this forum: to us, democrats are a rightwing group, and republicans are extreme right. As such, I suspected Bernie (who calls himself a socialist) to be what we call 'center'. But he's not: he actually IS a socialist (yeah...sorry if that sounded suspicious, but I've so used to these differences that whenever the word "socialist" is tossed around, I'm used to it applying to anywhere between liberal and communist).




x65943 said:


> Bernie Sanders has announced this morning that he is running in 2020
> 
> He's going to be a very old man by that time (78)


Erm...I fail to see the problem here. That argument was tossed around last time as well, and anyone who can count knows which president now has around that same physical age.

In other words: does Sanders really need to dye his hair blonde and get a skin tan to get more votes?

...come to think of it: I'm not even sure if that's a joke. 


On a small note: I've seen some footage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I know she's not a candidate (yet? ), but as far as young democrats go: you CAN be both smart and beautiful. She's doing it effortlessly.



x65943 said:


> Further, his policies have widely been adopted by others such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren



That his policies get adopted by others isn't a reason to pick others instead. The original is better, isn't it? 




x65943 said:


> If you're American, would you vote for him in the primary?
> Do you think his policy of running without pacs is going to hurt him?


Can't answer the former due to not being American (I would if I was, but that's not a surprise to anyone reading my posts  ).



x65943 said:


> Do you think his policy of running without pacs is going to hurt him?


Hmm...it's a disadvantage, but it'd be the better thing to do. Those pacs are never GIVEN to presidential candidates: they're sort of investments that companies make in order to make sure the legislation doesn't change toward their disadvantage.

The problem is: can he raise enough awareness? From what I gather from his biography, lots of news channels just refused to air him because the appeal of his ideas didn't matter as much as the influence that pacs bring.
(as such: the irony is that the ruckus surrounding Hillary Clinton blocking his candidacy probably brought his name more on people's radar than his actual candidacy).



x65943 said:


> Are his Medicare for all and free college ideas too far to the left to attract voters in a general election?


Oh, it certainly attracts votes. the question is "how many votes?". You see, I don't think any American is genuinely AGAINST medicare for all and free college...I think many just don't believe it is achievable to even start to pursuit (a small hint: EVERY COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET is better in these regards than USA. So yes: start pursuing it, damnit. It has a much better future pay-off than anything blondie has brought to the table).

When reading "The fifth risk" (by Michael Lewis), one of the recurring themes is the strange relationship Americans have with their government. It does so much for them, but it is all taken for granted if everything works out and seriously ridiculed at the slightest hint of error. That whole "right or extreme right" we Europeans see on your potential candidates isn't just because they're the only options but because there is (or was? ) insufficient demand for an actual political left government. It's already a huge improvement that someone like Sanders can become a household name.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 19, 2019)

Kraken_X said:


> Primaries matter.  A lot.  Good people actually run in the primary and often don't win just because turnout is so much lower than the general election.  It's really the big chance you have to vote for someone you actually like rather than the lesser of two evils.
> 
> Yeah, the general election can be pretty pointless if two bad candidates both win the primaries, or even if two good ones win.  But still, the state level and congressional races matter a lot too, possibly more than the president because we are seeing what happens when one party controls all three branches and disregards the constitutional checks on the executive branch's power.


"we are seeing what happens when one party controls all three branches"

Not since January, Democrats have the house - meaning Republicans currently control the presidency and part of the SCOTUS and legislature


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 19, 2019)

Kraken_X said:


> Primaries matter.  A lot.  Good people actually run in the primary and often don't win just because turnout is so much lower than the general election.  It's really the big chance you have to vote for someone you actually like rather than the lesser of two evils.
> 
> Yeah, the general election can be pretty pointless if two bad candidates both win the primaries, or even if two good ones win.  But still, the state level and congressional races matter a lot too, possibly more than the president because we are seeing what happens when one party controls all three branches and disregards the constitutional checks on the executive branch's power.


I am not undermining them and I actually do show up for them. I am just venting because I hate how the game seems to be played.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 19, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> On a small note: I've seen some footage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I know she's not a candidate (yet? ), but as far as young democrats go: you CAN be both smart and beautiful. She's doing it effortlessly.


She is/will be too young if the minimum age limit is in place. He is probably looked at as being a bit on the old side as you tend to want to go for two terms, at something that is a rather tiring/ageing job, and if you are already rather advanced in years...

Back on her then smart? She has repeatedly talked some utter bollocks for months now, shown fundamental misunderstandings of things she should theoretically know (she is apparently a degree educated economist, see then the complete misunderstanding of the concept of a tax break recently), and has been seen to not especially play ball with her party (which may or may not count as far as smarts go but it is not endearing her to many).


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 19, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> On a small note: I've seen some footage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I know she's not a candidate (yet? ), but as far as young democrats go: you CAN be both smart and beautiful. She's doing it effortlessly.


Beauty is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder.
But I will say she is not smart unless you think socialism is a good idea because it hasn't destroyed enough countries already. She also doesn't even seem to understand how the government works even on the local level. She just cost NY 25,000+ jobs with amazon deciding to pull out of the HQ2 deal mainly because of ocasio-cortez and a few other far left democrats. Shcumer, cuomo, and de blasio also wern't happy about that.
Then the "green new deal" which is a joke more than anything else and just giving more ammunition for republicans to win 2020 with. Pelosi also seems to be at odds with her, mostly ignoring stuff she says or down playing it all while the media keeps putting her on a pedestal.


----------



## Kraken_X (Feb 20, 2019)

x65943 said:


> "we are seeing what happens when one party controls all three branches"
> 
> Not since January, Democrats have the house - meaning Republicans currently control the presidency and part of the SCOTUS and legislature



"Control" is the operative word.  Unless one of the conservative judges defects, the non-republicans in the SCOTUS don't have any power.  Likewise, even if something can pass the house, republicans won't let it pass the senate, especially with a veto.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 20, 2019)

Kraken_X said:


> "Control" is the operative word.  Unless one of the conservative judges defects, the non-republicans in the SCOTUS don't have any power.  Likewise, even if something can pass the house, republicans won't let it pass the senate, especially with a veto.


Democrats have the power to obstruct pretty heavily in Congress

Of course if Roberts makes SCOTUS a rubber stamp (no indication of this) Trump can do whatever he wants


----------



## Lacius (Feb 20, 2019)

I like Senator Sanders, and depending on how things go between now and my state's primary election, I might vote for him again. However, I really hope that if he loses the Democratic nomination again, Sanders supporters will support the Democratic nominee a lot more than some of them did in 2016. They were *part* of the reason why Donald Trump won the Electoral College.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 20, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> Beauty is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder.
> But I will say she is not smart unless you think socialism is a good idea because it hasn't destroyed enough countries already. She also doesn't even seem to understand how the government works even on the local level.


You're the one who still doesn't seem to understand how Democratic Socialism works.  Nobody is pitching a complete re-haul of the government to a Socialist one.



Joe88 said:


> She just cost NY 25,000+ jobs with amazon deciding to pull out of the HQ2 deal mainly because of ocasio-cortez and a few other far left democrats. Shcumer, cuomo, and de blasio also wern't happy about that.


Amazon has shit working conditions and they require whatever state they headquarter in to pay a ton of ridiculous royalties, so that shit barely evens out.  The Dems also aren't nearly as divided as you'd like to think, and Republicans are mostly the ones putting a massive spotlight on AOC.  Which helps put more progressive policy ideas into the mainstream, so thanks for that.



Joe88 said:


> Then the "green new deal" which is a joke more than anything else and just giving more ammunition for republicans to win 2020 with.


Yeah, because a fucking wall in the middle of the desert, which can be SAWED THROUGH, is a much better way to spend taxpayer dollars and emergency funds.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're the one who still doesn't seem to understand how Democratic Socialism works.  Nobody is pitching a complete re-haul of the government to a Socialist one.


Don't cha know? Socialism = Things I don't like and don't actually care to understand.

Also, I think it is more like Social Democracy.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 20, 2019)

24 hours after his announcement, Sanders has raised $6 million dollars in donations.  The previous 24-hour high was $1.5 million for Kamala Harris.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising.html


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I like Senator Sanders, and depending on how things go between now and my state's primary election, I might vote for him again. However, I really hope that if he loses the Democratic nomination again, Sanders supporters will support the Democratic nominee a lot more than some of them did in 2016. They were *part* of the reason why Donald Trump won the Electoral College.


As long as Clinton isn't a frontrunner I don't see this being a problem

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Yeah, because a fucking wall in the middle of the desert, which can be SAWED THROUGH, is a much better way to spend taxpayer dollars and emergency funds.


We're essentially burning money by the piles. The wall definitely won't help. Just wishing those with the authority would care more for those already inside instead of inviting more in.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 20, 2019)

Memoir said:


> As long as Clinton isn't a frontrunner I don't see this being a problem


It's difficult to predict what irrational people will do.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 21, 2019)

Chary said:


> Get Clinton in there again and we can recreate last election and the train wreck that it ensued.


I actually want that to happen for entertainment.

It look like the far left isn’t going to vote for Bearnie Sanders because he’s a White Male. 

I wish I was kidding.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



x65943 said:


> Clinton running would be so insanely irresponsible, it would effectively reopen last election's wounds and tear apart the left.
> 
> Thankfully she has already said she will not run again!
> 
> Losers tend to have a hard time gaining momentum - it's why Gore never ran again.


Considering she lost to two Presidents


----------



## Xzi (Feb 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It look like the far left isn’t going to vote for Bearnie Sanders because he’s a White Male.
> 
> I wish I was kidding.


You're not kidding, you're just full of shit.  Bernie is the progressive favorite now that he's in the race, as I said he outraised Harris' 24-hour total $6 million to $1.5 million.  With a donation average of just over $26.50.  Harris probably won't even hold second place for too long, as there will be more progressives entering the race.  

I like the idea of Beto entering the race, but I might like the idea of him running as Bernie's VP even more.  Then, god forbid, anything should happen to Sanders, we've got the perfect progressive interim president.  If nothing happens to Bernie, Beto can be the presidential candidate in 2024 or 2028.


----------



## b17bomber (Feb 21, 2019)

Match my donation bro! Oh what's that, you saw a picture of me in a Corvette? Sorry, no refunds.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're not kidding, you're just full of shit.  Bernie is the progressive favorite now that he's in the race, as I said he outraised Harris' 24-hour total $6 million to $1.5 million.  With a donation average of just over $26.50.  Harris probably won't even hold second place for too long, as there will be more progressives entering the race.


So mean

Far Left does hate him

They’re getting mad that Bearnie and the rest of White people is blaming the countries problems on Donald Trump for decades of collective white supremacist history, they say they are using Trump as a scapegoat. Far Left doesn’t like Bearnie.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So mean
> 
> Far Left does hate him
> 
> They’re getting mad that Bearnie and the rest of White people is blaming the countries problems on Donald Trump for decades of collective white supremacist history, they say they are using Trump as a scapegoat. Far Left doesn’t like Bearnie.


Youtube is not a source.  And I don't mean it's not a primary source, I mean it should never be used as a source of information/news gathering, period.  It's strictly for entertainment and disseminating opinions/disinformation.

Also his name is Bernie, he's not a bear or bear-like in stature.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 21, 2019)

x65943 said:


> If you're American, would you vote for him in the primary?



What difference would it make if you did? DNC decides the nominee, it was all exposed last time.




x65943 said:


> Thankfully she has already said she will not run again!



That's what she always says, until she says she's running.

/


----------



## Xzi (Feb 21, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> What difference would it make if you did? DNC decides the nominee, it was all exposed last time.


Clinton won the popular vote and the majority of states during the primary.  I wasn't happy about it either, and I knew the party was playing things too close to the center, but this conspiracy theory is entirely played out.  It only makes sense, unfortunately, that Southern and Midwest Dems would have gone for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries


----------



## x65943 (Feb 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Clinton won the popular vote and the majority of states during the primary.  I wasn't happy about it either, and I knew the party was playing things too close to the center, but this conspiracy theory is entirely played out.  It only makes sense, unfortunately, that Southern and Midwest Dems would have gone for Clinton.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries


The media constantly portrayed Clinton as having a giant lead as they counted superdelegates

Regardless of the fact that the supers had not voted yet and could not vote until the DNC

This rampant misinformation campaign on the part of the liberal media cost Sanders a lot of votes as people assumed Clinton was winning by a landslide (she wasn't)

It was clear from the beginning who the DNC favored - it was disgusting that there was only one primary debate - bias bias bias

If you look at the leaked emails they even talked about targeting Sanders for being an Atheist and Jewish


----------



## Lacius (Feb 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> What difference would it make if you did? DNC decides the nominee, it was all exposed last time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Superdelegates, arguably the more controversial part of the Democratic nomination process in 2016, had no effect on the outcome. Clinton won, with or without them. The controversy is they could have maybe handed the election to Clinton even if Bernie had done better. The good news is, on the first voting round at the convention anyway, there are no superdelegates in 2020.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Youtube is not a source.  And I don't mean it's not a primary source, I mean it should never be used as a source of information/news gathering, period.  It's strictly for entertainment and disseminating opinions/disinformation.
> 
> Also his name is Bernie, he's not a bear or bear-like in stature.


YouTube is actually a realiable source when you know how to search for the right people. 

Tim Pool has worked in media and presents news more accurately then many Mainstream News sources. 

YouTube was the one that got the Covington Story right when popular mainstream news sources got the news wrong and refused to apologize. And now Washington Post is getting sued for posting fake news. Which looks like he’s going to win. Simply it being on YouTube does not disqualify it at all and doesn’t mean it’s unreliable.

Teen sues Washington Post


Bernie is the 2nd most popular presidential candidate right now. The problem is that only Democrate will vote for Bernie but the Democratic Party is extremely fractured right now. The more moderate left won’t vote for Bearnie because he is too left for them. The Far Left is even crazier beyond left of what Bearnie is, and won’t vote because he’s a white male. 

Dems diversity push may block Bearnie in 2020

Why joe biden shouldn't run for president - article explains that he’s a white man.

Bearnie responds to female sexism and harassment scandals in his 2016 campaign - not a good look for far left people that care about this.

Bernie distance himself on dumb 1972 essay on rape - intersectional feminist will not like this one.

What an all white msnbc graph will teaches us about 2020 race.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Superdelegates, arguably the more controversial part of the Democratic nomination process in 2016, had no effect on the outcome. Clinton won, with or without them. The controversy is they could have maybe handed the election to Clinton even if Bernie had done better. The good news is, on the first voting round at the convention anyway, there are no superdelegates in 2020.




Tell @x65943 that. I'm just rubbing the cat's hair backwards.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Tell @x65943 that. I'm just rubbing the cat's hair backwards.


You're the one who said the DNC decides the nominee and that it was all exposed last time. That's untrue.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> You're the one who said the DNC decides the nominee and that it was all exposed last time. That's untrue.




Well, Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile both say it was rigged for Clinton.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...acked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/



> The former interim head of the Democratic Party just accused Hillary Clinton's campaign of “unethical” conduct that “compromised the party's integrity.” The Clinton campaign's alleged sin: A hostile takeover of the Democratic National Committee before her primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders had concluded.





> In the op-ed, Brazile says:
> 
> 
> Clinton's campaign took care of the party's debt and “put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which [Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations.” She described Clinton's control of the DNC as a “cancer.”
> ...


----------



## Xzi (Feb 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> YouTube is actually a realiable source when you know how to search for the right people.


If you mean searching for the right spin doctors, then sure.





SG854 said:


> Bernie is the 2nd most popular presidential candidate right now. The problem is that only Democrate will vote for Bernie but the Democratic Party is extremely fractured right now.


There's no possibility of Democrats being "fractured" right now, all the candidates haven't even declared yet, and we're quite a ways off from the primary still.  Opinion pieces mean little to nothing in the long run.

FYI Trump has one primary challenger of his own on the Republican side already, Bill Weld, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more pop up:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/bill-weld-trump-2020.html


----------



## SG854 (Feb 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If you mean searching for the right spin doctors, then sure


Not a good comparison, and you are putting up a logical fallacy, especially when Covington story was wrong on many mainstream news networks, and Tim Pool has won an award for his News coverage despite him now being an independent journalist, but I won’t debate this specific topic anymore it’s just going to be me and you saying the same thing over and over. 

YouTube has been reliable with right the people and got many stories correct, so that’s all I’m concerned about. It’s all about knowing where to look to get the right information.



Xzi said:


> There's no possibility of Democrats being "fractured" right now, all the candidates haven't even declared yet, and we're quite a ways off from the primary still.


The Democratic Party has been fracturing way before this presidential election started.

54% of Democrat’s want to be more moderate. So Bernie’s more further left policies are a no no for them. The more liberal Democrats which is 41%, the ones more likely to be identitarian or intersectional, are the ones likely to vote for Bernie. It’s a fraction of a fraction.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx



Xzi said:


> Opinion pieces mean little to nothing in the long run.


Well duh, that’s all everybody is doing right now is opinion, you won’t know until the election is finished. So there’s always a chance someone’s predictions is going to wrong. 

What people are doing is trying to see who is going to win using an educated guess with the best information they have at the moment. That’s the whole point of this thread.


----------



## Captain_N (Feb 22, 2019)

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Just all the dems running for 2020 are socialist. In the 1980s and 1990s, he praised the soviets, cuba and other socialist/communist conutries.

Do people really think they are gonna be able to have "free" health care free collage and a UBI, with out any change to how much you pay your hard earned money to the government? What these hard leftists and progressives are not telling you is tax rate will be well above 60%. Do you really thing only the rich will pay that? Sorry but there are no where near enough rich people to pay for this socialist nonsense. 

Why are so many people immigrating to the US? Because they are tired of their governments control. They want a better life. I for the life of me will understand why people think the larger government is the more freedom there is.... ANd miss cortez dont even get me started on that dumb ass. She must be smoking some really good shit


----------



## Xzi (Feb 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Democratic Party has been fracturing way before this presidential election started.
> 
> 54% of Democrat’s want to be more moderate. So Bernie’s more further left policies are a no no for them. The more liberal Democrats which is 41%, the ones more likely to be identitarian or intersectional, are the ones likely to vote for Bernie. It’s a fraction of a fraction.
> 
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx


Democrats have never been nearly as monolithic as Republicans in our beliefs/viewpoints, but that doesn't mean we aren't willing to come together behind whatever candidate wins the primary.  Additionally, Bernie's policies were nearly all added to the DNC platform during the 2016 conference.  Which is part of the reason these issues are so mainstream now, and the reason the party just elected a massive wave of young progressives to Congress.



Captain_N said:


> Do people really think they are gonna be able to have "free" health care free collage and a UBI, with out any change to how much you pay your hard earned money to the government? What these hard leftists and progressives are not telling you is tax rate will be well above 60%. Do you really thing only the rich will pay that? Sorry but there are no where near enough rich people to pay for this socialist nonsense.


Wake the fuck up, your taxes already went up this year to pay for the corporate welfare Trump passed.  If your taxes are going to be going up slightly anyway, you should prefer they then go to programs which benefit the lower/middle classes.  Not to mention the consequences of impending automation, which don't just go away because we pretend they aren't there.

Also, you should really learn how a marginal tax rate works:



Spoiler












The 1950s had a marginal tax rate of 90%, the economy was booming, and American wage-earners could support entire families on one income.  What a Socialist nightmare, am I right?


----------



## SG854 (Feb 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Democrats have never been nearly as monolithic as Republicans in our beliefs/viewpoints, but that doesn't mean we aren't willing to come together behind whatever candidate wins the primary.  Additionally, Bernie's policies were nearly all added to the DNC platform during the 2016 conference.  Which is part of the reason these issues are so mainstream now, and the reason the party just elected a massive wave of young progressives to Congress.
> 
> 
> Wake the fuck up, your taxes already went up this year to pay for the corporate welfare Trump passed.  If your taxes are going to be going up slightly anyway, you should prefer they then go to programs which benefit the lower/middle classes.  Not to mention the consequences of impending automation, which don't just go away because we pretend they aren't there.
> ...


That’s true, Republicans are more uniform then Democrats and it’s their strong point. Democrats do unite when they have a common enemy and Trump was theirs.

The problem is more with the intersectionalists and identitarians. They have gone far off the rails. The more moderate Democrats don’t agree with them and increasingly try to further themselves from them. This is bad and makes it harder for the party to get things done.

When you compare Bernie to Trump, Trump has gotten positive reception from both Republicans and Independents during the State of the Union. And getting Independent support is a big one for Trump. Bernie is not going to have it easy. If Bernie is going to get anything done he has to stop being a push over. This is his biggest weak point.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That’s true, Republicans are more uniform then Democrats and it’s their strong point.


It's also their weak point and the reason they were so quick to sell out all their values in favor of Trumpism.



SG854 said:


> When you compare Bernie to Trump, Trump has gotten positive reception from both Republicans and Independents during the State of the Union. And getting Independent support is a big one for Trump. Bernie is not going to have it easy. If Bernie is going to get anything done he has to stop being a push over. This is his biggest weak point.


Rofl WHAT?  Bernie is literally an independent, Trump is neoconservative taken to an extreme.  There aren't any undecideds left at this point, people definitely know whether they support Trump's brand of xenophobic isolationism or not.  The fact that he managed to keep from going completely off the rails at the SOTU isn't going to change anybody's mind on that.  It was still a rambling speech full of lies.


----------



## x65943 (Feb 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That’s true, Republicans are more uniform then Democrats and it’s their strong point. Democrats do unite when they have a common enemy and Trump was theirs.
> 
> The problem is more with the intersectionalists and identitarians. They have gone far off the rails. The more moderate Democrats don’t agree with them and increasingly try to further themselves from them. This is bad and makes it harder for the party to get things done.
> 
> When you compare Bernie to Trump, Trump has gotten positive reception from both Republicans and Independents during the State of the Union. And getting Independent support is a big one for Trump. Bernie is not going to have it easy. If Bernie is going to get anything done he has to stop being a push over. This is his biggest weak point.


You know like 1/2 of Americans identify as D, and 1/4 as R, and another 1/4 as I

So the Republicans literally have to appeal to the independents to even have a chance

Thing is the independents almost always vote R so it's a tad ridiculous they even identify the way they do


----------



## Xzi (Feb 22, 2019)

x65943 said:


> You know like 1/2 of Americans identify as D, and 1/4 as R, and another 1/4 as I
> 
> So the Republicans literally have to appeal to the independents to even have a chance
> 
> Thing is the independents almost always vote R so it's a tad ridiculous they even identify the way they do


In terms of registered voters this is about right, but you also have to remember that only 63% of Americans vote (at most), leaving us with 37% which are completely unaffiliated.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 22, 2019)

x65943 said:


> You know like 1/2 of Americans identify as D, and 1/4 as R, and another 1/4 as I
> 
> So the Republicans literally have to appeal to the independents to even have a chance
> 
> Thing is the independents almost always vote R so it's a tad ridiculous they even identify the way they do


So on other words your saying 50% Democrat and 50% Republican.

Which will not help Bernie’s case. When not all Democrats will vote for Bernie.

And even if half are Democrats, their is problems happening within the party. The intersectionalist, anti white male rhetoric is not a good look for them. And it’s driving people away from their party. And the more moderates are trying to distance themselves from that, so that people will take them more seriously.



Xzi said:


> It's also their weak point and the reason they were so quick to sell out all their values in favor of Trumpism.
> 
> 
> Rofl WHAT?  Bernie is literally an independent, Trump is neoconservative taken to an extreme.  There aren't any undecideds left at this point, people definitely know whether they support Trump's brand of xenophobic isolationism or not.  The fact that he managed to keep from going completely off the rails at the SOTU isn't going to change anybody's mind on that.  It was still a rambling speech full of lies.


How ever you felt about the State of the Union does not change the fact that it got positive reception. And garnerd him more support.

The problem is your looking at this from a self centric point of view. To you Trump is the worst trash ever so it’s obvious why I wouldn’t vote for him. To others he’s garnering more support, and if you pay attention to what people are saying, not just what Democrats are saying, then you’ll see this. And if you don’t address this problem then Trump will win 2020. Don’t underestimate Trump that’s what they did before.

Bernie is independent but independents won’t vote for Bernie. Bernie is too left for independents.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How ever you felt about the State of the Union does not change the fact that it got positive reception. And garnerd him more support.


Any good will or temporary support he garnered from his faux-statesmanship during the SOTU he lost when he declared a national emergency over a tantrum.  66% disapprove of that, it's literally only his most core supporters that will argue in favor of something so stupid.  After they were promised Mexico was paying for the wall numerous times, no less.



SG854 said:


> To others he’s garnering more support, and if you pay attention to what people are saying, not just what Democrats are saying, then you’ll see this. And if you don’t address this problem then Trump will win 2020. Don’t underestimate Trump that’s what they did before.


Nonsense.  His numbers went down during the shutdown, and _at best_ they're back where they were before it now.  Depending on which polls you're looking at.



SG854 said:


> Bernie is independent but independents won’t vote for Bernie. Bernie is too left for independents


That's because most aren't actual Independents, but just Republicans who want to save face in front of friends/family.  As has already been pointed out.


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Now this commie is on board with regime change in Venezuela. Just as when he disgustingly caved to AIPAC back in 2017, he can't help but prove he's a total fraud.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Now this commie is on board with regime change in Venezuela. Just as when he disgustingly caved to AIPAC back in 2017, he can't help but prove he's a total fraud.


Lemme guess: your source is fox news?

Those clowns make things up as they go. The more scaremongering the better.


...but okay: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt: link me to something where he actually said that (and no, a 2 second sound bite won't work).


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Lemme guess: your source is fox news?
> 
> Those clowns make things up as they go. The more scaremongering the better.
> 
> ...


I don't watch Fox News, but am sometimes led to clips of Tucker Carlson. He seem's legit.

It wasn't on there though as even left leaning shitrags are against the Bern. It was a Google News popup on my phone that alerted me to his self destructive statements this morning. I think we can agree they would only promote the most breaking, important and hardcore left news available. What the Sandman said is that Venezuela requires international aid. By current Trump admin terms, that means level the place. Aid always means blow them up, not just with Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> I don't watch Fox News, but am sometimes led to clips of Tucker Carlson. He seem's legit.


You mean that guy that just got destroyed on his own show so bad that he wouldn't even air the interview?  





Glyptofane said:


> It wasn't on there though as even left leaning shitrags are against the Bern. It was a Google News popup on my phone that alerted me to his self destructive statements this morning. I think we can agree they would only promote the most breaking, important and hardcore left news available. What the Sandman said is that Venezuela requires international aid. By current Trump admin terms, that means level the place. Aid always means blow them up, not just with Trump.


"Aid" only means blow them up under Republicans.  Odds are we'll deploy troops to Venezuela before Trump's first term is over anyway.


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You mean that guy that just got destroyed on his own show so bad that he wouldn't even air the interview?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Haha yea I saw this and loved it. Tucker's great, huh?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Haha yea I saw this and loved it. Tucker's great, huh?


Nah he's a shitweasel.  Can't handle it when anybody makes valid points which run contrary to his "fuck you I got mine" political views.  Thank god Bregman recorded that segment, or we never would've seen it.  It's just as he says: Carlson is a millionaire funded by billionaire dirty money, so he has a clear motive in continuing to push lower taxes for the rich.  He'll always be part of the problem.


----------

