International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Berning down the house! (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334898)

Trakar 19th February 2019 08:11 AM

Berning down the house!
 
The time has come.

Berning down the house

gregthehammer 19th February 2019 09:11 AM

??

Thermal 19th February 2019 09:15 AM

*squints at the horizon, nodding knowingly*

Childlike Empress 19th February 2019 09:29 AM

Bernie has shown that he doesn't have what it takes to become POTUS. He's also too old now. He should stand aside and make his network work for Tulsi.

The Great Zaganza 19th February 2019 09:37 AM

Nonsense!
The only thing standing between Bernie and 2020 is a hostile DNC, a rigged primary!
Remember her emails!

Dr. Keith 19th February 2019 09:42 AM

What does this mean for the Bernie Bros who went hard core Trumpster?

Prediction: Double down on Trump and pretend they never supported Bernie.

applecorped 19th February 2019 09:55 AM

Old white guy..............lol

SuburbanTurkey 19th February 2019 10:19 AM

I also question the wisdom of having someone of such advanced age for President, but I'll be glad to have Bernie in the primaries.

Delvo 19th February 2019 10:23 AM

Simple solution to the age thing: quickly pick a younger VP who's as much like him as possible. Whoever that younger person is will then be in a position to be treated as Bernie's post-mortem representative.

Belz... 19th February 2019 10:24 AM

TBD will be overjoyed.

Stacko 19th February 2019 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12606439)
TBD will be overjoyed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=12082

TragicMonkey 19th February 2019 10:32 AM

Well, bless his heart.

Segnosaur 19th February 2019 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 12606431)
I also question the wisdom of having someone of such advanced age for President, but I'll be glad to have Bernie in the primaries.

Why?

If Sanders is in the primaries, there's a good chance at another split, where a bunch of 'BernieBros' think their guy isn't getting a fair shot. (Of course the same thing probably happens in every primary, but with Sanders it appears to be worse.)

The best thing for the Democrats is for Sanders to stay as far away as possible, and endorse whomever the eventual candidate is.

JoeMorgue 19th February 2019 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12606471)
Why?

If Sanders is in the primaries, there's a good chance at another split, where a bunch of 'BernieBros' think their guy isn't getting a fair shot. (Of course the same thing probably happens in every primary, but with Sanders it appears to be worse.)

The best thing for the Democrats is for Sanders to stay as far away as possible, and endorse whomever the eventual candidate is.

This happens every election. The internet gets itself worked into a frenzy over some outside the mainstream darkhorse candidate, they convince themselves he can win, make up all sorts of conspiracy theories about why he didn't, wash, rinse, repeat.

Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, kinda of Ralph Nader, (arguably) Bat Buchanan, hell Ross Perot was almost like a weird, proto-version of it.

And the idea that Bernie Sanders lost the election for Clinton is laughable. He came in behind Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin, and Darrel Castle and as always everyone was running a distant second to perennial write in favorite "Did Note Vote" who has held every elected office in America since forever.

Donal 19th February 2019 10:54 AM

You're saying a primary potentially featuring up to 20 candidates will cause a split if Sanders joins? Really?

What happened to all those "accept whoever gets nominated" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" calls that were going around? Why is it only a certain sector needs to make compromises?

For the record: no I didn't want him to run. Although, I'm OK with it in the face of some of the other candidates walking themselves back to the right recently.

The Great Zaganza 19th February 2019 11:01 AM

I agree that it is good to have heavyweights in the Primaries who won't make it, since they might draw oppo-research resources away from the actual front-runners.
As a rule of thumb, the less voters know about a nominee, the better.

TragicMonkey 19th February 2019 11:03 AM

I'm rather over the notion that any given candidate is simply too wacky to have a real chance.

Segnosaur 19th February 2019 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donal (Post 12606483)
You're saying a primary featuring up to 20 candidates will cause a split if Sanders joins? Really?

What happened to all those "accept whoever gets nominated" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" calls that were going around? Why is it only a certain sector needs to make compromises?

In my opinion, a Sanders run (and defeat) in the primary will be worse than other candidates for a couple of reasons:

- Sanders has more name recognition than many/most other candidates

- Sanders' reputation as an outsider means that his eventual defeat will be seen as more significant than for other candidates.

- Plus, he doesn't play well with others. He's not a democrat, and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)

Donal 19th February 2019 11:05 AM

Hey, it ain't the clown car the GOP has been running out for the last 3 elections.

Thermal 19th February 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12606503)
I'm rather over the notion that any given candidate is simply too wacky to have a real chance.

i'm sure that there is a sadder truth out there somewhere...

Stacko 19th February 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12606506)
- Plus, he doesn't play well with others. He's not a democrat, and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)

People keep saying this but Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in '16 at a higher percentage than Clinton supporters for Obama in '08.

Belz... 19th February 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12606482)
and as always everyone was running a distant second to perennial write in favorite "Did Note Vote" who has held every elected office in America since forever.

Take people's choice away and they'll die to get it back. Give it to them, and they stay home.

JoeMorgue 19th February 2019 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacko (Post 12606515)
People keep saying this but Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in '16 at a higher percentage than Clinton supporters for Obama in '08.

I'd put folding money on the table that for every vocal "OMG BERNIE DIDN'T GET THE NOM I'M VOTING FOR TRUMP" online Bernie Bro rant, the Democrats gained multiple voters and no small amount of campaign dollars.

Stacko 19th February 2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12606519)
I'd put folding money on the table that for every vocal "OMG BERNIE DIDN'T GET THE NOM I'M VOTING FOR TRUMP" online Bernie Bro rant, the Democrats gained multiple voters and no small amount of campaign dollars.

The one thing I will give the Bernie to Trump voters is they were very vocal and loud about it.

SuburbanTurkey 19th February 2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12606506)
In my opinion, a Sanders run (and defeat) in the primary will be worse than other candidates for a couple of reasons:

- Sanders has more name recognition than many/most other candidates

- Sanders' reputation as an outsider means that his eventual defeat will be seen as more significant than for other candidates.

- Plus, he doesn't play well with others. He's not a democrat, and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)

As said by someone above, it's hard to imagine Bernie causing any kind of serious "split" when the primary looks to be a crowded and raucous fight.

I am not convinced that Bernie vying for it in 2016 cost Hillary the election. The idea that Hillary should have had a smooth, contest-free ride through the primary is laughable on its face and damaging to the party. For all the moaning by a small subset of Bernie Bros, most Democrats saw the truth that Hillary was better than Trump and pulled the lever accordingly.

Hillary lost the election by being (unfairly, some might say) loaded with too much baggage and by being an uncharismatic status-quo type.

It does seem that him running breathed some life into the intensely calcified Democratic party that most people on the left accepted but none really liked all that much. It's hard not to see the new crop of fresh, young, progressive faces in Democratic politics as a direct consequences of Bernie putting real progressive politics on the national stage.

Simply put, an unapologetic progressive on stage allows for progressive politics to become part of the conversation that would not otherwise be possible without running. Neoliberalism needs to be challenged from within.

Segnosaur 19th February 2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12606482)
Quote:

If Sanders is in the primaries, there's a good chance at another split, where a bunch of 'BernieBros' think their guy isn't getting a fair shot. (Of course the same thing probably happens in every primary, but with Sanders it appears to be worse.)

The best thing for the Democrats is for Sanders to stay as far away as possible, and endorse whomever the eventual candidate is.
This happens every election. The internet gets itself worked into a frenzy over some outside the mainstream darkhorse candidate, they convince themselves he can win, make up all sorts of conspiracy theories about why he didn't, wash, rinse, repeat.

I already admitted it happens in every election. I just suggested that with Bernie Sanders, it may be worse (based in part on his name recognition, his personality, etc.)

Quote:

And the idea that Bernie Sanders lost the election for Clinton is laughable. He came in behind Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin, and Darrel Castle and as always everyone was running a distant second to perennial write in favorite "Did Note Vote" who has held every elected office in America since forever.
Are you talking write-in votes?

The problem with Sanders wasn't people doing write-ins; the problem was either 1) people switching from the Democrats to Trump or Stein, or 2) people deciding just not to vote. And the (false) claim that "Clinton rigged the primaries" gave people an excuse.

There were a lot of reasons Clinton lost... Its hard to pin it to any one factor, but anything that harmed her campaign (even if it wasn't a "death blow" by itself) would have contributed to her loss.

JoeMorgue 19th February 2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacko (Post 12606535)
The one thing I will give the Bernie to Trump voters is they were very vocal and loud about it.

And I think that's kind of all they were.

It's also another of those "I literally only saw it expressed anonymously online" so they could have been a 12 year old who couldn't vote and was trolling, a 40 year old who was already going to vote for Trump regardless, or an idealistic 20 year old who wanted to vote for Sanders and was legitimately upset but posted the rant to blow-off steam and went and voted for Hillary anyway. We've only got their word on what they were going to do and what they were originally planning to do to go on.

I have nothing I can back this up with objectively, but my gut is telling that last group was the biggest.

JoeMorgue 19th February 2019 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12606541)
Are you talking write-in votes?.

Does it matter? He didn't get enough votes to swing an election for 3rd Assistant Dog Catcher in Dishwater, WV. You could take every electoral vote that wasn't won by Trump or Hillary, multiple it by ten, give them to Hillary and she still would have been nowhere close to winning.

I don't see looking at results where one side got a score of 227, one got a score of 304 and the side that got 227 looking at the guy who scored 1 and screaming "YOU RUINED THIS FOR ME!"

Hell Colin Powell got 3 electoral votes and he wasn't even running. Someone for whom not one single vote was cast was awarded an electoral vote by an Unfaithless elector. Millions upon millions of eligible voters stayed home scratching their ass and watching Spongebob.

I don't get what damage Bernie did.

bruto 19th February 2019 11:42 AM

I like Bernie and I wish he'd won the nomination and the election, but he did not, and he's getting a bit old to run. He remains a popular and influential figure, though, and what I wish now is that he would think over the options, withdraw from the race itself, and become a vociferous spokesperson for whoever is nominated - preferably someone whose politics he can honestly stand behind, and preferably someone a good bit younger, who can symbolize the empowerment of younger politicians.

Of course what really will happen is probably not that. It would not be the first time that a basically good sort got carried away by the promise of influence and blew the whole thing.

I'm reminded of the debacle years ago in Connecticut, where Toby Moffett, a very likeable, liberal congressman who, despite being in a conservative district had a lock on re-election because he was popular and effective, decided to run for Senate against the also very popular maverick Republican Lowell Weicker. Weicker mopped the floor with him, and a man who could, with patience, have become a real voice in national politics ended up being a small-beans radio commentator, gadfly, and serially unsuccessful candidate.

Segnosaur 19th February 2019 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacko (Post 12606515)
Quote:

- Plus, he doesn't play well with others. He's not a democrat, and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)
People keep saying this but Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in '16 at a higher percentage than Clinton supporters for Obama in '08.

There was one key difference between those elections.

In 2008, the choices were between Obama and McCain. Now, McCain did have a lot of conservative positions, but he also held positions that could be seen as moderate. (e.g. he supported stronger background checks for gun purchases. opposed a ban on same sex marriage, at least acknowledged that global warming was an issue.) . And, unlike certain other candidates, you never got the opinion that he was criminal, or a complete moron. So a former Clinton supporter could vote for McCain without going against their political beliefs too much.

In 2016, the choice was between Clinton (an admittedly imperfect candidate) and a racist buffoon con-artist. Anyone who had been a Democratic should have voted for Clinton, since the alternative (Trump) was so far outside what a rational country should have as a leader.

Belz... 19th February 2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12606585)
In 2016, the choice was between Clinton (an admittedly imperfect candidate) and a racist buffoon con-artist. Anyone who had been a Democratic should have voted for Clinton, since the alternative (Trump) was so far outside what a rational country should have as a leader.

Yeah but it seems we underestimated the "cut off your nose to spite your face" demographic.

The_Animus 19th February 2019 11:50 AM

I hope it'll be different this time. There are a lot of candidates, many of which hold more progressive views. If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, hopefully it will be someone more people will feel they can vote for than they could with Hillary.

ahhell 19th February 2019 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress (Post 12606353)
Bernie has shown that he doesn't have what it takes to become POTUS. He's also too old now. He should stand aside and make his network work for Tulsi.

Seems like a just a narcissist at this point. If it was just about pushing his agenda forward, he'd find a younger more electable Dem who's close to his views to get behind. There's plenty running, and as they are all substantially more left than previous Dem candidates, he ought to be able to find someone one. Instead, he's still seems to think he's the only one that can advance his agenda.

His running would likely only result in splitting the Dems' left wing.

SuburbanTurkey 19th February 2019 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 12606621)

His running would likely only result in splitting the Dems' left wing.

Yes, the classic "You can't participate because it'll ruin everything" line that the center-right D's have been using on the progressive wing forever.

The Democratic party is just going to have to learn to include the progressives in the conversation.

Dr. Keith 19th February 2019 12:13 PM

I like that Bernie is in the primary. Last time he ran a lot of his ideas were considered too fringe and not mainstream enough. Those ideas have become more mainstream and he should be there as an anchor to prevent any slide back to the middle.

Elagabalus 19th February 2019 12:16 PM

Let the Republicans waste their time with the ideological purity test of D candidates. The more the merrier.

Donal 19th February 2019 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12606506)
In my opinion, a Sanders run (and defeat) in the primary will be worse than other candidates for a couple of reasons:

- Sanders has more name recognition than many/most other candidates

More than Biden and Warren?

Quote:

- Sanders' reputation as an outsider means that his eventual defeat will be seen as more significant than for other candidates.
To some people. The fact the the pool started out with more progressive platforms than last time will probably change that perception

Quote:

- Plus, he doesn't play well with others. He's not a democrat, and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)
Clinton won the popular vote.

Honestly, the main reason I didn't want Sanders to run is I have no desire to re-litigate 2016. Listening to folks fumble a bunch of excuses is not a productive use of my time or energy.

lobosrul5 19th February 2019 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar (Post 12606208)
The time has come.

Berning down the house

Much much better live from Stop Making Sense.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Donal 19th February 2019 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 12606624)
Yes, the classic "You can't participate because it'll ruin everything" line that the center-right D's have been using on the progressive wing forever.

The Democratic party is just going to have to learn to include the progressives in the conversation.

Strange how those "you'll split the party" arguments never apply to centrists and third way Democrats.

Segnosaur 19th February 2019 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donal (Post 12606640)
Quote:

In my opinion, a Sanders run (and defeat) in the primary will be worse than other candidates for a couple of reasons:

- Sanders has more name recognition than many/most other candidates
More than Biden and Warren?

More than Warren. Probably about the same as Biden.

(Note that I did say more recognition than many/most... not all.

Quote:

Quote:

- Sanders' reputation as an outsider means that his eventual defeat will be seen as more significant than for other candidates.
To some people. The fact the the pool started out with more progressive platforms than last time will probably change that perception
I'm not talking about where Sanders and the other candidates sit on the political spectrum. I'm talking about him being seen as outside of the party apparatus. (e.g. an "outsider" who can get in there and shake things up.)

Quote:

Quote:

- Plus, he doesn't play well with others. He's not a democrat, and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)
Clinton won the popular vote.
Yet she lost the election. And she did so because she lost a few states by a very small number of votes. Again, I don't think the existence of "bernie bros" was the singular cause of her defeat, but in a tight race, it certainly didn't help.

I'd rather not have that happen again. And part of that is a desire to see the Democratic primary run as smoothly as possible, in order to avoid any sort of "Democrats rigged things/they're dirty/the new guy can't be trusted" attitudes that might exist following a difficult primary (such as a Sanders fighting right to the end when he has no hope at winning).


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.