2020 elections : Sanders back on the ballot

[x65943]

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]

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

 

[x65943]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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).

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.

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?

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 ).

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).

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]

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