Bernie Sanders town hall feat. Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore
- Thread starter Venom
- Start date
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
I think their best play is to rally around <insert fictitious Generation X democrat here> but the party is rather light on emerging luminary figures in that age range. They can lend their significant grass-roots networks to a primary candidate and catapult them into the spotlight. General election might require them to fade from the stage and continue behind the scenes (they are distracting targets for the right to harp on about).
This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
If generations matter, gen Xers are largely irrelevant, similar to the silent generation, they are just out numbered by the generations before and after. The Boomers will hand power over to the millenials.
Or were you being sarcastic?
Also, I don't think either Warren or Bernie are particularly viable in the general, probably not even in the primary. If they want to advance a progressive agenda, likely better off using the primary to gain credibility within the Dems. Seems like Warren is on board with working within the Dem party, I'm not sure about Bernie. I mostly think Moore is a self aggrandizing show boat.
Why do you think this? Recent elections seem to indicate a voting record is more of a handicap. It probably helped both Obama and definitely helped Trump.
Or were you being sarcastic?
Also, I don't think either Warren or Bernie are particularly viable in the general, probably not even in the primary. If they want to advance a progressive agenda, likely better off using the primary to gain credibility within the Dems. Seems like Warren is on board with working within the Dem party, I'm not sure about Bernie. I mostly think Moore is a self aggrandizing show boat.
Last edited:
I should say, I didn't think Trump was viable in the primary or general either, so there's that .
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 22,930
You were hardly alone in that.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Probably not much. Remember, during the primaries the republicans did little to attack Sanders, saving all their smear tactics for Clinton. And during the primaries Clinton treated Sanders fairly gently (as political campaigns go). Its easy to look unbeatable if you've never really been challenged.
Had Sanders won the primaries, the Republicans would immediately start dredging up all sorts of crap from his past... his self-labeling as a "socialist" (still a dirty word to many in the U.S.), his attendance at a rally where people chanted "death to America", his honeymoon in Moscow.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
They would have tried, but it looks like the demonization of socialism kind of played itself out during the Obama years. Frank Luntz ran a Fox focus group after the first Clinton/Sanders debate, and was shocked by the group favoring Sanders and warming up to socialism after seeing his version of it. LOL
eta:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mgw67Ubho4
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
First of all, keep in mind that Fox News and Luntz both have a strong right-wing pro-republican and/or Trump bias. Doing whatever they can to play up Hillary's opposition would make sense. (Best case: They actually help Berny to win, and the republicans get an opponent they can easily defeat. Worst case, they cause dissent within the democrats, which still helps the republican cause.)
Secondly, I pointed out more than just his use of the word 'socialist'.
Lastly, while the republicans may have attempted to smear Obama with that word "socialist", I think it makes a difference when a candidate uses the word to describe himself as compared to when others attempt to apply the label.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
If it was a fraudulent focus group, Fox never did anything to help Sanders after that, to my knowledge. I think it's far more likely than not that it was legit and he really was as shocked as he seems.
..and those things were easily dismissed during the primary. Hillary won the primary on name recognition, not the effective marketing of the "Moscow honeymoon." Nobody was actually swayed by that stuff.
..and those things were easily dismissed during the primary. Hillary won the primary on name recognition, not the effective marketing of the "Moscow honeymoon." Nobody was actually swayed by that stuff.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Fox didn't need to actively "help" Sanders. All they had to do was not attack him, and concentrate all their attacks on Clinton.
But they WEREN'T really dismissed during the primary. There may have been a few old news article from years ago, but it wasn't really brought up at the time... Hillary certainly wasn't attacking Sanders over personal issues, and the Republicans were remaining silent.
You can't say something is "dismissed" if its never really brought up or discussed in any significant way.
Did YOU know about Sanders' participation in anti-American rallies? Did YOU know about him supporting a plan to send toxic waste to a poor Hispanic community? Did you know he voted against the Amber alert system? Because I suspect that most voters did not know about these during the primaries. But I can guarantee you that those issues would be dredged up repeatedly on Fox news had Sanders become the Democratic Candidate.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Once again, people weren't swayed by Sander's Moscow Honeymoon or his Death to America rally participation because it was never really discussed during the primaries. Clinton didn't want to engage in such petty attacks (likely because it would make her look bad) and the Republicans didn't want to attack Sanders over it because they preferred Sanders as an opponent and wanted to save those attacks for a general election.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,566
Regarding Sanders in 2016 and the potential for him or a similar candidate in 2020 I'll repeat a comment from the 2020 candidate thread.
On FOX attacking Hillary over Bernie, that's just standard politics/war. Weaken the stronger of your potential opponents.
The more mainstream GOP candidates have accused the likes of CNN of giving Trump free air time during the primary in order to weaken the GOP. Hah, jokes on.....somebody.....
Sanders commie honeymoon and socialism are also much less of a weakness in the primary. Clinton didn't want to alienate the left wing of her party.
Basically, I agree, Bernie didn't see nearly the scrutiny in the primary that he would have gotten in the general. Sure, its a counter factual so we will never know, but I don't think he would have been nearly as strong as polling suggested. On the other hand, anti-establishmentism was a big factor in Trumps success, Bernie might have been more successful at siphoning that off than HRC.
The more mainstream GOP candidates have accused the likes of CNN of giving Trump free air time during the primary in order to weaken the GOP. Hah, jokes on.....somebody.....
Sanders commie honeymoon and socialism are also much less of a weakness in the primary. Clinton didn't want to alienate the left wing of her party.
Basically, I agree, Bernie didn't see nearly the scrutiny in the primary that he would have gotten in the general. Sure, its a counter factual so we will never know, but I don't think he would have been nearly as strong as polling suggested. On the other hand, anti-establishmentism was a big factor in Trumps success, Bernie might have been more successful at siphoning that off than HRC.
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Clinton supporters on THIS forum would probably vote for Sanders had he won the nomination. But then, members of this forum probably don't fit the same demographics as the 'average' American.
Sanders would probably have lost votes in the following groups:
- Minorities. While Clinton did worse with many minority racial groups than Obama did in the general election, Sanders probably would have done an even worse job. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...y-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948
- Moderate Democrats. Sanders held positions that were to the far left of the American political spectrum, and for better or worse those positions are not always politically popular. (Yes, I'm sure people will drag up all sorts of polls showing that "Hey people love single payer health care and a high minimum wage", but its different dealing with a question asked by some pollster than when you are dealing with an election and get told how "single payer will drive up your taxes".) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/bernie-sanders-would-have-lost-election-landslide/
Venom
Philosopher
It seems to me people had already made up their minds early based on what they saw on TV. Clinton had name recognition, she was the "safe" choice; Trump had the anti-establishment fury behind him. I cannot picture the vast majority of Democrats not voting for Sanders over Trump had he made it that far.
I'd say Clinton mostly won the primary on the strength of name recognition. Policy-wise Sanders is a peg to the left of her.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Also worth noting, there's still this factor, too:
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315
Venom
Philosopher
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
A lot of people insist that Bernie is a "moderate" by European standrads. I reply that is meaningless in terms of US politics.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
A lot of wishful thinking here that Bernie is some massively popular politician.
Venom
Philosopher
Perhaps a better characterization is Bernie is a 40s Democrat, just as Obama referred to himself as an "80's Republican"
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
probably because for the most part, people think he's honest even if they don't agree with him, a rarity among politicians.
I lean more conservative than liberal but I would have voted for Bernie over Trump, I have a hard time believing that there are any liberal/left folks that would have voted Trump over bernie if given the choice. The worst that would have happened is they stay home, which lot did when it was Hillary vs Donald.
Last edited:
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Polls always get it right
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Here comes the "Lost Tribe" theory of politics again.......
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
It was in the Newsweek link that I referred to in another post.
From: http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK....Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out. Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards...Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system....Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ ...Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.” The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.)
Ok, not exactly "death to America" (I took some artistic liberties there) but "Yankee will die" isn't really that much better in my opinion.
If you knew about them, then I'd say you are definitely in the minority, as they were never major issues during the primaries.
Some might. The bigger risk though is that moderates might simply decide to stay home.
The political spectrum is not some binary hardcore republican/democrat split. There are shades of grey. Being a moderate means that you fall closer to the center of the political spectrum than the far left. Maybe you may even be a former republican voter who decided that the republican party had gone insane and you now feel more at home in a Democratic party that is fiscally conservative and liberal when it comes to social policies. Bringing in a leader who promotes policies that you think are too extreme (ones that threaten to drive up your taxes for example, or ones that are seen as anti-business) may make you decide that its just not worth it to vote.
Remember, while there are polls showing how Sander's policies were popular, polls don't often incorporate the costs. Take for example his promise of "free college". Yeah, lots of people love the idea. But if the republicans point out that "this will take money out of the pockets of hardworking taxpayers", many may decide that they just don't want to vote for that.
Venom
Philosopher
I don't see why we couldn't fight fire with fire there.
Sander's message of corruption of the last decade and how the wealthy essentially rigged the game could go over well with a heck of a lot of voters. Money? Let's talk about the money..the money gone overseas to wars and big bailouts, etc.
It's not like progressives would keep their swords sheathed when push comes to shove.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I am not doubting you. But as I stated before, I suspect the average poster here is more rational and better educated than the average American voter.
A liberal/left wing might not have voted for Trump over Bernie. But a middle-of-the-road voter (perhaps one that favors both lower taxes and more liberal social policies) might.
Yes, many potential democratic voters stayed home (or wasted their votes on Stein). The same would happen had Sanders become the candidate; it would just be a different group of people than who stayed home when Clinton was the candidate.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,566
I don't disagree that some groups such as minorities and moderates preferred Clinton over Sanders. Clinton winning the primary was a pretty clear indicator.
While they preferred Clinton in a Sanders vs Clinton matchup, I think they'd have preferred Sanders in a Sanders vs Trump matchup. And the relevant states that won Trump the election voted for Trump because they saw Clinton as the standard elite politician that wouldn't do anything for them on jobs and economic disparity whereas that was a Sanders strong point relative to Clinton.
There is no way to know for sure. Maybe Trump still would have won. I see many democrats argue it's a given that he'd have lost because socialism and attack ads but I seriously question that. I'm also worried that if they keep pursuing the strategy of running Clinton and Kaine types we're going to lose again come 2020
Belz...
Fiend God
Depends what you think it means for a poll to be "wrong", but I know you won't answer that.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Clinton was the second least popular candidate in US history.
And Sanders in the most popular in the country.
I don't see the reasonable case that the Sanders "sit it out" effect would be as large as Clinton's.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Just out of curiosity, when ti comes to wars overseas, how would you have responded to 9/11?
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Being psychic and all, I can answer for him: Not by invading Iraq.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I'm just glad that you're not running the campaign of any Democratic presidential candidate.If a rally in a Nicaragua during the height of Reagan's wars to prop up Latin American dictators is among the best/worst the Republicans have on Sanders, I'll take my chances there.
Seriously, you don't think seeing Sanders in amongst crowds of people wanting Americans to die won't have a significant effect on his electability, regardless of whatever context you might want to attach?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Although talk about "wealthy rigging the system" might go over well with those in the "occupy Wallstreet" crowd, its not enough to just appeal to them. Many voters are plain middle-class voters who are more concerned about their own day to day lives (including their taxes) than they are about corruption and rigged systems. To those people, seeing some politician promise to increase their taxes to pay for social programs that will benefit other people will have a negative effect, even if the politician may also talk of ending corruption.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Then its a good thing that you're not in charge of running the Democrat's campaign.
There is a rather bizarre tendency on this thread to assume "Because I think X, all other voters must also think X". KellyB with her "People won't care about Sanders in a 'Kill Americans' rally". Venom with his "Just talk about ending corruption and it will convince people to ignore a huge increase in people's taxes".