ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , Bernie Sanders , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 2nd March 2019, 04:52 PM   #361
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,054
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
For those interested in either Senator Sanders and/or the message and character of him and his campaign here is a link to the streamed rally so that you can judge for yourselves and compare to the rallies and information that his opponents hold, if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yg9MfgdbRg

Bernie, the Activist pretending to be a politician. Not me, Us!
I haven't bothered to listen to another youtube entry here, but without making any judgment on Bernie or his policies or whether or not he should be running for the presidency, I think it's kind of silly to say he's "pretending to be a politician." He's been nothing but a politician for well over thirty years. It's how he makes his living, like it or not.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 07:47 PM   #362
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Too bad that wasn't a winning political strategy in the last US election.
Most popular politician in the US, just not the democratic party and as a result we got Trump. Too bad we'll never know if the general election would have turned out differently.

But if you want to attack candidates because they show integrity and consistency that's certainly your choice.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 08:17 PM   #363
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Most popular politician in the US, just not the democratic party and as a result we got Trump. Too bad we'll never know if the general election would have turned out differently.

But if you want to attack candidates because they show integrity and consistency that's certainly your choice.
Is that BS supposed to upset me?

Your straw man might be easy to debate but it's still nothing but straw.

As for 'we'll never know', we know Sanders failed to win the primary.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 11:53 PM   #364
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I haven't bothered to listen to another youtube entry here, but without making any judgment on Bernie or his policies or whether or not he should be running for the presidency, I think it's kind of silly to say he's "pretending to be a politician." He's been nothing but a politician for well over thirty years. It's how he makes his living, like it or not.
It's a rhetorical comment made in one of the introductions to Senator Sanders personal history, his life of dedication to the people of America and their right to equal opportunities, justice and respect, This began in the early part of his life and has grown and became sharpened throughout his long and varied political career. Another way of saying that he is, and always has been an activist for workers their families and their communities, first and foremost, that's his style, and his political focus. Refreshingly and compellingly, difficulty and street level activism is where he started, politics later became the tool of his activism, not the other way around.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:08 AM   #365
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As for 'we'll never know', we know Sanders failed to win the primary.
And Hillary failed to win the general. And here we are.

Honestly, the Democrats can't come after the Greens (or anybody else) and say that we're wrong for supporting a losing candidate based upon ideology when they do the same thing. They knew that Hillary was unpopular, and it would have been pragmatic and sensible to abandon her, but they wouldn't do it.

Probably my favorite story about the 2016 election was one of the DNC emails exposed by WikiLeaks.

Quote:
In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.
It seems that Hillary was such a bad candidate, she couldn't even win when she got to pick her opponent.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:23 AM   #366
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
And Hillary failed to win the general. And here we are.
And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate. And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
Honestly, the Democrats can't come after the Greens (or anybody else) and say that we're wrong for supporting a losing candidate based upon ideology when they do the same thing. They knew that Hillary was unpopular, and it would have been pragmatic and sensible to abandon her, but they wouldn't do it.

Probably my favorite story about the 2016 election was one of the DNC emails exposed by WikiLeaks.

It seems that Hillary was such a bad candidate, she couldn't even win when she got to pick her opponent.
Round and around the mulberry bush.

Clinton won by 3 million votes! There is no sense going over the reasons she lost except to say that claim she was a bad candidate is bull crap.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:59 AM   #367
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,322
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate. And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.

Round and around the mulberry bush.

Clinton won by 3 million votes! There is no sense going over the reasons she lost except to say that claim she was a bad candidate is bull crap.
Why are you so opposed to Sanders? Can you lay out what actual policies of his you disagree with?
__________________
Gone fishing
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:05 AM   #368
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate.
So the best candidate always wins the nomination?

Quote:
And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.
I could've said the same thing about Hillary in 2016. She lost to Obama in 2008! Why doesn't she just let it go?

I have to wonder how popular Bernie's issues have to become before it's okay for him to run. Does he have to have 80% support? 90%? 95%? His issues are both popular and supported by a majority of the US. The idea that he shouldn't run is silly.

This is the kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" situation that progressive candidates get.

If Bernie runs as an independent or Green, they'll say, "You can't do that! You'll split the vote and help Trump win!"

If Bernie runs as a Democrat, they say, "You can't do that! You'll split the party and help Trump win!"

Centrists are only happy when the progressives sit down and shut up.

The other day, I heard somebody say, "The Democrats have forgiven George W. Bush, but they haven't forgiven Ralph Nader." When I talk to Democrats, this seems to be true. What does that say about the party?
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:23 AM   #369
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Why are you so opposed to Sanders? Can you lay out what actual policies of his you disagree with?
This is just going to lead to round and round the same old ****.

As popular as Sanders is, as big as his rallies and as good as his fundraising, he's not going to win a general election. Neither is Warren and the Green New Deal is going to be used against the Democrats.

You can't change society that fast in one big move to socialism.

We need a candidate that can sell a shift from corporate welfare to a safety net and that can sell why promoting college education benefits everyone, not someone promoting why the rich should pay for everyone's college education.

Sanders' message is wrong. His goals are fine but his message framing isn't. Sorry to break it to you.


And Axiom, seriously it's time to stop your Hillary hating, it's over, move along.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd March 2019 at 01:27 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:31 AM   #370
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,322
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This is just going to lead to round and round the same old ****.

As popular as Sanders is, as big as his rallies and as good as his fundraising, he's not going to win a general election. Neither is Warren and the Green New Deal is going to be used against the Democrats.

You can't change society that fast in one big move to socialism.

We need a candidate that can sell a shift from corporate welfare to a safety net and that can sell why promoting college education benefits everyone, not someone promoting why the rich should pay for everyone's college education.

Sanders' message is wrong. His goals are fine but his message framing isn't. Sorry to break it to you.


And Axiom, seriously it's time to stop your Hillary hating, it's over, move along.
This really isn't an answer to my question.
__________________
Gone fishing
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:37 AM   #371
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
This really isn't an answer to my question.
Yes it is. It's just not the answer you want to hear.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:54 AM   #372
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,322
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yes it is.
No, it is not.

If I wanted to know what platform you think is not viable for a potential democratic candidate in the next US presidential election, I would have asked you that.

I specifically asked you which policies of his you personally disagree with. You did not answer that.
__________________
Gone fishing

Last edited by Lambchops; 3rd March 2019 at 02:00 AM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 02:06 AM   #373
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Is that BS supposed to upset me?
No. It's pointing out that for some insane reason you're complaining that a politician is consistent in their policy and message from one election to the next.

Quote:
As for 'we'll never know', we know Sanders failed to win the primary.
Yes, which is why we'll never know if he would have won the general election. That's literally what I said, thanks.

Last edited by The_Animus; 3rd March 2019 at 02:36 AM.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 02:23 AM   #374
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And? You are basically saying the guy that came in second might have done better. I'm saying he came in second for a reason, he wasn't the best candidate. And here we are, Bernie can't let it go, he believes in a platform that while popular is not something the whole voting population in the country is not behind.

Round and around the mulberry bush.

Clinton won by 3 million votes! There is no sense going over the reasons she lost except to say that claim she was a bad candidate is bull crap.
There is a difference between the voting electorate in a democratic primary vs the voting electorate of the American population in general. This is why Sanders can be the most popular politician, why he can have better polling in a matchup against Trump, but still lose the democratic primary. Trump won because of a specific demographic of voters who faced economic hardship and job loss in key states. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with them or not, Clinton did not resonate with these voters so they stayed home or voted third party or Trump. Third party candidates received twice as many votes in 2016 as they did in 2012.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 05:57 AM   #375
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,929
2020 is the first Presidential election I've ever heard of where people pretended that someone who comes in #2 in a primary one time thus proves that he can't possibly ever win a later round when all of the contributing factors in the primaries will be different. It's usually been seen the opposite way: that placing relatively well in a primary once was a good sign for likelihood of success next time.

The "logic" is just dizzying, especially after a primary in which it had taken so much to stop the "loser" from overtaking the "winner". The corporatists' Republican-like desperation to keep progressives down is truly a sight to behold.

Last edited by Delvo; 3rd March 2019 at 06:00 AM.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 07:32 AM   #376
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,889
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
There is a difference between the voting electorate in a democratic primary vs the voting electorate of the American population in general. This is why Sanders can be the most popular politician, why he can have better polling in a matchup against Trump, but still lose the democratic primary. Trump won because of a specific demographic of voters who faced economic hardship and job loss in key states. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with them or not, Clinton did not resonate with these voters so they stayed home or voted third party or Trump. Third party candidates received twice as many votes in 2016 as they did in 2012.
You appear to be claiming that Sanders would have been more popular in a general election than he was in the primaries? Walk me through that, please. I'm pretty sure he would not have won over any Republicans, and the independents tend claim to be independent while consistently voting R or D. So if he wasn't able to win among his own party, including the independents who lean D, and he certainly wasn't popular with Republicans or the independents who lean R, how could Sanders have fared better?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 07:34 AM   #377
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,889
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
It's almost as if he is a man of integrity with a consistent message. What voter could possibly like that in a politician?
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Too bad that wasn't a winning political strategy in the last US election.
Well, to be fair Clinton was not a man...
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 07:54 AM   #378
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,814
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
And Hillary failed to win the general. And here we are.

Honestly, the Democrats can't come after the Greens (or anybody else) and say that we're wrong for supporting a losing candidate based upon ideology when they do the same thing. They knew that Hillary was unpopular, and it would have been pragmatic and sensible to abandon her, but they wouldn't do it.
You say this as if there's a monolithic entity making these decisions. So far as I was concerned, we had two lousy candidates to choose from.

Quote:
Probably my favorite story about the 2016 election was one of the DNC emails exposed by WikiLeaks.

It seems that Hillary was such a bad candidate, she couldn't even win when she got to pick her opponent.
20/20 hindsight. Just because it backfired doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 07:58 AM   #379
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You appear to be claiming that Sanders would have been more popular in a general election than he was in the primaries?
Or that his problem in the 2016 primaries wasn't a lack of popularity.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 09:13 AM   #380
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And Axiom, seriously it's time to stop your Hillary hating, it's over, move along.
Interesting that you chose to focus on that and ignore the rest of my comments. I wonder why?

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
2020 is the first Presidential election I've ever heard of where people pretended that someone who comes in #2 in a primary one time thus proves that he can't possibly ever win a later round when all of the contributing factors in the primaries will be different. It's usually been seen the opposite way: that placing relatively well in a primary once was a good sign for likelihood of success next time.

The "logic" is just dizzying, especially after a primary in which it had taken so much to stop the "loser" from overtaking the "winner". The corporatists' Republican-like desperation to keep progressives down is truly a sight to behold.
Yes, the mask is really starting to slip and I'm LOVING it.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 10:57 AM   #381
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,889
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Or that his problem in the 2016 primaries wasn't a lack of popularity.
Ok, walk me through that one then. If his real problem wasn't a lack of popularity, what was it? And why was he less popular than his opponent? The guy was treated with kid gloves, and still was never close to winning.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:23 PM   #382
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You appear to be claiming that Sanders would have been more popular in a general election than he was in the primaries? Walk me through that, please. I'm pretty sure he would not have won over any Republicans, and the independents tend claim to be independent while consistently voting R or D. So if he wasn't able to win among his own party, including the independents who lean D, and he certainly wasn't popular with Republicans or the independents who lean R, how could Sanders have fared better?
Both Clinton and Trump had overall unfavorable polling numbers whereas Sanders had favorable polling. This was across all age demographics and regardless of whether the poll was conducted by Fox, NBC, or CNN.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.44ca0da83552

Independents and democratic leaning independents preferred Sanders and this holds true for key states that swung the election for Trump.
Quote:
But unlike Dean, Sanders does much better among independents than among Democrats. In New Hampshire, for instance, Sanders won Democrats by 4 percentage points while winning independents by nearly 50 percentage points, a split we’ve seen repeatedly since then.1 Some of Sanders’s strongest performances in primaries have come in places such as New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin, states whose rules allow independents to vote in either primary.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-independents/

And the thing is, it's not just about independent voters. I personally know not just independent voters, but people who have always voted democratic who would have voted for Sanders but ended up voting Stein or Johnson because they disliked both Clinton and Trump. And yes, that is absolutely anecdotal evidence, but I doubt I somehow know the only people in the country who voted this way.

Independent candidates received about 1.7 million votes in 2012 compared to 6.6 million in 2016. Four times as much. That is a significant number of people who were disaffected with the main party candidates.
2016 Vote Totals
2012 Vote Totals
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:39 PM   #383
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
No, it is not.

If I wanted to know what platform you think is not viable for a potential democratic candidate in the next US presidential election, I would have asked you that.

I specifically asked you which policies of his you personally disagree with. You did not answer that.
But this is the problem, you think it's about policies and I think all the best policies in the world do no good if you can't frame them in a way that doesn't turn half the population away from accepting you as the candidate.

And I want some of those things, but you can't go from A to C all at once, you need to go from A to B first.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:41 PM   #384
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
No. It's pointing out that for some insane reason you're complaining that a politician is consistent in their policy and message from one election to the next.
Repeating this straw man is not making your case.

When did you stop beating your significant other?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:50 PM   #385
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
There is a difference between the voting electorate in a democratic primary vs the voting electorate of the American population in general.
Yes, Sanders would have done worse in the general population.

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
This is why Sanders can be the most popular politician, why he can have better polling in a matchup against Trump, but still lose the democratic primary. Trump won because of a specific demographic of voters who faced economic hardship and job loss in key states. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with them or not, Clinton did not resonate with these voters so they stayed home or voted third party or Trump. Third party candidates received twice as many votes in 2016 as they did in 2012.
I think you have this backward re Sanders being more popular among the general population. First, Sanders polled better than Clinton against Trump because no one on the GOP side was attacking him at that point in time. Socialism is already being used as a negative soundbite and it is an effective one.

There are a dozen specific reasons Clinton lost including failing to counter the soundbite that she wanted to eliminate coal jobs. The second half of that was investing in new jobs.

But here we are again beating that dead horse about Clinton.

If the Democrats start pushing candidates further left in the primaries like the GOP is pushing their candidates to the right, it's not going to get us a Progressive POTUS.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd March 2019 at 12:52 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:53 PM   #386
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,889
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Both Clinton and Trump had overall unfavorable polling numbers whereas Sanders had favorable polling. This was across all age demographics and regardless of whether the poll was conducted by Fox, NBC, or CNN.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.44ca0da83552
Your source that Sanders was more popular was a set of polls taken after Sanders was no longer a candidate? I'm sorry, but when it mattered, even though Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party handled him with kid gloves, Sanders proved to be less popular in the actual poll that mattered: the voting booth. The idea that he was more popular is belied by the fact that he couldn't get people to vote for him.

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Independents and democratic leaning independents preferred Sanders and this holds true for key states that swung the election for Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-independents/
Your link does not support your premise, again. In fact, it goes a long way to demonstrating that the more moderate a voter is, the less likely they were to support Sanders. If Sanders can't get moderate Dems, there is no way he will be able to suddenly get the support of moderate Reps, much less anyone more conservative.

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
And the thing is, it's not just about independent voters. I personally know not just independent voters, but people who have always voted democratic who would have voted for Sanders but ended up voting Stein or Johnson because they disliked both Clinton and Trump. And yes, that is absolutely anecdotal evidence, but I doubt I somehow know the only people in the country who voted this way.

Independent candidates received about 1.7 million votes in 2012 compared to 6.6 million in 2016. Four times as much. That is a significant number of people who were disaffected with the main party candidates.
2016 Vote Totals
2012 Vote Totals
Which state was swung by the third party voters, again? I thought the line you guys were pushing before was that nobody could blame the Stein/Johnson/other third party candidates for a Trump win because even adding their totals to Clinton's vote totals wouldn't have affected the outcome?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 02:20 PM   #387
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your source that Sanders was more popular was a set of polls taken after Sanders was no longer a candidate? I'm sorry, but when it mattered, even though Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party handled him with kid gloves, Sanders proved to be less popular in the actual poll that mattered: the voting booth. The idea that he was more popular is belied by the fact that he couldn't get people to vote for him.
You can look up favor ability numbers from before he lost the primary as well. What I said still holds true.

Quote:
Your link does not support your premise, again. In fact, it goes a long way to demonstrating that the more moderate a voter is, the less likely they were to support Sanders. If Sanders can't get moderate Dems, there is no way he will be able to suddenly get the support of moderate Reps, much less anyone more conservative.
My link does support my premise. Independent voters preferred Sanders. If you want to argue that had Sanders won the democratic nomination that moderate democrats wouldn't have voted for him and instead voted for Trump or 3rd party then you need to be the one providing evidence.

Quote:
Which state was swung by the third party voters, again? I thought the line you guys were pushing before was that nobody could blame the Stein/Johnson/other third party candidates for a Trump win because even adding their totals to Clinton's vote totals wouldn't have affected the outcome?
That's not my line. You asked for evidence and I gave you plenty.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 05:12 PM   #388
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,889
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
You can look up favor ability numbers from before he lost the primary as well. What I said still holds true.
Ah, yes. Sanders is only more favorable when he is not actively running and when nobody is saying anything bad about him. Too bad that doesn't translate into votes.



Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
My link does support my premise. Independent voters preferred Sanders. If you want to argue that had Sanders won the democratic nomination that moderate democrats wouldn't have voted for him and instead voted for Trump or 3rd party then you need to be the one providing evidence.
No, you appear to not have read your link very well. Liberal independent voters preferred Sanders. Moderate independent voters did not. The article doesn't talk about independents who lean right, but I think we can all agree that they aren't going to be big Sanders fans.

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
That's not my line. You asked for evidence and I gave you plenty.
You gave me evidence that when Sanders is not a candidate, he appears more popular. That doesn't speak well for his candidacy. You also gave me evidence that only the more liberal independents favor Sanders, which again doesn't speak well of the future of a candidate who must do more than win the extreme edges. And finally, you gave me evidence that votes for Third Party candidates increased from virtually meaningless to still virtually meaningless, with no evidence that those voters would have voted for Sanders. Instead, according to your own link, the Libertarian Party candidate won the most votes by far of any Third Party, and that's the party that is more closely aligned with Republican and Republican-leaning voters, as opposed to the more liberal Green Party.

This evidence may be convincing to those who have already drunk the Sanders Kool-aid, but seems less so to those who are looking at things more independently.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 05:16 PM   #389
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,933
Regardless of weather we think Bernie should win a more appropriate question is can he win?


He is extremely popular with one demographic, white men. He has tepid support at best with every other demographic and I haven't met a woman of color yet that has even moderately good things to say about him.


He seemed to poll well in hypothetical general election outcomes mostly because no one knew anything about him other than he wasn't Hillary. One of the interesting things the GOP found was that Bernie's support fell like a rock when people were made aware of his atheist beliefs. Seems people just assumed he was a protestant Christian just like virtually every other white guy to run for President. That might seem odd to many of us but it did show that a huge chunk of the electorate really don't know much about the candidates outside of soundbites.



Okay, so armed with the knowledge that Bernie can get lots of white male votes and little of the others, where does he get his delegates? He likely will win the Iowa caucus but does he place higher than third in South Carolina? He definitely isn't winning California and if Beto enters how many white male votes are there to share in Texas? He faces hometown veterans in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota.



So, he ends up with a bunch of sparsely populated midwest states and maybe Pennsylvania?


Anyone want to do the math here?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale


Last edited by Travis; 3rd March 2019 at 05:18 PM.
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 05:50 PM   #390
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,005
Okay, I have a question about the electability of Bernie Sanders:

If Sanders were nominated, the blue states would vote for him, the red states would not, and the swing states would ________?

Bonus question: Why?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 06:02 PM   #391
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,525
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
He is extremely popular with one demographic, white men. He has tepid support at best with every other demographic and I haven't met a woman of color yet that has even moderately good things to say about him.
I find it a little hard to believe that Bernie went as far as he did in 2016 on the votes of white male Democrats. That's already an endangered species.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 07:30 PM   #392
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ah, yes. Sanders is only more favorable when he is not actively running and when nobody is saying anything bad about him. Too bad that doesn't translate into votes.
That's not what the evidence says. Why are you lying? If you feel you're not lying go ahead and actually support your claim rather just claiming so.

Quote:
No, you appear to not have read your link very well. Liberal independent voters preferred Sanders. Moderate independent voters did not. The article doesn't talk about independents who lean right, but I think we can all agree that they aren't going to be big Sanders fans.
Please provide evidence that "moderate independent voters" did not support sanders. I gave you evidence both that independents has a preference for sanders and that independents had a much higher ratio of votes and that none of those votes went to Clinton. Please support your assertions other than your say so.

Quote:
You gave me evidence that when Sanders is not a candidate, he appears more popular. That doesn't speak well for his candidacy. You also gave me evidence that only the more liberal independents favor Sanders, which again doesn't speak well of the future of a candidate who must do more than win the extreme edges. And finally, you gave me evidence that votes for Third Party candidates increased from virtually meaningless to still virtually meaningless, with no evidence that those voters would have voted for Sanders. Instead, according to your own link, the Libertarian Party candidate won the most votes by far of any Third Party, and that's the party that is more closely aligned with Republican and Republican-leaning voters, as opposed to the more liberal Green Party.

This evidence may be convincing to those who have already drunk the Sanders Kool-aid, but seems less so to those who are looking at things more independently.
Republicans gained 2 million votes from 2012, Independents gained 5 million votes from 2012. Democrats gained nothing. I'm sorry that this doesn't sit well with you. I've shown you that Sanders could have garnered the usual democratic vote as well as democratic and independent voters that would have voted Sanders but voted independent, Trump, or not at all. You've literally provided nothing whatsoever other than your own personal naysaying to back your arguments.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 07:36 PM   #393
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,005
Again, Trump is a middle finger to the political establishment. All Bernie has to do is give the impression that he's not part of the establishment.

I don't even give a **** whether he's a crypto-communist. I trust the American institutions to curb his excesses.

Honestly, the more mainstream progressives hate on him, the more I like him for the Oval Office.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:23 PM   #394
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Again, Trump is a middle finger to the political establishment. All Bernie has to do is give the impression that he's not part of the establishment.
Probably not the most difficult thing for him.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:27 PM   #395
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Cool babies, strange but not a stranger, I'm an ordinary guy.

For those interested, Bernie held his second 2020 launch rally in Chicago tonight!

Listen to the first US minister of Ice Cream!
Ro Khanna RocksOnna as well!
And Nina Turner lighting the fires that brings on the Bern!

(How we got Here, How to Make America Kind Again! With these Hands!)

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwRW1VWaOs

time to get away from "just us," and get back to Justice, legal justice, gender justice, racial justice, economic justice, social justice, Justice.
Democracy, not oligarchy!
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 3rd March 2019 at 09:14 PM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 09:48 PM   #396
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
For those interested, Bernie held his second 2020 launch rally in Chicago tonight!

Listen to the first US minister of Ice Cream!
Ro Khanna RocksOnna as well!
And Nina Turner lighting the fires that brings on the Bern!

(How we got Here, How to Make America Kind Again! With these Hands!)

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwRW1VWaOs

time to get away from "just us," and get back to Justice, legal justice, gender justice, racial justice, economic justice, social justice, Justice.
Democracy, not oligarchy!
If only he could frame that without calling it socialism.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 10:04 PM   #397
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If only he could frame that without calling it socialism.
He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you, than the substance of what is being promoted. Is that really an issue worthy of the level of animosity you seem determined to cling to?

I do understand.

I was once an adamant PUMA Hillary supporter as well.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 10:11 PM   #398
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,981
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you, than the substance of what is being promoted. Is that really an issue worthy of the level of animosity you seem determined to cling to?

I do understand.

I was once an adamant PUMA Hillary supporter as well.
You don't get it. Labeling, framing, marketing, that is the issue. My animosity is and has been about the Democrats failure to understand framing and marketing.

What's a PUMA?

And when were you ever not a Bernie supporter?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd March 2019 at 10:12 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 10:13 PM   #399
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,077
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Quote:
So, where's your proof that private insurance will still be allowed in some form?

And yes, I do recognize that "essentially" and "compete" are vague words. But the devil is in the details.
Again, this is still in the "plan formulation" stage.
So in other words, people supposedly love something that hasn't actually been thought out all the way through. And you don't see any sort of problem with that?

And by the way, from what I've seen/read, Sanders was really quite insistent on the point... no competition for basic services would be allowed.

Quote:
Quote:
In the U.K., you can buy private health care insurance that allows people faster access to treatments that they could still get under the public plan.
According to people in the UK (there are several here you can ask) having the private insurance doesn't give much more benefit, so they generally choose to not get it.
Approximately 10.5% of the british population has private health insurance, which may give them the same basic care, but just in a slightly different (and faster) format.

And that number is actually quite important. First of all, it gives people an option... if the WANT faster service, they can get it. If they don't want it, they can stick with the public system.

And even if people DON'T want to purchase private insurance, it still is beneficial. It removes people from the waiting lists for public services. AND, the companies offering private health care can let their infrastructure be used by people on the public system when there is no private demand. Everyone benefits.

The fact that Sanders is so adamant about "no private insurance" is a major problem. Canada is about the only major western country who does it that way, and our health usually ranks among the lowest. Why doesn't Sanders suggest emulating the British system (allow private insurance, even if many/most don't use it) rather than the Canadian system?

Quote:
It's not competition, because they're still covered under the NHS, too, even if they buy insurance.
Actually it is competition. Because the private insurance offers to treat the same diseases, but does so faster. Now, in theory a person could decide "I paid for insurance but I'll wait and get treated in the public system", but then they'd be an idiot.

Quote:
Quote:
You don't think? Shouldn't you find out before you decide to support Sanders' health care plan?
No, I trust his (and Warren's) economic advisers completely (it's the same group they're getting their policies from).
You're trusting him even though after several years he doesn't have a fully thought out plan (according to you).

Quote:
There is absolutely no chance what they end up coming up with will be worse than what we have now.
Nobody said it would be worse than what the U.S. has now. What I'm saying is what Sanders is proposing will be worse than what they COULD do for health care.

Once again, its that idiotic false dichotomy... "Its either All single-payer or the American system...no alternatives". As soon as people like you and Sanders figure out that limiting yourself to 2 failed systems is the dumbest thing you can do, then perhaps you can actually come up with an actual decent health care plan.
Quote:
And completely banning all private health care would be sort of pointless when the goal is simply to have a high quality, robust public system.
No, not pointless. Some people DO like to have a certain amount of control over their health care. Some people DO like having options. Some people are willing to pay a little more for faster service. Allowing people to do that is a good thing. It shortens waiting lists, gives some direction to policy makers when setting health care priorities.

Canada has followed the Single payer system for decades. Our system is not 'robust' or a 'quality' system. We have huge waiting list problems. Many people can't find a personal doctor. Our health care generally ranks near the bottom. It may be better than the U.S. system in many ways, but it still generally ranks behind other western countries, who do not follow the true "single payer" model (even if some people mis-label things.) Every Canadian political party that comes into power says "we'll fix things", but the waiting lists remain. Why exactly do you think Sanders will be able to avoid those problems when Canada hasn't been able to despite dealing with the issue for decades? Is Sanders magical?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 10:49 PM   #400
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,077
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Okay, I have a question about the electability of Bernie Sanders:

If Sanders were nominated, the blue states would vote for him, the red states would not, and the swing states would ________?

Bonus question: Why?
Florida is a swing state.

Sanders would likely lose Florida because he generally does not have strong support among minorities. And in Florida it would be worse... there is a rather large population of Cuban immigrants who are none to fond of Castro, and Sanders past praising of Castro would lose him their votes.

North Carolina and Virginia are swing states.

Sanders would likely lose them because his primary support there in the 2016 election was much weaker than the national average. (If he's going to win the state, you figure he should do at least as well as he did in the rest of the country, even if he didn't win the state. He got 43% of the vote nationally, but only 41% and 35% of the vote in North Carolina and Virginia respectively)

Of course, all this is in addition to general problems Sanders has... his lack of appeal to many minorities (who may sit out the election as some did for Hillary), his atheism (which I do not mind, but will make it harder to get elected if you're not 'godly'.) And of course all this is assuming that all the other Material the republicans can use don't sink his campaign. (Comrade Sanders, the thief who wants to raise your taxes.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.